Gasp!!! Ebola Obama Strikes Again And Again And Again!

Yesterday Barack Obama wobbled over to Wisconsin to campaign against Scott Walker. For days Obama Dimocrats touted the great visit. The race for governor in Wisconsin was usually a tie or one candidate would be a few points ahead of the other candidate. It was all within the margin of error. Obama Dimocrats knew that a visit by Barack Obama would be decisive. Obama Dimocrats publicized the visit for maximum effect. This was the game changer claimed Obama Dimocrats. Barack Obama himself would enter the gates of Madison to bestow his glory upon the Obama Dimocrat and assure a great victory.

Today, one day after Obama’s transfusion of support in Wisconsin, the real game changer arrived. Wow: Walker opens up seven point lead among likely voters in final Marquette poll.

The Wisconsin poll results might be the most important poll results of this election cycle. If Walker wins in 2014 prepare for Walker 2016:

Should Walker prevail, he will have, in the space of four years, outlasted the occupation of the state legislature by union and other left-wing activists, survived a recall election—the first governor in U.S. history to do so—and earned a second term in his own right, all while governing as a conservative in one of the bluest states in the nation. Liberal organizations have dedicated more time and money to beating Walker than any other Republican, and yet Walker has taken everything these liberal groups have thrown his way and still come out on top.

If Walker wins on November 4, Republicans should nominate him by acclamation, right then and there, to be their 2016 presidential candidate. The GOP needs a fighter who can step into the ring and dish out as much as he can take, not another man with a glass jaw.

Ebola Obama struck again.

Ebola Obama is a contagion that makes the ears as well as the eyes bleed blood. SSSttttttttttoooooooooooooppppppp!

But he won’t stop. Last week Obama stuck his bony posterior into Georgia. Barack Obama can’t actually be seen in Georgia so Obama flew in via radio waves:

JACKSON — We told you earlier this week about President Barack Obama’s call-in to V-103 in Atlanta to fire up Democratic base voters, in lieu of an in-person visit.

The audio of the interview belatedly posted today and it included a quote coming to an attack ad near you:

“If Michelle Nunn wins, that means that Democrats keep control of the Senate. And that means that we can keep on doing some good work. So it is critically important to make sure that folks vote.”

Ebola Obama struck again:

In the respected New Jersey-based pollster’s latest survey, 49 percent of voters back Perdue – a near majority – versus a disappointing 41 percent for Nunn.

SurveyUSA earlier noted the change from B.O. to P.O (“Before Obama” to “Post Obama”):

One week ago, Nunn led Republican David Perdue by 2 points, 46% to 44%. Today, in a dramatic reversal, Perdue is on top, 48% to 45%, a 5-point right turn in one of the nation’s most high-visibility contests.

Ebola Obama cannot be quarantined and no travel ban will deter him from his destructive path. Well… maybe a golf course….

The other Ebola Obama can also coffin a campaign. Michelle Obama campaigned for Bill Bailey against Joni Ernst and today Joni Ernst is till riding high on the hog, 49% to 45%.

Ebola Obama a.k.a. Obola, strikes not just individuals but entire groups:

This number jumped out at me from the new Washington Post/ABC News poll: It showed that, among Latinos, 50 percent say it doesn’t matter who wins the Senate come November. And among those who do think it will matter, twice as many say it would be a good thing (30 percent) if the GOP took over as say it would be a bad thing (15 percent).

This is a demographic, we will remind you, that voted 71-27 for President Obama just two years ago. And only 15 percent are concerned about a GOP-controlled Senate.

Ebola Obama clearly strikes against Latinos. What about the young’uns? Are the young able to resist the deadly effects of Ebola Obama? No.

When Ebola Obama strikes there is no cure. There is only prevention. Run away from Ebola Obama or you too will be face side down on the marble slab:

How big of a year is this going to be for Republicans? It’s still hard to tell, one week before voters go to the polls for the midterm elections.

But it could be bigger than you think.

Stu Rothenberg wrote the above before today’s polls emerged like crocuses heralding spring. A bit dated but still informative, Rothenberg continues:

While two races are likely to go to a runoff (Louisiana in December and Georgia in early January), Republicans now appear well-positioned to take over six Democratic seats: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia.

Colorado and Iowa continue to be more difficult to call.

Republican Rep. Cory Gardner seems to have a slight edge in Colorado, and Republican Joni Ernst is no worse than even money in Iowa. If both win, a Republican takeover of the Senate is virtually guaranteed. Even if only one wins, GOP control will be likely.

Democrats now seem to have only two opportunities: Kansas and Georgia.

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts is drawing a very dangerous 45 percent in hypothetical ballot tests in Kansas and running even with independent Greg Orman. But Republicans have a strong advantage in TV advertising in the final week, and the state’s GOP bent presents a challenge for Orman. [snip]

As Election Day approaches, both South Dakota and Kentucky look more like mirages rather than realistic Democratic opportunities.[snip]

New Hampshire GOP challenger Scott P. Brown trails Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen by only a couple of points, roughly the same situation facing North Carolina Republican challenger Thom Tillis, who trails Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan.[snip]

The fight for the House doesn’t involve control, but it still looks increasingly dangerous for Democrats.

Recent polls have Scott Brown leading in New Hampshire. Recent polls have Tillis ahead in North Carolina. Just about every poll has Cory Gardner ahead in Colorado. With crazed ads like this one from NARAL on the attack, Cory Garnder has nothing to fear:

NARAL must not have heard that Gardner believes in over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Good thing that it’s a man lecturing that woman about the great condom shortage in the ad. A Condom shortage caused by Cory Gardner? Are they nuts? Yup. What a campaign! It’s as if the Ebola Obama campaign has gone to Obama Dimocrats heads and bled the brain out.

Scott Brown does have something to worry about. There’s a debate in New Hampshire tomorrow night and the moderator is a pal of Scott’s opponent. Watch out Scott Brown, the only thing that will assure you of victory is a visit from Ebola Obama to New Hampshire.

Ebola Obama is not good for your health care either. 214,000 doctors will opt out of ObamaCare. Yup. Less than half of doctors in insurance directories may be available.

Ebola Obama afflicts across international borders too. The latest Ebola Obama attack was against Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chickensh*t”. The reason for Obama henchmen’s smears against the Israeli Prime Minister are odd indeed:

Netanyahu considered attacking Iran, we pressured him not to do it, and now we’re mocking him as a “chickensh*t” for taking our advice? Logically, doesn’t that make The One “King Chickensh*t”? I’ve re-read that boldfaced part five times now and I still can’t quite process it. Not only are they sneering at Bibi for adopting the White House’s own policy, they’re flatly admitting — boasting even — that they made Iran’s nuclear program attack-proof. A bombing run might have worked three years ago but it won’t work now, thanks to … Uncle Sam’s delay tactics on behalf of Tehran. Iran might as well name its first ICBM the “Barack.” You’re welcome, A-holes.

This latest attack and reasoning against Netanyahu informs the world that Ebola Obama is in the last stage of infection. It’s the stage when the brain needs a condom and the mouth needs a sock.

Ebola Obama kills. Run away. Keep it at bay.


142 thoughts on “Gasp!!! Ebola Obama Strikes Again And Again And Again!

  1. Per last post on the last article…..

    Shadowfax……We can be very content that we as a unit and a very good unit at that stuck it to Obama for the last 6 years……

    We at least deserve a medal for that tour of duty.

    I could not wish for a better bunch of soldiers watching each others back than the guys at Big Pink and boy were we a thorn and will continue to be a thorn in his side.

  2. Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman at Politio stokes the fires.

    You don’t even have to read between the lines to know it won’t be too long before the “Hillary supporters” like Howard Dean go with Warren if the opportunity presents itself. Obama in 2007 denied he was running too as he built up support from the likes of those named below:

    Even without running, Warren has made clear she’s not interested in seeing a Clinton coronation. In Boston, when the two spoke at a rally Friday for Martha Coakley, the Democrat running for governor, Warren barely mentioned the former secretary of state in her remarks. In the past, the Massachusetts Democrat has criticized Clinton as too close to Wall Street.

    The side-by-side appearance was a reminder that Clinton is still learning the language of the new economic populism, which formed in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis during a period when she was focused on foreign affairs. Her remarks — including a misdelivered line about businesses not creating jobs — added another scrap to the narrative pile that she is a reactive campaigner, who will bend if it’s politically expedient.

    Warren’s speeches, in contrast, are untempered and raw. They hit a visceral chord with people living in the post-recession period, who’ve heard repeatedly that the economy is improving but don’t feel it in their own lives and who believe the game was rigged and other people benefited. That sentiment exists with both parties’ bases, but Warren has become the avatar for it among Democrats. [snip]

    Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who symbolized the populist left in 2004 when he ran for president, but who has said he’ll back Clinton, said he thinks it is good for the potential 2016 candidate to have Warren help keep “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party in the game.”

    He acknowledged Clinton has “to work on the language talking about income inequality.” But he added that he believes she will ultimately be fine, saying any candidate who wants to occupy the center of the political spectrum has trouble with the language of the left.

    Clinton’s decision to stick with paid speeches since leaving the State Department and well into the second half of 2014 — she still has some coming up — has fed ammunition to her critics who paint her as too close to Wall Street and private corporations.

    In Boston, Warren delivered a speech in which she used the phrase “big banks” repeatedly, describing Coakley as an underdog champion for working people. Clinton stood in the wings as Warren spoke, and when it was her turn, she lavished praise on the senator — and tried emulating her populist appeal.

    “Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed,” Clinton said. “It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when people ask him what he brought to Washington, he says, ‘I brought arithmetic.’”

    After the comment ricocheted around the Internet for three days, Clinton eventually addressed it, saying she’d “shorthanded” what she had meant to say.

    Zephyr Teachout, who challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from the left in a September Democratic primary, denouncing him as a product of special interests, said “there’s an extraordinary opening” for a populist Democrat in 2016.

    “Just looking at [Clinton’s] past, she can’t start saying populist words and feel like they resonate with people’s experiences with power,” Teachout said. “She continues to show she’s missing where the country is. … the modern American experience right now is one of a real sense that economic and political power are getting concentrated, and people [are getting] left out.” [snip]

    She has since incorporated specific issues — equal pay, raising the minimum wage, blasting trickle-down economics. But the contrast with Warren last Friday is one that will play out repeatedly.

    “This notion that you have to be in the presidential race to impact it isn’t borne out by reality,” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, who has consistently said he doesn’t believe Warren will run, wrote in an editorial on his website in July. “When Warren speaks, people listen. And if we have her back, sign her petitions, and make it known that she speaks for us on many issues, then Hillary will have no choice but to adapt. … Elizabeth Warren will not run. And that makes her more powerful and influential than she ever would [be] as an electoral also-ran.”

    People close to Warren aren’t certain she intended to open the door a crack toward running for president in a recent interview with People Magazine, even though her language was noticeably less definitive about skipping a campaign. But they are certain she wants to define the terms of the debate within the Democratic Party, much the way the man she succeeded, Ted Kennedy, did from the Senate. [snip]

    The greater worry for Clinton is holding onto and turning out her base of working-class moderates, who bolstered her in places like Pennsylania and Ohio during the 2008 primaries. On the other hand, it’s not clear that Warren, who was branded a liberal elite in her successful 2012 Senate race in Massachusetts against a candidate with blue-collar appeal, would fare well with Clinton’s base.

  3. MoonOnPluto, we wrote our comment before we saw yours. That cover photo is astonishing. Maybe it will wake someone up. Hillary better start reading us exclusively and taking our advice.

  4. They think that cover is going to go anywhere? All people will be talking about next week is how bad the Dim’s got beat. IMHO that is 😉 But I agree, Hillary might want to wake up and get her nose out of the party line A$$. They are touting Warren as the “populist”! Hillary WAS the populist in 08 .. she carried ALL the states and won the most votes. She doesn’t need to “get in touch”, she WAS in touch but she lost it when she got in bed with the Ebola Obama’s.

  5. and there goes the DimWits pushing forward another person who has done nothing! Warren is a one term Senator who has already been branded “an elitist” how do they think she can now be a “populist” and earn hard working American’s votes.

    Hillary needs to find herself and FAST!

    Or it’s like I said earlier, maybe this IS her and I just had her pegged wrong in 08, shakes my head, cause that picture of her in the rain still runs across my mind at least once a day. THAT Hillary ROCKED.

  6. and as OReilly just talking HOW can Ebola Obama STILL have a 40% approval record? I do think they jsut give out phony polls. OR America is actually stupid.

  7. dot48,

    Current polling shows O still has 87% of the AA approval. Then there are actually some people who like him. But also, the polls are rigged, probably 5-10% in his favor.

  8. Well if recent rallies Ebola Obama was at are true the African Americans are the ones walking out on him. That is what leads me to belive the polls about his approval are rigged. Honestly, NOBODY I ever talk to approves of him! Online or offline, people everywhere think he is the worst prez ever. My neighbors are AA and they despise how the race card has been played over and over. They also expect Ferguson to be a big problem when the grand jury comes back.

  9. Hillary going to campaign for Bailey errr I mean Braley. Just mentioned on Fox how he endorsed Edwards in 08 .. seems the reporters remember better than Hillary. Why can’t she just say “no effin way” to these jerks. Once again, she is simply a fill in for Ebola Obama, what a tragedy. Wish she’d get up there and say “You know what, you backstabbing piece of s h i t, here is your endorsement from me and give him the middle finger .. and simply walk off!

  10. dot48

    October 29, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    and there goes the DimWits pushing forward another person who has done nothing! Warren is a one term Senator who has already been branded “an elitist” how do they think she can now be a “populist” and earn hard working American’s votes.

    Hillary needs to find herself and FAST!


    October 29, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    Hillary going to campaign for Bailey errr I mean Braley. Just mentioned on Fox how he endorsed Edwards in 08 .. seems the reporters remember better than Hillary. Why can’t she just say “no effin way” to these jerks. Once again, she is simply a fill in for Ebola Obama, what a tragedy. Wish she’d get up there and say “You know what, you backstabbing piece of s h i t, here is your endorsement from me and give him the middle finger .. and simply walk off!

    ****************************************************************** make some very good points…

    imho…Hillary and Bill have done enough…why do they have to run around like chickens without heads for people that screwed them in the past…Braley supported Edwards…Crist called for Bill’s impeachment…

    and while they are doing this…Hillary is digging her own holes and falling into them…she does not have to do this…why are they so frantic…

    …this is very uninspiring…i understand the politics, bla, bla, bla…but come on…enough…stay home with the new baby for heaven’s sake…

    I am afraid she is going to turn herself into the incarnate of O…or make it much harder to make the break in a believable way…


    Admin…another good one…love the way you make all the connections…

  11. While Obama Officials Bloviate About Settled ‘Science,’ DoD Scientists Fear Air Transmission of Ebola

    By Andrew McCarthy

    Pretending to be guided by “science” rather than practicing politics in service of their post-American agenda, Obama administration officials persevere in the irresponsible suggestion that Ebola cannot be transmitted through the air – i.e., that it requires physical contact with an infected person that results in exposure to bodily fluids. It should go without saying that because viruses mutate, responsible scientists would never claim that the “science” about them is “settled.” But quite apart from the dynamic circumstances, government scientists are obviously concerned about air transmission in the here and now, even as the spin-meisters claim it cannot happen.

    Aaron Klein has uncovered a “broad agency announcement” (BAA) from the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), soliciting research proposals to combat Ebola (in connection with the government’s efforts against chemical and biological threats). The BAA is appended to a “Federal Business Opportunities” notice – the notice can be found here, and the BAA is an attachment atop the right column, accessible through the link “HDTRA1-15-EBOLA-BAA”).

    At page 7, Section 2.2.4 (“Ebola Characterization”), the Defense Department’s BAA explains that Ebola is “aerostable” and, since other filoviruses infect through “the respiratory route,” it is at least theoretically possible that Ebola could, too. (The CDC elaborates that Ebola is a filovirus.) As the BAA puts it:

    While current science indicates the disease can only be transmitted by contact with contaminated body fluids, it remains unclear if other transmission modes are feasible. Filoviruses are able to infect via the respiratory route and are lethal at very low doses in experimental animal models, however the infectious dose is unknown. There is minimal information on how well filoviruses survive within aerosolized particles, and in certain media like the biofilm of sewage systems.

    The BAA goes on to add (my italics): “While current science indicates the disease can only be transmitted by contact with contaminat”Preliminary studies indicate that Ebola is aerostable in an enclosed controlled system in the dark and can survive for long periods in different liquid media and can also be recovered from plastic and glass surfaces at low temperatures for over 3 weeks.”

    At page 9, section 2.2.6 (“Topic: CBT-02, Rapid Disinfection Processes), the BAA further explains that the Defense Department is thus looking for treatments that could combat deposits of Ebola transmitted “as an aerosol” as well as by the better known means of bodily fluid contact (again, my italics):

    The DTRA is seeking innovative technologies for rapid disinfection of interior surfaces with viral contamination. The technology must prove effective against viral contamination either deposited as an aerosol or heavy contaminated combined with body fluids (e.g. blood, vomit, feces)….

    To be clear, neither the Defense Department’s assertions nor Mr. Klein’s reporting of them state conclusively that Ebola is transmissible through the air. What they convey is that the science is not settled, that it is unlikely to be settled given the evolving nature of viruses, that the possibility of airborne transmission is far from outlandish, and therefore that the responsible course is to prepare for that possibility until it is proved that the virus cannot be transmitted by air.

    Instead, the Obama administration – for which Ebola is being treated as a matter of politics, not science – prefers to roll the dice.

  12. Yipes…I think I will watch some tv to cool my jets.

    Good point Moon, I would feel lost without Big Pink.

    Lu, I think you and I might end up on the Independent train after all.

  13. jbstonesfan: this one is for you. It may help you persuade friends and relatives that your position is the correct one, and that democrats cannot be trusted to protect Israel. It is pretty much game over at this point, but for reasons that are more historical than political at this point it is worth noting.

    By the way, Jeffrey Goldberg is a waste of protoplasm. On one of the blogs, there was an a statement he made in 2008 that Obama was a messiah, and anyone who questioned that proposition could not stand to see a black man in the white house. In other words, this big media whore channeled Jeanne Garafulo (who is a medically certifiable lunatic). Now of course, six years too late, he reports that the Obama Administration is hostile to Israel, and that a senior member of the Obama Administration he does not have the guts to name told him that Bibi was chickenshit. While Obama was busy smoking dope and affecting the demeanor of the pimp on campus, Bibi was the head of a special forces team fighting Arab terrorism in the middle east. As between those two it is not hard to see who the chickenshit one was–namely the big media beloved installed and protected messiah.
    Barack’s Baseless Bibi-Basher

    Yesterday Prof Jacobson rightly assessed Jeffrey Goldberg’s The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here as describing a crisis “in Obama-Israel relations.”

    Although the White House has offered a disavowal of the profane insult made by one of Goldberg’s sources, the full substance of his remarks needs to be rebutted.

    The offending official explained his boorish insult of Netanyahu :

    “The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

    This is utterly false.

    Bret Stephens pointed out (Google link, emphasis mine):

    The real problem for the administration is that the Israelis—along with all the other disappointed allies—are learning how little it pays to be on Barack Obama’s good side. Since coming to office in 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed, against his own inclination and over the objections of his political base, to (1) recognize a Palestinian state; (2) enforce an unprecedented 10-month settlement freeze; (3) release scores of Palestinian prisoners held on murder charges; (4) embark on an ill-starred effort to reach a final peace deal with the Palestinians; (5) refrain from taking overt military steps against Iran; and (6) agree to every possible cease-fire during the summer’s war with Hamas.

    In exchange, Mr. Kerry publicly blamed Israel for the failure of the peace effort, the White House held up the delivery of munitions at the height of the Gaza war, and Mr. Obama is hellbent on striking whatever deal the Iranians can plausibly offer him.

    Netanyahu took (dubious) peace making steps at the administration’s behest even though there was a political risk involved. It didn’t earn him any gratitude.

    Worse as Thomas Friedman points out in his most recent (mostly anti-Israel) column:

    Diplomatically, President Obama on March 17 personally, face-to-face, offered compromise ideas on key sticking points in the Kerry framework to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and asked him point blank if he would accept them. Obama is still waiting for an answer.

    Abbas was the primary stumbling block to Kerry’s efforts and incurred none of the administration’s wrath.

    Of course as Prof Jacobson writes, the Obama-Israel crisis “has been a long-time coming.”

    In September last year the late Barry Rubin wrote, Turning Point: Obama and Israel, the Next Three Years. Rubin argued, “the administration has crossed a line and is now backing the ‘bad guys.’” Rubin’s main point was ” Israel cannot depend on the United States,” and listed the reasons he reached that conclusion.

    This doesn’t mean that Obama and others will not provide military aid or say nice words at every event. But there is no commitment that one can assume would be fulfilled nor any Israeli initiative that will actually be implemented. The idea that Obama and his team are the greatest friends of Israel is a deadly insult. The United States has undermined Israel on many issues: Egypt (by supporting a hostile Muslim Brotherhood government); Tunisia (ditto); Sinai (by enabling an insurgency); Hamas (by the desire to keep the Brotherhood — an ally of Hamas — in power in Cairo); Turkey (by supporting the Islamist, anti-Israel government); Syria (by supporting radical Syrian Islamists); Europe (by not supporting the Israeli position on the peace process); America itself (by encouraging anti-Israel forces among the Jewish community and within Obama’s constituency); Palestinians (by the lack of criticism or pressure on Palestinian Authority).

    He also assessed Netanyahu’s explanation for agreeing to risky prisoner releases in order to get Kerry’s peace process off the ground.

    Read Netanyahu’s unprecedented memo on the talks and the prisoner release. It reads as if he saw a ghost; he is trying to signal something very grim and serious and there is no implication that he believes in any possibility of compensation for this concession. Faced with a wasted effort of a unilateral Palestinian prisoner release, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government went along with it because they realized the indifference of the United States to Israel’s interests was extremely high. They realized that Congress was hypnotized that the Jewish community, in its Obama worship, was largely neutralized; and that rather than fighting European hostility, the White House was conducting it.

    Looking over their shoulder in the misty night, they realized that a monster was following them. If you read Netanyahu’s unprecedented memo to the Israeli people as to why the terrorist prisoners were released, you get that clear signal. They realized that the Obama administration was extremely dangerous and that it was necessary to buy time.

    Netanyahu, rather than being the political coward portrayed by anonymous administration sources, has taken risks. But he also realizes that he has no ally in the White House.

    While the Obama administration looks at Netanyahu and sees someone (against all evidence) who is too inflexible to make peace; Netanyahu sees the administration as too flexible in allowing Iran the capacity to enrich uranium.

    It’s also worth noting that as Prof Jacobson wrote, this is an Obama-Israel crisis. If Tzipi Livni, Yair Lapid or Michael Herzog were Israel’s Prime Minister now, there likely would still be a crisis. Remember Abbas refused a deal offered by then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. It’s hard to believe that after 3 wars with Hamas any potential challenger to/replacement of Netanyahu would offer more than Olmert did, so there’s no reason to believe that peace with the Palestinian would be any closer if Netanyahu were not the Prime Minister.

    One could also assume that any Netanyahu replacement would be privy to the same intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program and would be no less concerned about Iran’s ability to enrich uranium.

    In other words, even in Netanyahu’s absence the two main issues currently dividing Israel and the United States would still be causing friction and the administration would still view Israel as being unreasonable. The intensity of the division, without Obama’s dislike of Likud, might not be as magnified, but the division would still be there.

    No doubt Goldberg’s source figured that Netanyahu had sufficient critics in Israel and the United States to give his smear some traction. But the mendacity of the attack masks something that the president’s defenders won’t admit: that this is about Israel, not Bibi.

  14. That effin’ hit-piece on Hillary with the quotes from the King of the Kooks seems to not only openly attack Hillary, but show that they prefer the weaker, more manipulative candidate that they think they can control, just like Oboba. May they rot in Hell.

  15. Good article wbboei. Unfortunately, my ex-liberal jewish friends would vote for a vegetable as long as the label read “democrat”.

  16. wbboei

    October 29, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    While Obama Officials Bloviate About Settled ‘Science,’ DoD Scientists Fear Air Transmission of Ebola

    This administration’s continued failure of imagination.

    Hillary 2016

  17. MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — To prevent Democrats like incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) or her allies from committing voter fraud, Judicial Watch has sent a top-tier election integrity team to the battleground state.

    In a release earlier this week, Judicial Watch announced the team, which Robert D. Popper, a senior Judicial Watch attorney, will lead. Popper is the former Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division voting section deputy chief and has stated that citizens in New Hampshire have the right to monitor polling places on election day.

    “That is precisely what Judicial Watch volunteers will be doing,” Popper said, adding:
    We will be there to silently observe and record whether state and federal election laws are faithfully followed. Judicial Watch is particularly interested in whether the requirements for voter ID are followed. We will also focus on whether those who want to both register and vote on Election Day are held to proof-of-identity requirements under New Hampshire law.

    “Having supervised precisely these kinds of Election Day monitoring operations for the U.S. Department of Justice, I can say election monitoring deters fraud and reassures honest voters and election officials,” Popper remarked in the Judicial Watch release.

    Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that these steps are necessary because Democrats and the institutional Left plan to create confusion on Election Day.
    “To put it plainly: the Left plans to sow confusion on Election Day,” Fitton said. Elaborating, he stated:

    Unfortunately, the Obama Justice Department’s unhinged attacks on voter ID show that it cannot be trusted to ensure clean elections in November. So, in the key state of New Hampshire, once again this job falls to Judicial Watch. We are pleased to launch this pilot election monitoring program in 2014 in New Hampshire. Our attorneys and citizen volunteers will be using the same guidelines that guide the behavior for Department of Justice elections observers.

    Concerns about potential election fraud, as well as voting machines changing Republican votes to Democrat votes, have already arisen nationwide this year in states with early voting.


    The national environment is terrible for Democrats, say Democrats

    Prominent Democratic strategists are growing increasingly nervous that the national political environment is not only bad for their side but is moving in the wrong direction in the final days before the election, a trend that could not only cost them control of the Senate but also visit double-digit House losses on the party.

    The environment has settled and it’s bad,” said one senior Democratic party operative closely monitoring the party’s prospects this fall. The source added that Democratic candidates’ numbers among independents and seniors — two critically important voting blocs — have begun to erode; “they are just not as friendly to us as they once were,” the source explained.

    In conversations Wednesday with more than a dozen Democratic strategists deeply involved in this campaign — a few who were willing to speak on the record, a majority who were not — there was a widespread pessimism about the party’s chances Nov. 4. “Challenging,” acknowledged Ali Lapp, executive director of the House Majority PAC, a super PAC spending millions on ads to promote House Democrats. “It’s a very challenging environment,” agreed Penny Lee, a Democratic lobbyist and longtime political aide to former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. “Unsettled,” offered Democratic pollster Fred Yang. “The trends are not good,” said Steve Rosenthal, the veteran Democratic and labor strategist.

    There were lots (and lots) of reasons given for the difficulties facing Democrats. The Senate map. The historic trends of second term, midterm elections — aka the “six-year itch.” Voter apathy. But the one factor that virtually every person I talked to cited as the biggest reason for the party’s current predicament was President Obama.

    This off-year election has become almost entirely a referendum on the president,” said one Democratic consultant involved in a number of closely-fought congressional races. “It’s not just anger at [the Affordable Care Act]. He has become, in my opinion wrongly, the symbol of dysfunction in Washington. That has led to a demoralized Democratic base, energized Republicans and those in the middle have an easy way of venting their frustration, and that is to punish the president’s party.”

    “It is not ALL Obama but a lot of it is,” said another Democratic strategist knee-deep in the 2014 midterms and granted anonymity to speak candidly. “[People] are very upset with government and people think Democrats are in charge, so they are taking it out on Democrats more than Republicans.”

    Asked for a single word to describe why this election was looking increasingly bleak for Democrats, one consultant offered “Obama.”[snip]

    “While candidates may want to distance themselves from the incumbent president in their advertising and public statements, the president’s base is still strong and committed to him and as a result that mixed message dampens their enthusiasm for the candidate. In the end, these Democratic candidates fail to win new support and lose traditional support at the same time by trying to play it too politically.” [snip]

    Yes, they will. But as of today, the prevailing feeling among the Democratic political class is one of doom and gloom.

  19. They must have some reliable information that the democrats have fixed the voting machines in New Hampshire, for Judicial Watch to commit its limited resources to policing the integrity of the election in that particular state when the risk is as noted nation-wide. You can be pretty damned sure that Soros is mixed up to it up to his eyeballs. He is an old hand at this, and helped orchestrate such things when during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and no doubt elsewhere. That was then whereas today he does it through the organizations he funds and blue digital.

  20. wbboei
    October 30, 2014 at 12:20 am

    I am convinced that is how obama stole his second term, I am convinced Romney actually won. It makes me so fearful..

  21. Messiah Obama throws parties
    And those parties are not a success
    But it would have been bliss
    Had I dared to write this
    The letter I wanted to write.

    Thank you so much my Messiah Obama
    Thank you so much

    For the scandals you wrought
    For the allies you dissed
    For the apologies you gave
    For the race baiting you did
    For the recovery you tanked
    For the cronies you stole for
    For the country you pissed on
    For the party you destroyed
    For the dims you got fired (they were expendable)
    For the press agents you hired
    Always so candid and mentally bracing
    Who talk about racing and racing and racing

    Thank you so much

  22. On second thought perhaps I should offer to sit with him and the first lady in their bedroom watching the returns on election night, humming that old standard Happy Days Are Here Again, while studying his sociopath response to the results and ducking down to avoid being hit be flying chairs. I doubt that television screen will make it through the night. Not sure I would either.

  23. Will he be hiding under his bed or assuming the fetal position that night? Only the shadow knows for sure. And shadow says: both. He will be hiding under the bed in the fetal position when the results come in, and Michelle will be striking him with a velvet whip while contemplating divorce, while Josh Erst goes to the microphone and tells the nation that the president acknowledge that they people have spoken, his schemes to steal the election have failed, ergo he looks forward eagerly to working constructively with the new Republican majority in Congress.

  24. No. That would not be a menage a trois, in any sense of the word. Just three friends whiling the evening away marveling at the success of democracy–and ducking below flying chairs, divorce threats and a soliloquy of self pity.

  25. gonzotx
    October 30, 2014 at 12:29 am

    There is a rational basis for your apprehensions. You believe Romney won the election, so do I, but there is no proof to speak of.

    The precedent that registers with me is what happened in the Indiana Primary, where rampant cheating reduced Hillary’s victory from 11 to 3%.

    Ultimately, there must be severe criminal penalties for those who engage in election fraud–20 year minimum sentence, ditto for bureacrats like Learner who use the power of their office to crucify people whom they differ with politically. I see no real difference between Learner and Joel McCarthy.

  26. “The environment has settled and it’s bad,” said one senior Democratic party operative closely monitoring the party’s prospects this fall. The source added that Democratic candidates’ numbers among independents and seniors — two critically important voting blocs — have begun to erode; “they are just not as friendly to us as they once were,” the source explained.

    No shit Sherlock!

    You done us dirty, you will pay the piper.

  27. the prevailing feeling among the Democratic political class is one of doom and gloom…

    That’s the best news I have heard all day.

  28. Just when you thought things couldn’t get crazier, here comes…..

    Rapper Pitbull developing reality TV series with Michelle Obama and Paul McCartney

    [snip] The rapper Pitbull, known for his shiny suits, reflective sunglasses and lecherous pop, is branching out into TV with two new reality series in development


    The REAL Change Project will pair him with key people in sport, music and politics as they discuss the mentors that have aided them in their success. Names attached to the project so far include Paul McCartney, Kobe Bryant, Lady Gaga and Michelle Obama.

    The latter series will also feature “performances to help raise money for teachers and educators internationally”, though it’s not clear whether the longed-for Paul McCartney and Pitbull collaboration will become a reality.

  29. Great post admin. And as you said.
    The Wisconsin poll results might be the most important poll results of this election cycle. If Walker wins in 2014 prepare for Walker 2016:
    A very real possibility. 😀

  30. 😆 This will cause a whole lotta exploding heads. 😆

    Sarah Palin, the former Republican nominee for vice president and all-around pot stirrer, dropped a big hint on Tuesday, saying she “hopefully” will run for office again “in the future.”

    “Hey, the more they’re pouring it on, the more I’m going to bug the crap out of them by being out there, with a voice, with the message, Hopefully running for office in the future too,” she said, speaking to the Fox Business Network.

    Palin said she was heartened and motivated by those who don’t like her.

    “Bless their hearts, those haters out there. They don’t understand that it invigorates me. It wants me to get out there and defend the innocent,” she said. “It makes me want to work so hard for justice in this country!”

  31. Good comments too. 🙂

    Joyce said Thank goodness, Sarah has guts to stand up for what she believes and she doesn’t care about political correctness….she is a dose of fresh air and yes, we Conservatives think she is a brave woman…most of us wish we were like her….fearless and using our freedom of free speech…

  32. plus a million bad ones 😆

    Linda said 🙂

    Obviously not, but you seem to be if you think this typical GOP, lying, brainless bimbo can be President of the United States!

  33. Mitch must believe he’s found the sweet spot. An email from Senate Conservatives Fund states;
    Rather than reaffirming his pledge to repeal Obamacare “root and branch” as he has vowed to do countless times on the campaign trail, Senator McConnell made excuses for why he won’t deliver on his central campaign promise.

  34. So McConnell saying now he won’t bring a repeal of ObamaCare to the table?

    Why am I NOT surprised. Like I told you all, he is the biggest snake in the grass along with Pelosi.

    That is why I wanted to see his ass kicked out of office.

  35. I never expected McConnell to do anything more than talk the talk. He will never walk the walk and protect the American People when it costs him and his party the financial support of big phamrma who wrote and helped push Obamacare. This is why I have been so adamant that “the gobbler” has got to go. There is a plush job on K street just waiting for him–the quid pro quo for all his years of unflinching loyalty to big business interests at the expense of the American People. Perhaps that is why the two major newspapers in Kentucky have endorsed his opponent. Sooner or later everyone–most everyone catches on the they are being played. His wife is absolutely positively no better sitting on roughly half the boards of major corporations.

  36. You know what the pundits will say some Tuesday night and Wednesday morning IF the Dimocrats can’t steal another election

    HEADLINES: Clinton’s political capital burned out … they could NOT save their candidates.

    Won’t be ONE mention of this ass hole president who has destroyed this country,

  37. foxyladi14
    October 30, 2014 at 6:32 am
    He has got a good lead in the polls I have seen and there is a late breaking story that is opponent was fired from the family subchapter S corporation for incompetence. The X factor will be the ground game, which is a code word for rampant election fraud and recording republican votes as democrat, which is part of the national strategy of Obama, according to Judicial Watch.

  38. dot48
    October 30, 2014 at 9:19 am
    You know what the pundits will say some Tuesday night and Wednesday morning IF the Dimocrats can’t steal another election

    HEADLINES: Clinton’s political capital burned out …
    But of course. This is what Admin has been obsessing over. Simply put, if the Clintons succeed in saving these candidates big media will find a way to credit Obama, and claim the voters of the state have validated his policies of national failure. Conversely, if they lose big media will point out that Obama did not go out on the campaign trail to help these candidates, the Clintons did, and that is the reason they lost. Big media is 100% predictable and have no loyalty to the nation. Ultimately, there will be a gotterdamerung for them, as I have noted on many prior occasions, too late however to do the country any good.

  39. Not watching KY as closely as dot48 & others, but IF any early voting activities have already taken place, Mitch should not be announcing major changes.

  40. Admin: this is an interesting article notwithstanding the source. What is says, in essence, is that the rise of third party candidates is upsetting well settled electoral divisions of the two parties, to the detriment of Republicans and that Dimocrats are using that phenomenon to unseat red state republicans. Slate has a warped perspective on most matters, and their partisanship is off the map, but there is something here that I can agree with. At the same time, it is a self inflicted wound for the republican party, as we can now see in Kansas, where a lack luster RINO is fighting for his life. As long as the Republican Party is governed by RINOs who cling to power based on a false narrative of limited government, one they cannot live up to because of their donor base, and simultaneously rebuff, slander and destroy tea party challenges from within, independent candidates will emerge, and democrats will have an incentive to fund them under the table.
    Smash and Grab

    Will competitive Senate contests in Kansas and South Dakota lead to more late-breaking races in future elections?

    By John Dickerson

    Will Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts be the victim of a smash and grab?

    The Senate races in South Dakota and Kansas may be examples of a rising political phenomenon: the smash-and-grab campaign. In both states, independent candidates have scrambled long-settled patterns. Races that were once considered safe wins for Republicans are attracting new money and attention from both parties. They will be hard-fought until Election Day.

    Usually you need three for a trend, and there are idiosyncrasies to both of these races that resist drawing grand conclusions, but with two weeks to go before the election, it is a time to start practicing grand-conclusion-drawing.

    Republican incumbents already know that they must be ready to get a Tea Party primary challenge, whether one appears imminent or not. Do rock-bottom public approval of Congress, a crack in the usual protections provided by incumbency, plus ready money available to rush into a race mean that incumbents—or near-incumbent party favorites—in heavily partisan states must also save up for late-breaking challenges?

    To create the conditions for a smash-and-grab campaign, the first requirement is a late start. In South Dakota, if the race had tightened six months ago as it has in the last few weeks, it would have given the Republicans time to rally. The minute Democrats started spending to tear down Republican Senate candidate Mike Rounds, his allies would have come to his aide. That would have initiated a protracted fight in a state where Democrats would have had to spend money introducing their candidate to an electorate that didn’t know him—voters who chose Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by 18 points. Television time is inexpensive in South Dakota, but any state can turn expensive if the battle starts early. In 2012, outside groups spent $17 million in North Dakota, more than in Texas and Missouri. The individual campaigns spent millions more.

    Even now, Democratic groups are circling around South Dakota pondering whether they should invest, because every dollar they spend might lure in more Republican money that would obliterate the narrow and fragile path to defeating the Republican. That’s what has happened in Kansas, where a flood of outside groups has come to the rescue of three-term Sen. Pat Roberts.

    The first requirement of a smash-and-grab campaign is a late start.
    In a smash-and-grab campaign, one party must dominate the state—otherwise it’s a battleground fight where everyone starts early—but the representative of the dominant party must be weak. That’s certainly the case in these two states. n Kansas, Roberts has an approval rating almost as low as President Obama’s, according to a PPP poll. In South Dakota, even Republican strategists admit that two-term Gov. Mike Rounds has run a lackluster campaign.

    These two states have particularly weak candidates, but there is a broader sentiment about Republicans and Democrats that suggests voters are liable to opt for independent candidates. In a recent CBS poll, Congress’s approval rating was just 12 percent. In a recent NBC poll, only 30 percent say their member of Congress deserves to be re-elected. In that same poll, 57 percent of voters say they are more likely to support a rookie candidate. In a Gallup poll, for the first time, more Americans say their member is focused on the needs of special interests than on the needs of his or her constituents. These numbers suggest the electorate is in a mood to fall in love with someone who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. That might be independent Senate candidates Greg Orman in Kansas or Larry Pressler in South Dakota. (Pressler may be unlikely to win, but he has split the vote, possibly opening a pathway for the Democratic candidate.)

    A candidate doesn’t need to win to create late-breaking disruption, just as Tea Party candidates have changed election outcomes even when they’ve lost. (Libertarian candidates are complicating races in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina.) What helps the disruptive candidates survive and threatens the representative of the majority-party candidate is the access to ready money. If you’re going to zoom in at the last minute, you need cash to blanket the airwaves and build an organization to harness the new enthusiasm. Both parties are obsessed with raising money, and the Democrats have done well enough raising it that they had money to spend on a long-shot race in South Dakota. But the presence of outside money at the ready can also help these raids. After the race became competitive, money flooded into the Kansas race, mostly to rescue Roberts, but Orman has also benefited from outside money, including what he raised last week at a New York event hosted by George Soros’ son.

    The power of outside money in these races also colors what might seem like simply idiosyncratic developments. In Kansas, Democrats convinced their candidate to drop out of the race. That’s hard to duplicate in future cycles in other states. On the other hand, the necessity of outside money from the national party and the network of donors makes all candidates vulnerable to pressure from those powerful sources. They can either withhold support, crippling a campaign, or withhold future support, damaging a young politician’s future chances. The quick string-pulling that occurred in Kansas—and that’s required to mobilize a last-minute insurgent campaign—is helped by the increased influence of big money.

    Top Comment

    It helps that the right-wing policies Kansans voted for in previous elections have damaged the state pretty severely for the foreseeable future. More…

    -heydus trois
    50 CommentsJoin In
    One of the ironclad rules of American politics is that incumbents have an enormous advantage. The majority of Senate races are not being discussed because they are locked up by people who already have a nameplate on one of the 100 chairs in the Senate chamber. It’s also true that states are moving away from split-ticket voting, picking a senator from the party the state’s voters preferred in the presidential election. Those are impediments to any smash-and-grab campaign, and it’s possible that—despite little flare-ups—Kansas and South Dakota voters will revert to form and elect Republicans. But there is also another durable truth in politics: Congress has been overtaken by partisan freezer-lock. That creates frustration in the electorate that seeks an outlet to register its disgust. Perhaps it’s impossible to pull off a heist, but for voters looking to disturb the current system, the prospect of instilling fear in incumbents may be enough to encourage more smash-and-grab campaigns in the future.

  41. Wbboei, you summarize our objections to what passes for a Clinton strategy well. It’s like placing a bet. If someone proposed a $1000 bet in which the “payoff” would be $100 no one would take the bet. If the bet was $1 with the potential payoff of $1000 that’s a solid proposal that can be considered.

    For Hillary whether any of the candidates she campaigns for win there is no “payoff”. But the potential damage is high. Why place a bet?

    Also, why place bet/campaign in a place like Iowa against a woman candidate? And in support of “Bill Bailey” who endorsed John Edwards in 2008? To get chits in Iowa for a potential run? It did not help her when Tom Harkin was the Iowa senator and a long time friend who did not help get her the nomination in Iowa. A “chit” is a skimpy payoff because campaigning against a woman will damage any campaign based on being the first woman president. Joni Ernst will be fully justified to campaign against Hillary in Iowa if Hillary decides to run.

    If any of her more dubious candidates actually goes on to win Hillary will not get credit. But if her candidates lose Hillary has an enemy prepared to campaign against her and mock her in every state she has inadvisedly campaigned in this year. A cost/benefit analysis that a drunk on Thunderbird makes every day at the racetrack would advocate for not placing a bet. The horses have done the turn already and we are down the stretch so we will know who wins soon enough.

  42. Just when you thought the Dims could get no sleazier…

    In Democratic Election Ads in South, a Focus on Racial Scars
    By JEREMY W. PETERSOCT. 29, 2014

    In the final days before the election, Democrats in the closest Senate races across the South are turning to racially charged messages — invoking Trayvon Martin’s death, the unrest in Ferguson, Mo., and Jim Crow-era segregation — to jolt African-Americans into voting and stop a Republican takeover in Washington.
    The images and words they are using are striking for how overtly they play on fears of intimidation and repression. And their source is surprising. The effort is being led by national Democrats and their state party organizations — not, in most instances, by the shadowy and often untraceable political action committees that typically employ such provocative messages.

    In North Carolina, the “super PAC” started by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, ran an ad on black radio that accused the Republican candidate, Thom Tillis, of leading an effort to pass the kind of gun law that “caused the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.”
    In Georgia, Democrats are circulating a flier warning that voting is the only way “to prevent another Ferguson.” It shows two black children holding cardboard signs that say “Don’t shoot.”


  43. Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland

    October 29, 2014 – 11:45 pmPage 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page
    Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services
    Email Print Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
    An election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

    The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.

    It is a federal crime to cast votes if you are not legally eligible to vote. Non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not, are prohibited from voting in most local and all state and federal elections. Yet the VVA investigation found that hundreds of non-citizens have been voting in Frederick County, Maryland. One in seven Maryland residents are non-U.S. citizens.

    “The lawsuit is the equivalent of the lookout spotting the iceberg ahead of the Titanic,” state Del. Pat McDonough told the Tatler. He added that the group’s investigation found a voter fraud “smoking gun.”

    Maryland state law makes it easier for non-citizens, both those present legally and those in the country against the law, to vote. Maryland issues drivers licenses to legal and illegal aliens. Driver’s licenses in turn make it easier under the Motor Voter law to register to vote. Maryland also offers copious taxpayer-funded social programs to non-citizens in the state.

    The group filed suit in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court on Friday. They are suing the Frederick County Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

    Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford Counties) detailed the alleged fraud in a Maryland press conference today. He is calling for a special state prosecutor because the fraud may be taking place statewide, with significant impact on Maryland elections. Maryland currently holds 10 electoral votes in presidential elections. McDonough is also proposing legislation including voter ID to close the loopholes that he says non-citizens are using to cast votes.

  44. More news that will help Scott Walker:

    Former Trek President and CEO Confirms Mary Burke was Fired

    In 1993, Tom Albers learned about big problems with Trek Bicycle Corporation’s European division. Sales numbers were down, and employees were in a near mutiny against the young woman Trek founder Richard Burke had put in charge.

    Albers, Trek’s Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, served as Burke’s second-in-command and suddenly had to navigate a very difficult situation.

    The head of Trek’s European division was his boss’ daughter, Mary.

    She reported directly to her brother John, who served as the Vice President of Sales and Marketing,” Albers recalls. “He reported directly to me, and I reported to their father, Dick.”

    According to Albers, it was John Burke who first sounded the alarm that the European division was struggling mightily.

    Her performance in Europe was not good,” he says. “We were losing a lot of money for us at the time. I don’t remember the amount, but it was considered significant based on where we were [as a company] at that particular point in time.”

    And also, we were encountering personnel/people problems over there. The people were threatening to leave the company. Many of them were.

    Primarily, Albers contends, because of the managerial style of their supervisor, Mary Burke.

    Her way of managing was kind of a ‘her way or the highway’ kind of approach to things,” Albers explains, adding that her subordinates “felt that she wouldn’t listen to them and was just imposing things on them that didn’t make sense.”

    “So because of all that—which had gone on for a while, obviously—John Burke went to his father basically saying, ‘We need to make a change over here.’ Obviously, being a family situation, this was extremely sensitive and very difficult to pursue. So Dick Burke came to me and said, ‘Before anything is done here, would you go over there and give me your thoughts on what the situation is like?’”

    Albers flew to Trek’s European headquarters and quickly discovered that John Burke wasn’t exaggerating.

    “I pretty much came back with the same conclusions that John Burke had made; and that was that we had major people problems over there and were in a situation where we could lose a lot of people. We were losing a lot of money and I couldn’t see where Mary Burke was going to turn this thing around.”

    Albers reported his findings to Richard Burke, who listened intently and then, Albers says, acted decisively.

    “The family—and by that I mean Dick and John Burke—finally agreed to bring her back. And so, to say it bluntly, she was fired.”

    After that, Albers recalls, Richard Burke had his daughter address Trek’s management team to answer questions about just what had gone wrong in Europe. [snip]

    Burke herself vehemently denies that she was fired from Trek, saying for the first time Wednesday that her position was eliminated. [snip]

    This was the first time she has ever said that her position was eliminated. Up until Wednesday, she had claimed that she suffered burnout from the stress of her job and left Trek because she needed time off.

    “I think she probably did suffer burnout,” Albers says, “but at the same time she was under water, too, and she couldn’t handle the position,

    But as for whether she voluntarily left her position as the head of Trek’s European operations, Albers leaves no room for equivocation.

    “Ultimately, it was Dick Burke’s decision. He would have been the one who made the final decision.”

    Shortly after Mary Burke left, her father named Albers Trek’s President and Chief Operating Officer with the caveat that Albers would step down after three years so that John Burke could assume the role.

    Less than one week to go before election day. The last week will be all about Burke’s qualifications to be governor and every employee from her time in Europe will soon be interviewed.

  45. admin
    October 30, 2014 at 9:56 am
    100% correct.

    A chit is a form of verbal promise.

    And, as they say, a verbal promise ain’t worth the paper it is written on.

    Especially in politics.

    Furthermore, it is a fundamental premise of contract law that past performance does not constitute consideration for a new contract.

    In politics, business, life, there is one thing that keeps dishonest people honest: leverage.

  46. Maybe the authors of these articles are just covering all the bases, ensuring that if there is an upset and the Dims hold onto the senate (as in cheat their asses off), they will maintain (or attain) their political cred. Each presents reasons why the Dims could still win.

  47. Big Media CBS hiding their own news:

    CBS buries own poll showing GOP ahead in generic ballot

    If the midterm election were held today, Republicans would likely experience a wave just shy of what was accomplished in 2010, according to a poll of likely voters from CBS.

    Just don’t expect CBS to tout that poll. There was no mention of it Wednesday night on “CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley,” which aired when the poll was released, according the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters blog. Even finding the poll on the website takes quite a bit of maneuvering. And there’s good reason for that.

    When asked whether they would vote Republican or Democrat if the 2014 U.S. House elections were held today, 46 percent of likely voters said they would vote Republican, with 40 percent saying they would vote Democrat.

    When CBS presented this same poll in 2010, Republicans had an eight-point lead over Democrats in a generic ballot. Republicans one month later would gain 63 seats in the House to flip control of the chamber.

    Now, obviously, Republicans already have control of the House, but they can increase their numbers and potentially pick up the Senate majority in the process.

    The poll shows the GOP in good standing among independents, leading Democrats in a generic ballot by 29 points among the group.

    The poll also found that among registered voters, 47 percent would like to see Republicans gain control of the Senate, with 42 percent saying they would prefer Democrats keep control. The poll did not present data on likely voters.

  48. The White House will say that Dims losing in senate races did so because they did not tie themselves closely enough to Barack.
    Narcissistic delusion or just plain bullshit?

    But, the National Journal argues that the losing Dims didn’t move fast and far enough away from the sinking ship.


    National Journal: Dems Didn’t Run Far or Fast Enough From Obama

    Thursday, 30 Oct 2014 09:11 AM
    By Melanie Batley

    In anticipation of Democrats losing control of the Senate, White House officials are implying that candidates should have tied themselves more closely to President Barack Obama, but according to the National Journal, “this is pure delusion.”

    “Obama is the main reason Republicans are well-positioned to win control of the upper chamber next Tuesday. And Democrats’ biggest strategic mistake in this election is that most candidates didn’t run away far and fast enough,” wrote Josh Kraushaar, political editor of the National Journal.

    “Given the president’s rock-bottom approval numbers in the many Republican-friendly Senate states that Democrats needed to win — as well as the reality of a worsening political environment for the party as early as last winter — that distance was a downright necessity. But a host of Senate candidates failed to create it, and the party is likely to pay the price in Senate seats.”

    Read Latest Breaking News from
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

  49. President Obama’s base of support among Hispanics and young people is eroding dramatically in the run-up to the 2014 elections.

    According to the Pew Research Center, Hispanic voters are upset with the Obama administration over what they perceive to be elevated deportations and failures to enact more lenient immigration reform. Young people, meanwhile, are less than enthused by a president they once supported for his “hope and change” promises.

    Youth support for President Obama is down 4% from earlier this year, and he now stands at a net -10% disapproval, with just 43% of millennials supporting him. A significant racial gap has emerged within the millennial voting bloc as well, with just 31% of whites approving of Obama, as opposed to 78% of blacks.

    Hispanic identification with the Democratic Party stands at 63%, as opposed to 27% for Republicans–but that latter statistic represents the high-water mark for Republican support since 2006. Overall, Hispanics overwhelmingly say that the Democratic Party “has more concern for Latinos,” with just 10% saying Republicans do. But 35% of Hispanics say they see no difference between the parties on the matter. Only 19% of Hispanic registered voters say they are pleased with the Obama administration’s delay of executive amnesty, while 26% say they are disappointed and 9% say they are angry. Overall, more Hispanics than the general population (43%) say they are happy with the direction of the country.

    Most importantly, a full 54% of Hispanics say that they would vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on immigration policy; only 36% say they would not. That explains a jump for Republicans in this election cycle despite the fact that they have overwhelmingly endorsed border enforcement over amnesty. The poll does show that 46% of Hispanics favor an amnesty plan, with 38% prioritizing both border security and a pathway to citizenship, and an additional 14% believe that border security should be the top priority.

  50. I wish they would do a poll explaining the likely effects of open borders and welfare for illegals on African Americans, and asking them how they stand Obamas plan to give amnesty and ultimately citizenship to 34 million Hispanics, so that they supplant blacks as the largest minority by a factor of two. That would sort of narrow the focus from the image of a first black president, to the reality that half white Obama has got them in the shower, is pissing on their leg and telling them it is raining. It would be a fine rebuttal to the cheap racist appeal which they are being subjected to. As Dr. Johnson said, nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged, and bad policies which have a substantial adverse effect on African American citizens fall into that category. We cannot expect them to reach that conclusion on their own, given the wall of propaganda to which they are being subjected. If we want them to believe it we must believe it ourselves, and be prepared to say it. It is like that with juries as well.

  51. foxyladi14
    October 30, 2014 at 11:42 am
    The situation in New Hampshire must be even worse since Judicial Watch has elected to go there, rather than to North Carolina.

  52. …last night while waiting for the increasing creepy AHS to begin (acting, sets,Lighting and writing still top notch), I was thinking about our discussion here re: Hillay and allowing herself to be entraped in sinking ships…falling into a more idealistic mode I do think that along with perhaps trying to line up chits there is the motivation of Hill and Bill to bring the party back together…the ‘heads of the household’ trying to round up the gang, so to speak…to regroup and reconnect for the days ahead…I understand, but I concur with Admin, Wbboei and Dot48 that the risk and price is high and may not be worth it…

    yes, I agree Shadowfax…we will see what Hillary shows up soon enough…



    Is Hillary Clinton about to make her return to the cover of Vogue? Confidenti@l has learned that the presumed presidential candidate and Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour visited Michael Kors’ studio for a fitting. We’re told the power trio huddled in Kors’ office at his Bryant Park HQ, studying a “rack of clothes.” Clinton (l.), who was with longtime aide Huma Abedin and a person our spy describes as a “huge bodyguard,” has graced the cover of the fashion bible once before. She was on the December 1998 cover, in velvet Oscar de la Renta, as First Lady in a shoot by Annie Leibovitz. Last year at an opening for a de la Renta retrospective at the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark., Wintour said, “All of us at Vogue look forward to putting on the cover the first female President of the United States.”

    It seems like Wintour is getting impatient. Perhaps it’s because in 2007 she thought Clinton would appear on the cover, but she reportedly dropped out at the last minute. “Anna certainly doesn’t go to every fitting for the magazine, but for a subject like Hillary, she’d be involved in every aspect of the story. She’d definitely need to approve the look,” said a fashion insider. A Vogue spokeswoman merely said that “Anna just went by to say hello to Hillary. We have no plans for a cover.” A rep for Kors declined to comment, while Clinton’s office spat, “Not true.”

  53. Here is another example of the pitfalls of beating the hustings for candidates who deserve to lose and probably will.

    Joni Ernst made a campaign decision not to meet with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register who has made no secret of their opposition to her candidacy. That was a prudential decision and, as you might expect, they are whining about it—like they are the be all and end all of Iowa politics.

    Enter Hillary Clinton to campaign of that fatally flawed dimocrat Bruce Blaley, Bailey or whatever his name is.

    And what does she say about this?

    That Ernst has disqualified herself by not meeting with their editorial board who endorses her opponent.

    Ernst says she sees no advantage in it, compared to the advantage of spending that time engaged in retail politics, traveling to the 99 counties and speaking directly to the people.

    This needs to be the standard approach of all non dimocrats–democrat independent and republican alike. It begins with the realization that they are not honest voters, and ends with a strategic decision to let them twist in the wind. If they do otherwise, they give the media no incentive to reflect upon the fraud they are perpetrating on the American People.

    But that leaves Hillary vulnerable to a collateral attack for her failure to appear on the five networks that Susan Rice did, mouthing Obama’s lies with respect to Benghazi. She was after all the Secretary of State. Her opponents will then say if you think a failure of a candidate to meet with the press to explain her position on an important matter disqualifies that candidate from public office, then what about you? Or does your prescription apply only to Republicans?

    That is the problem.

  54. S, the ad is not repeating. It is a smart ad. It attacks Crist as insincere or worse. At the same time it attacks surrogate Bill Clinton while reminding Bill Clinton supporters what Crist said about Clinton during impeachment. Smart, smart ad.

    And yeah, AHS is really creepy this season. The clown without his teeth mask last night was more than we could bear. Acting is still excellent and Jessica Lange is superb. Kathy Bates’ accent just slays us.

  55. If they don’t steal the vote with that crazy mail-in ballot system Gardner has it in the bag. Reliable Quinnipiac poll:

    With strong support from men, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican challenger in the Colorado U.S. Senate race, leads U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent, 46 – 39 percent among likely voters, with 7 percent for independent candidate Steve Shogan, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Another 7 percent are undecided.

    This compares to a 46 – 41 percent likely voter lead for Gardner in an October 24 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

    With Shogan out of the race, Gardner is up 49 – 41 percent.

    In the three-way race today, men back the Republican over the Democrat 54 – 33 percent, with 6 percent for Shogan, compared to Gardner’s 51 – 38 percent lead among men last week. Women back Udall 45 – 39 percent, with 8 percent for Shogan. This compares to last week’s results, with women going 45 percent for Udall, 41 percent for Gardner and 5 percent for Shogan. [snip]

    U.S. Sen. Mark Udall loses ground to U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner – and the GOP smacks its lips,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

    This Colorado Senate race has national implications, and it’s taken an ugly turn for the incumbent,” Malloy added. “Will the tidal shift in the Senate start in the Rocky Mountains?”

  56. S, remember how Wintour slammed Hillary in 2008? Hillary had cancelled plans to appear in Vogue Magazine. and Wintour was pissed. It burns me up when Wintour is refereed to as a feminist. With her sexist remarks about Hillary, she revealed that she is no feminist.


    “But Wintour didn’t take Clinton’s dis lightly. In her February editor’s letter, Wintour takes Clinton to task for being behind the times. “Imagine my amazement, then, when I learned that Hillary Clinton, our only female president hopeful, had decided to steer clear of our pages at this point in her campaign for fear of looking too feminine. The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying.” Wintour continues: “This is America, not Saudi Arabia.


  57. Quite why is anybody’s guess….mark of stupidity.

    Just five days out from Election Day and Vice President Joe Biden is again campaigning for Iowa’s Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley — but not in Iowa. Thursday afternoon, Biden heads to the 8th Floor in New York City according to the official White House schedule for a 6:00 p.m. event:



  58. Article argues that Obama and Dims need to look at the real reason they may well be the losers in Tue’s election. And, it nails media for refusal to truthfully and accurately report Obama’s failures.

    __________Skewedenfreude: Why Democrats Can’t Face the Midterm 2014 Polls

    OCTOBER 29, 2014 By Robert Tracinski


    In this case, what Democrats want to avoid recognizing in the midterm 2014 polls is that voters have finally begun to recognize President Obama’s failures—a whole passel of them, all at once. They have turned against him and that has spilled over to other Democrats
    But for a political and media establishment deeply committed to Obama’s cult of personality, that’s a hard thing to force themselves to do. The evidence of deep denial is everywhere.

    The president has made his share of political missteps, but at least he has managed to avoid giving a Carteresque “crisis of confidence” speech blaming his own poor performance on a “national malaise.” He doesn’t need to, because the New York Times‘s Peter Baker wrote it for him.


    It’s not Obama’s fault, you see. It’s just that the whole system is out of order. It’s a “toxic environment” created by too much criticism in the news media and too much political opposition.

    Even worse is the new narrative that New York Times leftists are building up: if they’re losing the election, it can’t be because their policies have failed or because they’ve lost the argument with the American people. It must be because the election is being stolen by all those evil rich people.

    Timothy Egan tells us that “Oligarchs hiding behind front groups—Citizens for Fluffy Pillows—are pulling the levers of the 2014 campaign, and overwhelmingly aiding Republicans.” While Paul Krugman sums it up as “Plutocrats Against Democracy.”

    Here’s where the skewedenfreude gets a little less amusing. It’s not just about denying the accuracy of the public opinion polls. It’s about denying the legitimacy of the vote itself.

    It’s one thing to let wishful thinking carry you away and make you overoptimistic about your side’s political chances. It’s quite another to impugn the legitimacy of the whole electoral process because you don’t want to admit you’re losing a political argument.

  59. I saw an article which praised ISIS for one thing: moral clarity.

    Moral clarity is non negotiable. Evil is evil when it presents itself as evil.

    In a nation of apologists, where moral relativism holds sway, ISIS has given those highly educated wealthy people who wish to offend no one, a look at what they are condoning, to avoid being seen as judgments. Those people lead comfortable lives and have never had to contend for their lives or their property in some dark alley.

    Maybe now some of them get it. Maybe not.

    But there is another form of evil. An evil which deceived people like that into believing it is good. And because, in their infinite naivette, they see it as good, and a little edgy, exciting, or novel, they gladly embrace the scorpion with open arms. Barack Hussin Obama is that kind of evil.

    To deal with that kind of evil, we must stop elevating form over substance. And along the way there will also be clues, such as who does this individual hang with, and how have they conducted themselves in the future. If you ask any hiring manager they will tell you that past performance is the best guage of how a job candidate will perform in the open billet.

  60. Such deliberations are rendered impossible, however, when you have a big media that feeds an unending stream of bad information, phony polls and a biased perspective dressed up to look non-partisan to the voting public. The old criminal law axiom, qui bono applies here. Who benefits from the coverage that presented Obama to the nation as a touchable god? The nation as a whole? Or mainly big media? The answer is, I submit, obvious. In other words, it was not merely infatuation. It was a calculated move on their part, which has done irreparable harm to the nation. There is no coming back from that.

  61. I am a Bumpkin and proud of it. 😀

    At first glance, it’s tempting to think that Mark Leibovitch is calling various Republican candidates stupid in his New York Times article, The Bumpkinification of the Midterm Elections. It would be an easy and understandable mistake to make, given that the introduction focuses almost entirely on Joni Ernst, with a generous sprinkling of Sarah Palin and other, almost exclusively GOP figures throughout the piece. But a closer reading reveals that even though the author might be thinking the candidates are toothless, drooling hicks, he’s really casting stones at those of you stupid enough to fall for their homespun, down on the farm campaign commercials.

  62. This would be lethal and would probably throw the senate bigtime to the GOP.

    Larry Sabato ‏@LarrySabato 2m2 minutes ago

    Crystal Ball sees R +9 performance in the House right now, says @kkondik, possibly could go into low double digits.

  63. It looks like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is bracing for a bad election next week. At least, that’s what they’re openly telling supporters.

    The latest alarmist fundraising email from the Democratic group has this subject line: “Accept Defeat.”

    “We are completely out of ideas,” the first line of the email reads.

    “After Hillary Clinton emailed you this morning to ask for help, we really thought we would be in a better place.

    “But we aren’t. The Koch Brothers are pummeling us spending millions against us. Republicans are spending $26 MILLION against us this week alone — the most of the entire election. So big — it doesn’t even look like Hillary Clinton’s email can dig us out of this hole.

    “There is still time, though. Things are rough, but we’re not ready to accept defeat. If we can bring in 35,OOO donations before tomorrow’s fundraising deadline, we can get back on track before Tuesday’s election.”

    Polling suggests the Democrats are likely to loss seats in the already Republican controlled House of Representatives.


    Amazingly, last email before midterms, they gave Hillary the blame…..surprise.

  64. Desperation in NV, really stunning. Obama cut late radio ad for Rep Horsford. O won dist +11. Its D+4 and he’s losing.

  65. I am wetting myself laughing watching Uk news……Axelrod goes to the UK to advise British Labour Party for the election and their polling goes into freefall……..they are down 27% in Scotland from 42% to 15%…….The curse follows.

    Disaster follows when that ass is asked for advice.

  66. Yes, Hillary is under attack already. Tie her to Obola. Tie her to the failed election. They are going to try to do it. This election is a referendum on Barack Obama. Email from Hillary, my ASS. Not a dime until until HER campaign and HER nomination. F’n Party of Totalitarian Creeps. It is beyond being about Hillary. It is the stinkin’ Totalitarian Creeps who have taken the party from the People.

    P.U.M.A. I went to a rally where she was speaking after the selection of Ofraud. While she was speaking, I stood up and rolled out a PUMA banner that I had hidden in my purse. Several Times. Until some ushers told me I had to put it away. Afterward, some foreign film crew interviewed me.

    Once again it is time to JUST SAY NO DEAL! FIVE MORE DAYS.

  67. Vote this bitch out……Landrieu: Harder for Me, Obama Because South’s Racist Past…says the women whos been senator for 18 years.

    Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu told NBC’s Chuck Todd that she has had to work harder for her reelection to the U.S. Senate because the South has “not always been the friendliest place for African Americans.”

    “I’ll be very, very honest with you, and the South has not always been the friendliest place for African Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,” Landrieu said. Barack Obama lost Louisiana in both 2008 and 2012. Watch the video below:

    She also added, “It’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves. It’s more of a conservative place.” Landrieu, a woman, has been elected three times to the U.S. Senate, the first time in 1996.


    So there you have it, if she loses its because you are racist Louisiana…vote her out.

  68. hate to add this but Hill is back campaigning for Braley…news reported today on tv that not only did he strongly ask her to do a fundraiser for him in the past, which she did assuming he would back her, then he turned around and endorsed Edwards…

    also caught a smidgen of her speaking at his rally and she really sounded like an alarmist re what Ernst would do…saying she would set back women to when they were a pre-existing condition with insurance companies…geesh…it is too much…

  69. in a recent Facebook post, Maryland’s Dan Bongino decided the time was now to silence his opponent’s downright fallacious — but all too commonplace — political rhetoric. The kind of rhetoric that, if given enough money, stamps out the potential of great candidates for office.

    After a long day of campaigning in the rain I just returned from the grocery store. Diapers are really expensive, as many of you already know.

    Why am I telling you about the price of diapers? Because my multimillionaire opponent has spent over $600,000 of his $250,000,000 net worth on television ads attacking me for, get ready for it, a “war on women.”

    I’ve tried to let it go, but I won’t any longer. Does this fake know anything about me?

    He has no idea how hard my wife and I have to work to pay for little things like diapers for my daughter.

    He has no idea how painful it was for me, as a child, to watch my single mother struggle, working at the checkout counter of a local supermarket to never make ends meet.

    He has no idea how hard it was for me to witness the ever-present pain in the eyes of my now departed grandmother, who lost her only son in combat in Thu Duc, Vietnam, as she parted with her humble life savings to help us survive and pay the bills.

    He has no idea how helpless it felt to watch my wife struggle to keep working, just days after the birth of both our daughters, because we couldn’t afford the time off.

    He has no idea because he doesn’t live in the America I live in. His America is one of board memberships and cocktail parties. My America is one of local library memberships and block parties. In his America taxes don’t matter because his massive wealth insulates him from the consequences. In my America, taxes can quickly put you out of your home and your business. Finally, in his America, they falsely use cowardly tactics like fictitious “wars on women” to deceive voters. In my America, my life has been shaped, altered and bettered by the women who made everything I’ve been able to accomplish so far, possible.

    I’m now ready with a full tank of emotional energy to finish this fight, he poked the bear. I’m going to win this race.

  70. I do not like seeing H campaigning for these backstabbing toads, either. I sure hope she is getting something out of it. Maybe polling for effects of her support. Maybe what she is doing is as little as she can get away with. Maybe she just does not want the nomination that badly. Maybe she is just doing what she wants to do to let the cards fall where they will. I can see how it could look bad, but it really does not change my opinion of her.

    If I were her I would be all smiling and cooperation until the moment was right to slit the backstabbers throats. Figuratively speaking, of course.

  71. S
    October 30, 2014 at 6:46 pm
    If Hillary wants to make an ass of herself, then that is her prerogative.

    But it begs the question of whether her ad homium attack will hurt Ernst.

    Before you say yes, recall that Hillary came in third in the 2008 Iowa primary.

    That would suggest that she is not terribly popular in that state.

    In that case, her endorsement may have the reverse effect of what she intends.

    It could make Blaley look mean spirited, create sympathy for Earnst, and drive off the undecided voters.

  72. Hillary comes up at the New Hampshire debate.

    There was a discussion on immigration in which Brown said he was for jobs for those in New Hampshire after Shaheen said she was for the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate.

    Then the question of Brown moving to NH to run for office came up. Brown provided his long history in New Hampshire. Brown also said that Shaheen originally came from Missouri. That appeared to be the last on the topic but then a reporter brought up Hillary.

    The reporter told Shaheen that Hillary is campaigning for Shaheen and that Hillary moved to New York to run for office and asked Shaheen to compare Hillary moving to NY to Brown moving to NH. Shaheen essentially folded on the issue.

    Ebola is the current topic. Shaheen defending Obama. Brown brings up the military under quarantine. Brown is for travel ban and quarantine.

  73. If some of these races are as tight as the pollsters tell us, then voter fraud will be the determining factor. The dimocrat party has launched a massive voter fraud campaign in all states, therefore, this factor overwhelmingly favors them.

  74. The latest Florida get-out-the-vote effort from Obama and Eric Holder:

    Grand jury meeting in civil-rights case involving George Zimmerman

    A federal grand jury will meet in downtown Orlando Wednesday to hear testimony about whether Trayvon Martin’s civil rights were violated when Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him in the chest, according to court paperwork.

    A U.S. Department of Justice attorney from Washington, D.C., Mark Blumberg, has issued at least one subpoena for Wednesday in the case.

    Blumberg would not comment on the grand jury session, but the federal panel is to meet at 9 a.m. at the federal courts building on Central Avenue in downtown Orlando to hear evidence in the case. [snip]

    Last month, the Washington Post cited three unnamed law enforcement officials as saying there would likely be no federal charges brought against Zimmerman because of insufficient evidence.

    Race-baiting for fun and profit by Obama.

  75. exactly
    October 30, 2014 at 12:20 am

    I am convinced that is how obama stole his second term, I am convinced Romney actually won. It makes me so fearful..

  76. I was a poll worker in 2008 in a Florida. They ran the early voting out so long (Charlie Crist extended it as Governor) that up-to-date registers were not available at the opening of the polls. They gave us unalphabetized lists of early voters. I was the assistant clerk and our clerk did not get it. We did not have usable lists until noon. Then, the person who was working the laptop that contained the voter precinct information was having difficulties. So I helped her out and my signature was on alot of forms that turned out to be incorrect. We both told the authorities that we put on the forms what we got from the laptop, but we both got bad reviews and demoted to the registers for future elections. It was both of us working there and I saw the screen and what she was putting down and it was correct. But not correct.

    I had people coming in that were flagged for having absentee ballots who swore they never requested or received them, too. We had to call and cancel their absentee ballot. The process is susceptible to fraud.

  77. moononpluto
    October 30, 2014 at 3:41 pm
    Sons of Bitches……….look at the last of these emails DCCC sent today

    Accept Defeat…..

    So the impression they leave on their last fundraiser is putting the blame at Hillary’s door…..


    I find it impossible to believe that Hillary and Bill do not see what the Dims are trying to do to Hillary. If they can’t get it stopped, they need to find a way to address it. Or would answering these kinds of slurs in some way just give the negativity more exposure? They don’t need to be seen as being petty or nitpicking – which is what they would be accused of if they countered remarks like this publicly. Perhaps, a spokesperson to make a little noise about these kinds of statements, or some well placed leaks would help.

    The only real solution is to distance themselves from the party, while remaining public through their work with their foundation, and other worthy, non-partisan initiatives.

    Where the hell has Carville been? Does his deal with FOX prevent his participation in Dim Party politics? In the past, he would have spoken out about some of these kinds of things.

  78. Another sceptic about Sharyl Attkisson’s allegations that her computer was hacked by government has found a reason to change his mind.


    Thursday, October 30, 2014
    Is this what Sharyl Attkisson was talking about?

    A few days ago, we discussed the strange case of Sharyl Attkisson, who seems to have functioned as a sort of right-wing “mole” in CBS News. She was fired, in part, because she pushed a silly story about Benghazi. She made the news lately, at least the right-wing news, with her claim in a book that an unnamed spook friend of hers found a super-duper extra-special keylogger on her laptop.

    “Attkisson says the source, who’s “connected to government three-letter agencies,” told her the computer was hacked into by “a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.”

    The breach was accomplished through an “otherwise innocuous e-mail” that Attkisson says she got in February 2012, then twice “redone” and “refreshed” through a satellite hookup and a Wi-Fi connection at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

    I was befuddled by this phrase: “commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency.” It’s a little hard to see how something can be both commercial and gummint at the same time.

    To be frank, I was dismissive of Attkisson when this story first came to my attention. I am suspicious of pretty much every “journalist” who pals around with spooks.

    But maybe there’s something going on here.

    Look at this story in The Intercept: It’s about a spyware program developed in Annapolis, MD and sold to thuggish governments throughout the world. The MD firm is called Hacking Team — and the owners are Italian, believe it or not.

    Run your eyeballs over the following, and tell me if some of the details seem familiar…

    “The manuals describe Hacking Team’s software for government technicians and analysts, showing how it can activate cameras, exfiltrate emails, record Skype calls, log typing, and collect passwords on targeted devices. They also catalog a range of pre-bottled techniques for infecting those devices using wifi networks, USB sticks, streaming video, and email attachments to deliver viral installers. With a few clicks of a mouse, even a lightly trained technician can build a software agent that can infect and monitor a device, then upload captured data at unobtrusive times using a stealthy network of proxy servers, all without leaving a trace. That, at least, is what Hacking Team’s manuals claim as the company tries to distinguish its offerings in the global marketplace for government hacking software.”

    Doesn’t that description sound exactly like what Sharryl says she found on her system? Of course, the presence of Hacking Team’s pride-n-joy does not necessarily mean that Obama called for a cyber-hit, although everyone on the right will so presume.


  79. An invitation sent to me from the NH GOP. Note how they use Hillary’s own stupid words.

    Did you hear? Hillary’s back.

    Hillary Clinton will be in New Hampshire on Sunday rallying Democrats ahead of Election Day.

    Just this week, Hillary said
    “don’t let anybody tell you that it’s businesses that create jobs.”


    With New Hampshire’s economy stagnant, it’s no wonder Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen are bringing in failed politicians to distract from their failed records.

    So what difference does it make?

    On Sunday we’ll be rallying for Walt Havenstein, Scott Brown, Frank Guinta, Marilinda Garcia and our entire Republican team. Rally with Republicans who know how jobs are created and want to get New Hampshire working again!




  80. Where the hell has Carville been? Does his deal with FOX prevent his participation in Dim Party politics? In the past, he would have spoken out about some of these kinds of things.
    I doubt it is a FOX deal, but who knows. When he was with CNN, they forced him and Begala to shut up, but gave the floor to that pig for all seasons Donna Brazille. That was because CNN was all in for Obama, and no pundits appearing on their channel were permitted to express a contrary view. We saw the same thing when they canned Lou Dobbs. Rather than a legitimate news organization they became a propaganda ministry for Obama, and replaced them with pundits who would march to that tune. Ultimately, through another pig, Candy Crowley, they used the debate moderator roll to throw the 2012 election for Obama.

    That much I do know.

    What I do not know, but merely suspect, is that the explanation for Jim’s absence is that he is no happier than we are with what Bill and Hillary are doing at this point to help save Obama and his supporters. I suspect the sees it as a self destructive thing and that what the party needs at this point is a thorough de-lousing if it is to become what it once was, the party of the people, rather than the party of ideologues, billionaires and race baiters, who are so bad they make the Republican Party look good in comparison.

    Perhaps he is not in agreement with defending the corruption, incompetence and nation destroying policies of the big media beloved messiah, and is no more in agreement with the self destructive actions of Bill and Hillary supporting Obama shills than we are. It may even be that he favors the gull em and cull em approach which is the only way to de-louse the party.

  81. 48-day manhunt ends…
    Frein placed in handcuffs belonging to slain state police Cpl. Bryon Dickson…
    Placed in Dickson’s car for ride back to barracks…
    Pike County DA to seek death penalty..
    Amid the turmoil of another dishonest election the PA Governor and team on down came through despite weeks of naysaying & calls to quit.

  82. freespirit
    October 30, 2014 at 11:22 pm
    Joseph Cannon is a conspiracy nut. He sees land where there is no land. He is also a rigid left wing ideologue. Witnesshis delusional statement that Sharyl was “fired by CBS for being a right wing mole”.

    First, if you examine her resume as a whole, you will see that she was as tough on Bush as Obama. That is hardly what a right winger does.

    Second, she is an investigative reporter, and that work, when done properly entails digging deep, talking with confidential sources to get at the truth, and following the evidence wherever it leads, even to the seat of power.

    (N.B: this is not the way big media does it however. What you see with them typically is the kind of sloppy investigative work we saw from ABC’s investigative journalist Brian Ross, who blamed the wrong man–a tea party member, when Gilberts was assassinated, and NBC/CNN who blamed racism for the Travon Martin thing with no evidence other than the fact that the perpetrator was by their tortured definition, a “white” hispanic–anything to keep the racial grievance pot boiling.)

    Third, she was not fired, but left by mutual agreement. That fact is obvious to anyone familiar with what happened. Like the other organs of big media, CBC was all in for Obama, and perpetrated the same fraud on the American People that their counterparts did, deifying him and rejecting contrary opinion. But even beyond that, their president is the brother of a key Obama adviser. CBS was perfectly happy when she brought them the goods on Bush, not so when she did the same thing with Obama. That is why they refused to publish her work on Fast and Furious and Benghazi. The big hush was on, and it was election time.

    So what are we to make of this little cocksucker Joseph Cannon. An associate of Matt Tabbi who is of the same ilk: deranged and conspiratorial to the nines. And defenders to death of Obama, and is fellow progressives. The best thing you can say about them is they are a waste of protoplasm. So when he complains about his files disappearing all I can say is I wish he would disappear along with them, as part of the de-lousing exercise referred to above.

  83. Right, web. And, journolister and Obamanut Ezra Klein authored a snarky little article, which I posted earlier, in which he attempted to discredit Attkisson, accusing her of lying about her assertion that govt hacked her laptop. He said she just had a normal problem with her laptop, and that the government couldn’t have hacked it.

    I posted the cannon fire article because it confirmed that it would have been entirely possible for gov’t to hack into her computer using a spyware referred to as Intercept, available from a Maryland company.

    I agree with your assessment of cannon, but was glad to see that info. Hopefully, some of the so called journalists who are long on reporting but short on the investigative component will think twice before accusing Attkisson of lying about this.

  84. wbboei
    October 30, 2014 at 7:24 pm
    If some of these races are as tight as the pollsters tell us, then voter fraud will be the determining factor. The dimocrat party has launched a massive voter fraud campaign in all states, therefore, this factor overwhelmingly favors them.

    Fraud and race baiting ads. Just like 2008.

    Some of us remember May 31, 2008, and the day democracy was killed – by the RBC of DNC , the Obama-Dims and Obama. Since that day, they have been cremating it little by little. ;’

  85. admin
    October 30, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    Shaheen just said that because of ObamaCare we have saved $100 billion.

    Who exactly saved???
    It sure wasn’t the peons like you and me. 👿

  86. any money saved went to the flow of illegals with their squatter rights

    When will America wake up and rise up to stop this insanity

    Now I see McConnell “promising” to repeal Onuttercare if he gets control…………..sure, I really expect that to happen! NOT

    Wish repubs had enough seats to control without HIM because I want to see him gone

  87. we have saved $100 billion.
    First of all, you lying political hack, who is “we”–because I can tell you for a fact that we aint me–or millions like me who do not have employer insurance?

    Second, where did that 100 billion in savings come from?

    1. from the $500 billion they stole from medicare—which would mean that $400 billion was lost? If so, then you screwed seniors.

    2. from the astronomical rise in premiums and deductibles for with their own insurance plans? Only if you believe the lies of your boss–$2000 savings per family

    3. from the explosion of administrative costs which were needed to feed the bureacratic monster created by Obamacare?

    4. from the spike in technological costs in building this failed website which became farcical, and left millions of uninsured stranded?

    5. from the rationing of medical services? The real purpose of death panels.

    You know, I know, everyone with any common sense at all, knows that this $100 billion is a blatant lie. At best, all you have done to create that fictitious figure which you throw out for consumption with no supporting proof, just to get off the hot seat, is the result of creative accounting and a shifting of the economic burden from government and insurance companies–the we you are talking about–to seniors, people of modest means. The beneficiaries will be 35 million illegals which will turn out to be 100 million illegals within 20 years, and you know it and I know it, you have created a black hole–Kid Shaleeen:

    who appears in all her glory @1:25

  88. From Wolf campaign site: President Barack Obama is coming to Philadelphia on Sunday, November 2 at 4:00 p.m. to help get out the vote with Tom Wolf. [It has been reported that absentee ballots are 36% down in PA this year and that is worrying some altho I think it is a good thing based upon years of fraud associated with them.]
    I may have mentioned to the Corbett campaign … no actually, I really did mention the effect on Walker’s poll numbers of Obama’s last visit to WI … as it has been reported here and referenced.
    For whatever reasons, Corbett is airing this video which is OK but predictable until Michelle shows up. She kind of puts the cherry on top.

  89. jbstonesfan: an article by Roger Simon founder of pjmedia. The following quote from the article linked below is particularly apt:

    “You will excuse me if I think my Jewish American friends that vote Democratic every year by rote are a bit sick. I have tried to have patience with them for about a decade, tried to persuade them with reason, but now I think they’re… well, there’s an excellent Yiddish word… ferkochta. Or suffering from a Stockholm Syndrome so massive it wouldn’t fit in all the Volvo factories in Sweden.

    Yes, I know many of those same people don’t give a sh*t, chicken or otherwise, about Israel — or if they do they are highly critical of everything about it, think it’s an apartheid state, yaddayaddayadda. (Don’t ask them to define apartheid, however.) I will just remind those same “progressive” people that there were plenty of German Jews who felt pretty much as they do back in, ahem, 1937.”

    Years ago, and well before the rise of the big media beloved messiah Obama, I read a book written by a French Jew who loved America predicting this very outcome. He posited that the rise of anti semitism in this country–fed by Obama—would coincide with the implosion and decline of American Power. What he failed to anticipate was that Israel haters like Soros would find themselves a black demagogue whose skin color and baubbles he handed out to wealthy Jews in this county would seduce them into supporting a man committed to weakening Israel to the point that it could no longer protect itself. Blindest of all are the Hollwood billionaires like Weinstein, Pearlman, Brotman, Speilberg (and his former partner whose name starts with g who tried to buy the LA times and dissed Hillary) et al who were among the first to embrace Obama and to assure others that he would be good for Israel as well as their own pocketbooks. The fell in love with an illusion and are too arrogant see it, either then or even now.


    If all the cards were put on the table you would see that Saudi Arabia was one of the largest backers of Obama–financially, writing a letter to get him into Harvard, etc.

  90. I gather that the final debate in Scott and Kid Shaleen was a non starter.

    To the best of my knowledge, recollection and belief, I watched every debate, and it was my impression that despite the blatant partisanship of big media Hillary won all of them except for the one about drivers licenses for illegals. Unlike now, her rhetorical performance was flawless, and there were no gaffs, apart from the one exception noted. After that, and seeing how big media abused its role in the process, I am inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say retail politics only. Cut big media out of the process. Slit their throats through the wallet–the only thing they seem to respond to. But apart from that, I have no interest in watching any more debates. I have had it.

  91. Sometimes, I get upset over the way naiive actors like DeNiro, Cruz, Paltrow treat Obama like a touchable god. But then, usually, I restrain myself because I know they are merely responding to the signals sent by the Hollywood money men. One of the early Hollywood directors, William Wellman, had something to say about actors in this respect, and it was far from flattering. Obviously, there have been exceptions like Paul Newman, Sam Watterston, Charleton Heston who are/were estimable thinkers in their own right, but the Obama worshippers referred to above exhibit the sort of Pavlovian behavior one would expect from someone who is dependent on the money men for employment.

  92. holdthemaccountable
    October 31, 2014 at 11:06 am

    From Wolf campaign site: President Barack Obama is coming to Philadelphia on Sunday, November 2 at 4:00 p.m. to help get out the vote with Tom Wolf. [It has been reported that absentee ballots are 36% down in PA this year
    If this is true, then my best explanation would be:

    1. for Obama supporters, he is not on the ballot

    2. for Obama opponents (republicans and independents) he is on the ballot.

    The only equalizer Obama has left is cheating.

    If he holds the senate by cheating and then gives blanket amnesty, what if anything will the republicans do?

    What can they do?

    What can the American People do, besides not paying their taxes, which is a perilous course to pursue.

  93. I put the chances of that happening as 1 in 3. If it does happen, then it will be much harder for the ignoranti to say what they usually say, which is that’s just politics. They will be forced to acknowledge that there has been a hijacking, and the American People are irrelevant.

  94. wbboei, we know the bastard is capable of doing the one in three. And what could anyone do if that happens. Really. Who would/could stop him?
    I can, until results are in Tuesday, continue to hope that the people will be heard this time.
    There is this ridiculous and long running lie that Wolf has perpetuated, the lie being that PA charges oil/gas companies no severance taxes. But he and others mix it up with an equivalency to no taxes when in reality PA does, and has been charging an impact tax which the companies have advertised for years. Corbett has said the same. Counties where there are no or few wells prefer the impact feel.

    Wolf also since the primary began, been blaming Corbett for cutting school money when in fact he has upped it. Has the numbers to prove. The difficulty came because Rendell had stimulus money put in the wrong account, and when the 2 yr stimulus was up, Corbett was in office.

    I won’t go on and on – in fact I cannot because my understanding is not that deep. But it is the ignoranti and owl poop people who soak up the lies. I had Wolf pegged for Obama from day one. Smiles and Smears and a Faux Primary. EndOfRant.

    Praying somehow that GOP wins enough. Always a Protestant, I had a friend get me a Rosary. Am using it now lol.

  95. I hear ya holdem.

    I have no doubt that many sleep walkers have awakened.

    ” Signs of fear have appeared in stories across the media. CNN, for instance, recently noted that seven in ten voters are angry as they prepare for election day.
    A poll taken last week found that respondents were “very angry” (30 percent) or “somewhat angry” (38 percent) about the way things are going in the country. Only 31 percent said they weren’t angry.

    The poll also found a ten-point gap in party enthusiasm with 36 percent of Republicans saying they were highly motivated to vote while only 26 percent of Democrats say the same.”

    The imponderable is how much will cheating affect the outcome. I know for a fact that if our internals in Indiana were any indication, cheating reduced the voice of lawful citizens in the democrat party a whopping 8%. There was no indication in that instance however that voting machines were changing Hillary votes to Obama, but the concern in the 2014 mid term is that is exactly what will happen. I have told you who is behind it, but I cannot prove it. And even if I could, no one would believe me. Just look at what they are doing to Sharyl, who shines the light of truth on Obama.

    In two instances, if neither candidate gets over 50% then there will be a re-run election and we will not know the result until Janauary. The fate of the Senate may well hang in the balance until then. I wish I was more up on voter fraud, because I would like to help Judicial Watch and other maintain some standards of integrity in this election, but it is beginning to look like the horses of the Agean Stable, who could shit faster than Hercules could clean it up. A two month hiatus will give the Soros financed organizations to double down on the fraud, and big media two months to white wash this silent killing of democracy.


    As President Obama’s approval ratings continue to fall and scandals and troubles mount for the country, signs the electorate are fearful of what the futures brings are everywhere.

    Signs of fear have appeared in stories across the media. CNN, for instance, recently noted that seven in ten voters are angry as they prepare for election day.

    A poll taken last week found that respondents were “very angry” (30 percent) or “somewhat angry” (38 percent) about the way things are going in the country. Only 31 percent said they weren’t angry.

    The poll also found a ten-point gap in party enthusiasm with 36 percent of Republicans saying they were highly motivated to vote while only 26 percent of Democrats say the same.

    In another report, Democrats were found to be very worried that minorities might not turn out for the Party by Election Day.
    On top of that, the president has lost a lot of support among Americans as his approval rating sinks below the 50 percent margin. The latest Gallup poll shows Obama’s approval at a low 42 percent. And while still being relatively popular with minorities, the president has lost ground with them as well.

    Finally, a new poll by USA Today discovered that there are a whole raft of issues that have frightened the country. “Voters are rattled by the Ebola virus, braced for years of conflict against the terrorist group Islamic State and still worried about jobs,” the paper noted on October 30.

    “Two-thirds say the nation faces more challenging problems than usual; one in four call them the biggest problems of their lifetimes,” the paper reports.

    In its report, USA Today says that one in five are skeptical that either party can handle the growing Ebola crisis, but more seem to trust Republicans where it concerns ISIS and threats of terrorism.

    Yet, “By double-digits, they say congressional Democrats would do a better job in handling income inequality and social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.”

    Despite that, “the bottom line seems to be that the downbeat mood of the electorate is favoring the GOP, whose backers are more enthusiastic about voting and animated by their opposition to Obama.”

    The paper also found that a large portion of Obama’s base seems poised to stay home on Election Day. Only 7 percent of young voters say they are motivated to vote.

  97. Regardless of what he does to this nation, for big media Obama will always be:

    Their sun
    Their moon
    Their east
    Their west

    Let no one tell me they will become objective.

    Does a cat bark?

  98. The Era of Trust in Government Is Over
    William Jacobson | Oct 30, 2014

    In 1986, Ronald Reagan joked that the most terrifying words in the English language were “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

    In the age of President Barack Obama, Reagan’s maxim is no joke – it’s playing out weekly before our very eyes.

    Recent surveys indicate that trust in the government is at lows not seen in decades.

    According to an early September 2014 Gallup survey, only 19 percent of those surveyed always or most of the time trusted government in Washington, D.C. “to do what’s right,” compared to 81 percent who only some of the time or never trusted government. That represented a 20 year low for trust in government.

    Similar results showing historically low trust in government were revealed in July 2014 CNN/ORC International and October 2013 Pew Research polls.

    The era of trust in government is over.

    What explains the crash and burn of trust in government?

    Wasn’t the Obama presidency supposed to be a “change we can believe in,” a time in which the role of and faith in government was to be exalted?

    In substance, the Obama 2008 campaign theme turned Jack Kennedy’s famous inaugural speech line on its head: Ask not what you could do for your country, but what your country could do for you.

    Barack Obama was from the government, and he was here to help.

    And “help” he did.

    The Stimulus Plan was the first “help” the Obama administration and Democrats offered the country. But tens of billions of dollars were wasted on projects that were not – as Obama later admitted – actually shovel ready.

    The Stimulus Plan was money in search of a way to spend it, and much of that contrived spending went indirectly to public sector unions by propping up unsustainable state budgets.

    We have very little to show for the Stimulus Plan, and even less to show from Obama’s other major domestic initiative, Obamacare.

    Obamacare, which still is unpopular and has not gained acceptance in most states which refuse to set up state exchanges, was the Reagan maxim on steroids: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help whether you like it or not.”

    “You can keep your health insurance and doctor if you like them” is what we were told, but just the opposite was true.

    Obamacare “helped” by incentivizing employers to drop coverage or to turn full-time employees into part-time employees.

    Obamacare also forced millions of people in the individual market to give up health insurance plans they liked, and to purchase plans they didn’t want. Or worse, forced them onto Medicaid, where there will be few doctors willing to see them because the reimbursement rates are so low.

    The debacle of the Obamacare federal exchange website was just icing on the cake. And through it all, there still will be tens of millions of people without health insurance.

    Oh, and let’s not forget Cash-for-Clunkers, the program to take older and less-pricey vehicles off our roads. Those clunkers, however, served the poorest sectors of the population. Removing those clunkers from the roads distorted the used car market and priced out the poorest among us.

    As bad as The Stimulus Plan, Obamacare and Cash-for-Clunkers were, at least government was pretending to help.

    In addition, there have been a series of high profile scandals, both home and abroad, in which the Obama administration destroyed trust in government not through negligence, but through malfeasance.

    In Benghazi, the administration ignored threats to our consulate, yet when the threats were realized, the Obama administration acted as if it was a surprise resulting from a video protest. The best then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could offer by way of explanation was “what difference does it make.”

    The IRS scandal, in which Tea Party and Conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were targeted by Lois Lerner and others, continues to amaze. From missing emails and disappeared hard drives to Lerner’s pleading the 5th in order to avoid testifying, the IRS scandal confirms our worst fears about the imperial bureaucracy.

    The Fast and Furious gun-running scheme, in which the U.S. government sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels without necessary tracking controls, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry as well.

    Let’s not forget also that our foreign policy in tatters. Misguided and naïve expectations as to the threat posed by radical Islam invested the United States in supporting Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even as it set upon a course of destroying civil and secular freedoms. Our Egypt failure was rescued only by the Egyptian military.

    That same recklessness opened the window of opportunity for the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, to such an extent that even Jimmy Carter is criticizing the Obama administration’s inaction and confusion.

    The culture of failure is exemplified by the continuing scandals at the Secret Service, once the gold standard of good government. Who would have thought we’d have agents assigned to protect a president visiting prostitutes and allowing an intruder armed with a knife to run through the White House?

    If we can’t even trust the Secret Service, who in government can we trust?

    Perhaps a few months ago you could respond that we still can trust the Centers for Disease Control. How’s that working now, in light of bungled response to the Ebola outbreak? First we were told not to worry, it couldn’t happen here. Then it happened here and despite months of notice, the CDC protocols to be used by local hospitals were unclear and unenforced.

    Barack Obama has proven Ronald Reagan right.

    If government wants to help, start by leaving us alone, and by honoring the limits on the federal government set forth in the Constitution.

  99. There is no reset button to be found here.

    Big media and Obama together have put the American People light years behind the 8 ball.

    Millions who walked into this death chamber with eyes closed will one day find that they too are the victims.

    The most we can hope for here is to stop the bleeding.

    The first step to doing that is to get rid of the dimocrats AND big media all in the same breath.

    We can only fight them with the tools we have—the vote and the channel changer.

    Never, ever, lower yourself to buy NYT or WashPo or any local newspaper that features their columns.

    And, friends don’t let friends by those propaganda organs either.

    Remember how in The Prison Diaries, the Italian communist Gramsci chided the working class for spending their modest incomes purchasing the newspapers of the bourgeois newspapers. The same principle should apply to the American People who are tempted to buy the NYT or WashPo. They are no more trustworthy than their big media loved messiah. In fact, they are one in the same.


    Her biggest problem won’t be age, her campaign strategy, or GOP attacks. It will be that many voters lack faith in government.


    And the hope that Obama could restore some order to a dysfunctional government seems to have vaporized with it, if current polls are to be believed. It may be Clinton now who has to pick up the pieces and somehow make the Democratic case for an activist, effective federal bureaucracy, an argument that has become harder to make.

    Obama “has made a lot of mistakes. People thought he was an agent of change, but what he didn’t have was executive experience,” says Al From, the founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and a top adviser to President Bill Clinton. “Running the government is more than the politics of good intentions.”

    The combination of frustration over the Iraq War and the government’s halting response to Hurricane Katrina helped do in Bush—and by extension, John McCain in 2008. The legacy that Obama would bequeath to Clinton is more nuanced, pockmarked by a cascade of smaller-scale institutional failures—particularly in the president’s second term—all of which, added together, suggest not a shining city on a hill, but more of a rickety shack by the railroad tracks.


    The resulting composite is a picture of a government that rarely seems to be able to get out of its own way, while doing little to improve the lots of Americans who worry about stagnant wages, college costs, or child care. That’s what a Hillary Clinton candidacy will have to push back against. And what drives progressives to distraction these days is the belief that a majority of Americans are with them when it comes to economic issues, but has soured on the capacity of the government to deliver on them. “What we have seen is a dramatic decline in people’s sense of the ability to get it done,” says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “The efficacy.”


    The hurdles facing Clinton were well illustrated last week when she appeared at a campaign event with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and appeared to embrace Warren’s brand of economic populism, stumbling when she seemed to suggest that only government could create jobs, not the private sector.

    That’s not Clinton’s message, obviously; she later backtracked. But it underscored a core weakness of populist politics—that it often relies on government action to help level the economic playing field. The irony, as Tanden notes, is that just when voters feeling squeezed by the economy need a robust government to protect them “from the vagaries of technology and globalization,” they’re losing faith in it.

    Clinton, or any other Democratic candidate, is “going to have to take on the argument that government needs to be effective,” she says. (Tanden also serves as an adviser to Clinton, but stressed she’s not speaking for her.) “You can’t just dismiss the argument out of hand.”

    Progressives may not like it, but Clinton’s camp could take a page out of Bill Clinton’s handbook. President Clinton made reform of the federal government a priority, while, with the help of Vice President Al Gore, slicing the size of the bureaucracy. He went as far as declaring “the era of big government is over” in 1996.


    If Hillary Clinton does indeed mount another presidential bid, those are the headwinds into which she’ll sail. And more than issues about her age, style, campaign staff, or her politics, it’s possible that her most fundamental challenge will be a simple matter of trust.

  101. Here’s an idea.

    ISIS is still holding western hostages. Correct?

    If past is prologue, they will chop off their heads. Right?

    And, on the odds, these people do not deserve it. True?

    Well, then, perhaps a prisoner exchange would be in order?

    They give us a hostage.

    We give them Zuckerberg in exchange.

    Sound fair?

    There is no doubt that our current immigration system is dysfunctional.

    I know of a doctor from Iran, who is tops in his field, was offered teaching positions at Stanford, Princeton and Harvard, but was forced to decline those offers because he could not get through the red tape, while millions of low skilled illegals flood across our border, so the dimocrats can have a permanent lock on power.

    That doctor has become a professor at McGill University in Toronto. And Canada, to its credit, is now soliciting world class scientists to come there rather than here, because of our dysfunctional immigration system.

    Further proof as if any more was needed that the big media beloved, installed and swoddeled oh why can’t he govern the way he campaigned asshole could not run a whore house during a gold rush. But he can sure find ways to reward the whores, with other peoples money–from the 10th tee.

    Yes, give them Zuckerberg.

    He puts me in mind of the old Chinese story, where they found that the meat they ate tasted better after the house burned down, and from that they extrapolated that the way to cook meat was to burn down the house–rather than cook the meat in an oven.

    Yes, give Zuckerberg to ISIS and make the world a better place.

    SANTA MONICA, California —, the immigration reform initiative founded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, plans to launch a massive political push in December to support President Barack Obama’s planned executive action on immigration. On Tuesday evening, it brought roughly 100 entrepreneurs to a “mini-hackathon” at tech incubator Cross Campus as part of a nationwide push to support the president’s strategy.

  102. Coninued: There was no discussion at the Santa Monica meeting of technological innovations to improve border security, to verify employees’ immigration status, or to educate prospective immigrants about how to come to the country legally. Nor was there any mention of the constitutional separation of powers, which theoretically require the president to execute the laws passed by Congress, not to impose his own legislative will by executive fiat.

  103. November midterms: A tale of two elections

    By Patrick Caddell
    ·Published October 31, 2014·

    Facebook4 Twitter10 livefyre6 Email Print

    For some weeks now on our Fox News show “Political Insiders,” I have been expressing my concern that if we look at the polls, we seem to have two elections going on.

    With only days to go before the midterm elections we continue to see a true anomaly which is a strong national position for the Republicans nationally and yet a host of very close elections for dozens of key races in the Senate, House and for governor.

    Despite millions of dollars spent on scorched earth negative television advertising, from both parties, the electorate seems strangely detached and disengaged from it all.

    Even if you credit the Democrats with running superior tactical campaigns in individual races — which is quite disputable — what still is baffling is why such a massive national mood is not being translated into an at least the traditional “throw the bums out” groundswell.

    Frustrated, angry and scared as hell as American voters may be they just don’t seem to be that engaged with the current campaign compared to past elections. And perhaps why should they be?

    Record numbers of Americans say the U.S. is in actual decline, that their children, the next generation will be worse off than our current generation, worse off than their parents and the majority who feel that even if you play by the rules and work hard, ordinary Americans can’t get ahead. These historic negative sentiments are fueling an environment of concern, apprehension and even fear. — Even if almost no one running dares to mention them.

    However, in the key individual races in states every campaign seems only tearing down an opponent and almost none of the candidates from either party are offering real visions for how to revitalize America.

    Yet, at the national level the picture could not be brighter for the Republican Party.

    President Obama has been getting very low job approval numbers for some time. And opposition to his handling of various policies has become almost all negative. Huge majorities of voters believe the country is off track and going in the wrong direction.

    The Obama administration has been beset by a series of political sinkholes. Leaving aside the long-simmering opposition to ObamaCare, and scandals like Benghazi, the IRS and Fast and Furious, in recent months we have had one disaster after another: Starting with the VA crisis where incompetence and indifference has led to the inability of our veterans to not only not get the health services they’re due but even resulting in deaths.

    The overwhelming of our southern border by unaccompanied immigrant children, which was not only a humanitarian disaster but has reinforced the belief among voters that the U.S. cannot control its borders.

    The crisis in the Ukraine, where Russian President Putin has clearly read Obama’s weakness as an invitation for his annexing of the Crimea and his de facto invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

    Then there’s the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl exchange which, despite laws to the contrary, saw the U.S. trade a soldier, whose conduct on the battlefield was questionable to say the least, being hailed as a hero by the Obama administration, and traded for four top Taliban terrorist leaders. Now the investigation into the prisoner exchange and Bergdahl’s conduct while serving in the military has been put on ice until after the election.

    But wait, there’s still more. There’s the rise of ISIS and its sweep across Iraq, parts of Syria and the absolute breakdown of the Iraqi army to oppose it. For the first time we have a terrorist army occupying territory larger than the country of Belgium and routinely massacring, crucifying and raping the people whom it is occupying. And to that the strategy and action of the United States in response has been dubious in the eyes of most Americans. And now we have lone wolf attacks by terrorists in Canada and possibly in New York.

    Finally, we have the handling of the Ebola crisis by the Obama administration which has come as its own October surprise.

    Indeed there have been so many crises that have come so quickly, one on top of another, that it is understandable that it’s hard for voters to keep track of them all.

    With all of this, as well as an economy that most Americans feel still is not benefiting them, history will tell us that voter sentiment should be favoring a landslide on behalf of the opposition party. Indeed, most but not all of the national polls seem to be breaking strongly for Republicans in the generic vote making the prospect of a landslide very real.

    And yet, the opposition party, the GOP has not been able to lock down victories in Senate races even in red states. In race after race the polls tell us, heading into an election in 4 days, that the races still are too close to call.

    What’s going on?

    I’m not sure anyone really knows the answer to this question but I want to offer some possible reasons.

    1. As much as voters might want to chastise the president and the Democratic Party it’s unclear that they are unhappy with rewarding the Republican Party whose brand has been highly negative since 2012.

    2. Surprisingly, for most of the two year cycle since 2012, the Dems — at all levels — have been outraising the Republican Party by large margins. And they also seem to have had at least a semi-coordination of message even if it has not been particularly illuminating.

    3. Of course, to this must be added, the overall alienation, cynicism and anger of a vast majority of voters towards the political class in Washington and what they feel is a government which no longer works for them. Which may explain why independent and third party candidates are doing better than ever and may be the decisive factor in many races.

    Even if you credit the Democrats with running superior tactical campaigns in individual races — which is quite disputable — what still is baffling is why such a massive national mood is not being translated into an at least the traditional “throw the bums out” groundswell.

    I think part of the answer lies in the failure of the leadership of the Republican Party — and its allies — to provide even a semblance of a positive message and secondly a failure to nationalize the 2014 campaign with a national campaign.

    In 1994, the image remains of every Republican candidate running for Congress and the Senate standing together on the steps of the Capitol with their “Contract for America.”

    In truth, no voters really knew what the Contract with American was, but there was at least the sense that Republicans were uniting around some kind of alternatives to the Clinton policies and were standing for real change.

    Since the election in 2012, my colleagues and I on “Political Insiders,” have hammered away at the need for Republicans to put forth some kind of vision of what they would do to change the direction of America. And nothing has come. The country still waits.

    Having abandoned a strategy of offering a party-wide positive vision the national Republican leadership has eschewed any kind of nationwide campaign message. Instead, more and more money and tens of thousands of political spots are being dumped onto voters in well less than half of the 50 states.

    If you want to have a referendum election on the president, which all the evidence suggests would offer much promise, you could imagine the message as quite simple: how about national advertising which took the president’s own statement about his policies being on the ballot and featuring either specific policies or even a montage reminding voters of all the terrible things they feel and ending with this, “if you don’t like these policies, then send Barack Obama the message: vote Republican.”

    As the Fox News poll has been asking, if the president’ policies were on the ballot, would you vote for them or against them, and the results have been consistently around 36 percent in favor, 58 percent opposed, one might think that would be a sagacious strategy.

    But the failure to run a national message campaign, with national advertising in 2014, while it may not be a fatal mistake is a disastrous failure of political imagination.

    The benefits of running a national message/advertising campaign are several. First, as we know in big wave elections, there are races on election night across the country that are shocking upset winners in races across the country that almost no one predicted.

    If your intention is to ignite a national tide wouldn’t you want to carry your national message not just in the states that you think are competitive but in places where you have candidates running who are under-funded and may not be on the radar screen?

    In addition, it would provide a national framework around the individual contests being waged in states and districts. And believe it or not, it would be more efficient, less costly than to continuing to have to jam more ads into already oversaturated television markets in tight races.

    It astounds me that the 2014 midterm election has not seen the utilization of a national campaign. Having a deserted the possibility of any positive platform the thematic imperative is crystal clear: SEND PRESIDENT OBAMA A MESSAGE — ENOUGH! As Marshall McLuhan famously said, “the medium is the message.”

    For voters in this kind of an election, where the electorate is unhappy with everyone, why not go right to the heart of their dissatisfaction?

    The reasons that the Republican Party doesn’t have the imagination to have overlaid a national campaign – everywhere — will remain a mystery.

    Some will say it’s because the consultants will make far less money on national advertising than they do in the knockdown, drag out state advertising.

    Some will say, “this is the way we always do it” which is definitely not true. Some will say, “this is the way it’s done and works.” And still others will say that the “stupid party” resembles nothing more than the World War I French and British constantly wasting their armies across no-man’s land, learning nothing from every defeat.

    I leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions. However, one thing stands out. If the results on Tuesday night are a surprising large Republican landslide, this question will be left to aficionados. However, if the Republicans come up short in an election they should have won easily this year, this question should be at the forefront of why they did not succeed.

    Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of “Political Insiders” Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on “ Live

  104. I think part of the answer lies in the failure of the leadership of the Republican Party — and its allies — to provide even a semblance of a positive message and secondly a failure to nationalize the 2014 campaign with a national campaign.
    No doubt about that.

    Consultants, weak leaders and turning on their own base do not make for electoral success.

  105. I can imagine a million arguments at family gatherings about the future of the country.

    Most of these arguments are nothing more than a warmed over version of talking points proffered by the two parties.

    Rather than debating the merits of these argument which can become heated and end in a declaration you have not persuaded me

    Why not first say: you do not really believe that do you? (That statement will elicit a response like absolutely!)

    Then say: then show me your evidence

    And when they do so, shoot holes in their evidence.

    No need to present contrary evidence which they can attack, and do not let them put you on the defensive, or go revert to the general argument.

    Just show them that they are absolutely committed to an evidence free position.

Comments are closed.