#ReadyForHillary ??? Wake Up Hillary!!! – They’re In Your Head And Want You To Be A Human Shield For Obama

We recently asked “Is Hillary Clinton Stupid? Or Sabotaged?” The answer at this moment in time, before the big meeting on November 21st in New York City, has to sadly be: BOTH. If you are angry at us for this answer read the evidence we provide below and honestly ask yourself the same question and you will come to the very same answer.

In “Is Hillary Clinton Stupid? Or Sabotaged?” we denounced the stupidity of Hillary Clinton campaigning for any Obama Dimocrat in 2014. The results came in on Tuesday and aside from incoherent blatherings about how “Hillary won” the evidence is clear that Hillary should have stayed home with her mouth tightly shut.

The “Hillary won” crowd says Hillary got “chits” from campaigning. Replace the “c” with an “s” and that is what Hillary got. Hillary should have sat back, shut up, and have the party come crawling to her. She doesn’t need no damned dirty chits. Begala: Democrats have no one but Hillary for 2016.

Look at what another ostensible Hillary supporter provides as a strategy for Barack Obama in the next two years and if you can still defend Hillary Clinton’s intelligence you are far too too generous:

“We’ll never see 51 percent again, maybe not even 50,” predicted one of his former campaign aides.

If there’s a ray of hope—and this is the paradox of a late-stage 21st-century presidency—it’s that people will start ignoring him.

Veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Obama’s secret weapon just might turn out to be Hillary Clinton—who could divert attention from the White House and allow him to attack multiple crises without the klieg-light scrutiny he has faced in the past. “Once Hillary becomes more important than Obama, the attention shifts,” says Greenberg, who helped advise Clinton’s husband. That’s a good thing, Greenberg argues, because Obama and his team have been so lousy about messaging what he believes to be a fundamentally competent and accomplished presidency. “I think there might be a shift to the job he’s doing versus what he’s saying about the job he’s doing. … That’s important because he’s demonstrably failed on communicating about his economic plans and on his health care reforms and on his environmental record—everything really,” Greenberg says. Scathingly, he concludes: “No one knows about any of it. … There is no part of that he has been successful at.”

Hillary as human shield for the boob Barack. Lovely. Hillary listens to this guy??? Stupid!!!! Still think we’re wrong?

Hillary Clinton wasted 2014 in campaigns for people like Bruce Braley. Braley in 2008 begged Hillary to raise money for him. Hillary raised money for Braley. Braley then endorsed John Edwards. Braley in 2014 asked Hillary to campaign for him. Hillary campaigned for him. Hillary now has the first woman elected statewide in Iowa who will be fully justified when she attacks Hillary.

Why will Joni Ernst be fully justified in attacking Hillary Clinton? Look at what Hillary Clinton said as she campaigned for John Edwards endorser Bruce Braley:

“I would also add, it’s not enough to be a woman. You have to be committed to expand rights and opportunities for all women,” Hillary Clinton said at a Wednesday campaign event for Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Bruce Braley, Joni Ernst’s opponent in Iowa.

The “eighteen million cracks in the ceiling” battle cry ends with a crackpot remark on behalf of a John Edwards supporter. We guess the courageous Beijing speech on behalf of womens’ rights was only for certain women. The rights of women ends at the thin blue line? Women who dissent on “progressive” issues need not apply? Women who think third trimester abortions are a problem have to go not in the back of the bus but under the bus? Is this a way to inaugurate a smart campaign for the first woman president? And all this on behalf of a man who stabbed Hillary in the back to endorse that paragon of virtue John Edwards??? Is any of this smart???



And when I heard that, I heard people in the middle getting permission from Hillary Clinton to reject her based on gender alone. In other words, you don’t need to vote for me just because I’m a woman.

If Hillary Clinton decides to run in 2016, after the November 21st meeting, expect to see the video of those stupid remarks played repeatedly every time Hillary or any Hillary supporters mentions that it is time for a woman in the White House. There will be no “context” provided for the remarks because the video will send the message Hillary opponents need. And this on behalf of a John Edwards supporter who fuc*ed her over in 2008.

That’s the “good” news focused on Hillary’s Losers. Now comes the really bad stuff. Hillary Clinton is being sabotaged by Barack Obama supporters and she is apparently too stupid, thus far, to realize it. Think that’s harsh? Read on.


Jut Jaw

For their election issue Politico Magazine featured on the cover an article by Hillary Hater Extraordinaire Maggie Haberman. That article is the latest marriage of Big Media Hillary Haters with Barack Obama Cult leaders. It was a stunning bit of writing because it was packed full with historical revisions and sought to force Hillary Clinton to become a human shield for Barack Obama. We hope that Hillary Clinton wakes up from her stupor when she reads that article as well as the one we write here today.

To fully appreciate the viciousness of Haberman’s article you must compare the picture we use of Hillary Clinton stared down upon by a jut jawed nasty Barack Obama, with the picture chosen by Politco. Take a good long look at the picture in the Politico hit piece. The picture Politico uses is of a haggard, worn out, mean looking Hillary Clinton looking at Barack Obama with evil intent. That picture tells you everything you need to know about the Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman’s article.

The picture tells you all you need to know. The people quoted in the article is the next clue you need to understand that Big Media Politico and Barack Obama Hillary Haters have joined to force Hillary Clinton to be Barack Obama’s human shield.

Lastly, before you read the article, recall what happened in 2008. In 2008 Big Media defended Barack Obama for every lie and nasty remark he made. Big Media swooned every time Barack Obama yapped some banality or stupidity. Big Media protected Barack Obama and attacked anyone who dared admonish Barack Obama in any way.

In 2008 Big Media did not just protect and swoon over Barack Obama. Big Media actively attacked Hillary Clinton (later John McCain, but not as much as Hillary). Anything Hillary Clinton said in 2008 was attacked. Any literature Hillary Clinton 2008 produced was analyzed and mocked. Any Hillary Clinton 2008 supporter was denounced as possibly racist or an outright racist.

That is what happened in 2008. Big Media did everything to protect Barack Obama and destroy Hillary Clinton. That is what happened. There was no brilliant Barack Obama campaign.

In 2008 at every debate Hillary Clinton had to fight not only Barack Obama but the Big Media “moderators”
as well. In every state Hillary Clinton had as opponents the Barack Obama campaign and their Big Media surrogates. That is what happened.

Politico in it’s Maggie Haberman Hillary Hate article wants to convince you and Hillary Clinton of revisionist lies and advocates for Hillary Clinton to continue to be stupid and be an Obama human shield:

One afternoon in late September, David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s former campaign manager and most trusted political aide, slipped into Hillary Clinton’s stately red-brick home on Whitehaven Street in Washington, D.C., to lay out his vision for her 2016 presidential campaign. The Clintons have always made a habit of courting their most talented tormenters, so it wasn’t surprising that she would call on the man who masterminded her 2008 defeat as she finds herself besieged by Republicans replaying Plouffe’s greatest hits.

Over the next couple of hours, Plouffe told Clinton and two of her closest advisers—longtime aide Cheryl Mills and John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and now Obama’s White House counselor—what she needed to do to avoid another surprise upset. His advice, according to two people with knowledge of the session, looked a lot like Obama’s winning strategy in 2012: First, prioritize the use of real-time analytics, integrating data into every facet of her operation in a way Clinton’s clumsy, old-school campaign had failed to do in 2008. Second, clearly define a rationale for her candidacy that goes beyond the mere facts of her celebrity and presumed electability, rooting her campaign in a larger Democratic mission of economic equality. Third, settle on one, and only one, core messaging strategy and stick with it, to avoid the tactical, news cycle-driven approach that Plouffe had exploited so skillfully against her in the 2008 primaries.

In Plouffe’s view, articulated in the intervening years, Clinton had been too defensive, too reactive, too aware of her own weaknesses, too undisciplined in 2008. His team would goad her into making mistakes, knowing that run-of-the-mill campaign attacks (like Obama’s claim she merely had “tea,” not serious conversation, with world leaders as first lady) would get under her skin and spur a self-destructive overreaction (Clinton responded to the tea quip by falsely portraying a 1990s goodwill trip to Bosnia with the comedian Sinbad as a dangerous wartime mission). She was too easily flustered.

Plouffe’s last and most pressing point was about timing. A couple of weeks earlier, Clinton had told an audience in Mexico City, “I am going to be making a decision … probably after the first of the year, about whether I’m going to run again or not.” The comment alarmed top Democrats: The Republican attack machine was already revving up, running anti-Hillary focus groups to figure out her vulnerabilities, dispatching opposition researchers to Arkansas, churning out anti-Hillary books and creating Fox News-fodder talking points to cast her State Department tenure as a failure and her campaign-to-be as a third-term extension of Obama’s increasingly unpopular presidency.

Now Plouffe, with the politesse of a man accustomed to padding around a president, implored her to start assembling a campaign as soon as possible and to dispense with the coy fiction that she’s not running in 2016. “Why not?” he asked. “They are already going after you.”

[snip]

Can she do it? After months of anodyne sit-downs promoting her book, Clinton finally seems to be heeding some of Plouffe’s advice, using her appearances for candidates late in the 2014 midterms as a dry run for her own 2016 message, a mix of the new Democratic populism, feminism—and old-fashioned Republican-bashing.

They, Obama’s top henchmen, are in Hillary’s head. In 2008 Obama’s thugs and Big Media allied to stop Hillary and they’re at it again. Hillary Clinton is now taking advice from her enemies. Hillary Clinton should reject those whose only interest is that Hillary Clinton be a Palestine style human shield for Barack Obama.

The rest of the Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman article is a reiteration of all the stupid attacks against Hillary Clinton. This is all an attempt to hide the only attack that will destroy Hillary Clinton 2016: tie Hillary to Barack Obama.

The only attack that will destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 is one that ties Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. 2008 was not a failure of “analytics” it was a story of Big Media protection of Barack Obama and hatred of Hillary Clinton. Now, make Hillary Clinton even smell like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton 2016 is doomed.

But the attempt to tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama is not only an attack by Republicans/conservatives. It is Barack Obama and Barack Obama cultists who most want to tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama and use Hillary as a human shield to protect Barack Obama.

Shortly after Tuesday’s elections Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman tried again:

Even before networks officially declared a Republican majority in the Senate, Democrats were openly saying they hope Clinton will declare for 2016 soon after Election Day.

That sentiment is about to become overwhelming, as the party tries to recover from an election night hangover that’s worse than most operatives on either side had anticipated. The evening, almost entirely devoid of bright spots for Democrats, was a shellacking for President Barack Obama. It will only accelerate the party’s look ahead to its next leader, especially among donors, who want someone to rally around.

Clinton has spent two years as the prohibitive Democratic front-runner in the polls despite keeping politics largely at arm’s length until the end of the midterms. Some of her advisers have suggested opening an exploratory committee this year to allow her to raise money sooner, while others are adamant that she should wait until next year.

The advisers Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman cites who want Hillary Clinton to declare right after November 21st’s meeting are all Obama henchmen. These Obama cultists wanted and to a large extent got Hillary to immolate herself in 2014. Now these Obama cultists want Hillary to take on some of the Obama stink on the elections. These Obama cultists want Hillary to fight the Republican congress for two years and be a human shield for Barack Obama.

More from Hillary Hater Haberman:

Some Democrats said Tuesday night that Clinton will want to wait a bit to let the 2014 midterms pass, and to get some distance between herself and a bloodbath for her party. She also genuinely doesn’t seem ready to flip a switch on a campaign: A number of decisions still remain about staffing and, more importantly, messaging.

But others believe Clinton can’t afford to be coy about her intentions beyond the next few weeks, and forming an exploratory committee without an official announcement will not satisfy some donors and activists.

She can run against Washington more easily now

Clinton’s major problem was always going to be running as the candidate of the two-term party in power. Separating from Obama poses major risks for a Democrat who had trouble with portions of the base in 2008 and who served in the administration for four years.

The fact that Tuesday’s election that was seen largely as a statement against Obama may give Clinton some wiggle room with her own base to create distance from him. But a newly minted Republican Senate helps her to solve the problem of how to run against Washington. [snip]

A GOP-held Senate gives her a clear point of contrast to run against.

That’s what the Obama cultists want: Hillary Clinton to fight the Republican congress and be a human shield for Barack Obama. Hillary should stink herself up and help Obama and Obama supporter Reid??? Let’s bring up that bit from up top in our article “Hillary Clinton— who could divert attention from the White House and allow him to attack multiple crises without the klieg-light scrutiny. Be a human shield for Barack Obama Hillary and you become irredeemably stupid.

Al Gore was irredeemably stupid when he ran away from Bill Clinton in 2000. In 2000 Bill Clinton was a popular president with a strong economy and many achievements. Al Gore was stupid. But Barack Obama ain’t Bill. Barack Obama is hated and is better known as Ebola Obama with an Ebola Obama Economy. Josh kraushaar made a good case as to why the Obama thugs were wrong when they wanted to tie Obama Dimocrats to Obama:

White House in Denial: President Obama Is Costing Democrats Control of the Senate

The administration insists that vulnerable Democrats should have supported him more. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

No one should tie themselves to Ebola Obama. Hillary and Hillary Clinton 2016 must run away from Ebola Obama.

So what is going on and what does Hillary need to wake up to? (1) Obama henchmen want Hillary to be Barack Obama’s human shield. While Obama golfs Hillary will be under attack by Republicans who will be aided by Obama thugs who will feed Republicans and Big Media information with which to attack Hillary. (2) Some Hillary supporters in the political consulting class want the money flow to start to drip into their pockets. (3) Big Media wants the money to flow into their advertisement coffers too as well as protect Barack Obama with Hillary as the human shield and target.

There are some Hillary supporters, like us, who try to shake Hillary awake from her stupor. We’re not alone:

Clinton Allies Resist Calls to Jump Early Into 2016 Race

Veteran Hillary Clinton advisers say she shouldn’t accelerate her early 2015 timetable for announcing whether she’ll run for president, despite calls from prominent backers of President Barack Obama for her to enter the race soon after Tuesday’s congressional elections.

In interviews and e-mail exchanges, six political operatives closely aligned with Clinton offered up overlapping lists of reasons why they don’t expect her to jump in this year. [snip]

“Can’t we get through the holidays first?” asked Paul Begala, the strategist who helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992 and is a consultant for the Clinton-backing super-PAC Priorities USA. “Do we really need to deny her her first Christmas with her first granddaughter? Really?”

Such is the desperation amongst real Hillary Clinton supporters that we are forced to try to wake up Hillary Clinton with rancid appeals to grandmotherhood. But Obama thugs are in Hillary’s head and everything must be done to wake Hillary up from stupid:

The mostly behind-the-scenes fight revolves around the question of what’s best for the party now and for trying to keep the White House in 2016. But it breaks down mostly along an old fault line: Clinton versus Obama.

In September, David Plouffe, the architect of Barack Obama’s 2008 primary victory over Clinton, advised her in a private session that she should make her run official sooner rather than later, and mega-donor Steve Mostyn said “if Hillary is going to run, it would be best to do it quickly post-election,” according to recent reports in Politico. The New York Times also reported last month that Clinton is getting pressure to rally the party right after the midterms by jumping into the presidential race.

Mostyn and his wife Amber gave $3 million to the super-PAC Priorities USA to help re-elect Obama in 2012, and they were backers of John Edwards in 2008 before Steve Mostyn began donating to Obama that year. They are now max-out donors — the super-PAC limits contributions to $25,000 — for the super-PAC Ready for Hillary, which has solicited support from contributors previously associated with Obama, as well as longtime Clinton contributors.

Fancy that, Obama contributors want Hillary to make herself a target and become Obama’s human shield. To that end Plouffe sticks in the knife with the “trust” issue:

The campaign he ran against her in 2008 operated on the premise that voters didn’t trust her, a view that could persist if Clinton is perceived to be pretending not to run while she appears to be doing just that.

Brian Wolff, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who is a longtime supporter of both Clintons, said the former Secretary of State would do well to keep her own counsel, rather than listen to what Obama’s strategists want.

“Those people advised him well in winning the presidency, but clearly haven’t been consistent on advising him well since,” Wolff said of Plouffe and other Obama strategists. “Hillary doesn’t need their advice. She’s got a great team around her.

Plouffe didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Hooray for Brian Woolff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, by the way, Plouffe was up to his tricks today in the New York Times:

“We shouldn’t just assume that the Obama voters will automatically come out for Democratic presidential candidates,” cautioned David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager.

Why are we writing this? Why did we write Is Hillary Clinton Stupid? Or Sabotaged?? Why did we write The Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess? It’s because of this:

The juxtaposition of Clinton’s plans with those who want her to announce sooner rather than later will be in sharp relief in Manhattan on November 21.

Ready for Hillary is convening a donor conference that day at the Sheraton Times Square, where the Clinton Global Initiative holds its annual summits. [snip]

One Democratic strategist with ties to the Clintons said she should let the situation settle down after the midterms rather than associating herself with losses that will otherwise be blamed on Obama. [snip]

If she can stand back as Republicans begin jockeying for 2016, she’ll benefit, this adviser said, adding that the challenge for Clinton will be to energize her support base without getting overexposed in 2015.

That has been a danger of her recent barnstorming for Democratic candidates, which, along with a bumpy book tour this summer, has hampered her national approval ratings.

“She has been on the stump, which is going to knock down the apolitical luster she gained as Secretary of State and drag her poll numbers back to Earth,” Begala said. “I suspect she thinks that’s worth it to help all those good Democrats.”

We’ll end with this bit of wisdom to shake Hillary Clinton awake from her stupors and to shake away those Obama thugs who are in her head:

Another adviser, who worked with Clinton at State, said he thinks she’ll wait as long as possible before making an announcement, provided that she plans to run. Those who are advising her otherwise, he said, are pursuing their own agendas.

Now, that is smart.

Wake up Hillary, you have nothing to lose but your oppressors.

Share

115 thoughts on “#ReadyForHillary ??? Wake Up Hillary!!! – They’re In Your Head And Want You To Be A Human Shield For Obama

  1. Sharpton, “blame Hillary”:

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/06/sharpton-election-a-defeat-for-bill-and-hillary-clinton-not-obama-video/

    Sharpton: Election A Defeat For Bill And Hillary Clinton, Not Obama [VIDEO]

    Al Sharpton attempted to defend President Barack Obama from criticism that he was a major factor in the Republican’s sweeping victory in the midterm elections by blaming the Clintons on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday.

    Cokie Roberts pointed out how Obama “went to states and campaigned for candidates and they lost.”

    “Very late,” Sharpton responded. “Cokie, he went out two weeks ago, while Clinton went all over the place. Is this a Clinton defeat? Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton…the cavalry is coming in. Well, the cavalry got beat. Is this a Clinton defeat? I think we’re Obama obsessed.”

  2. Lu4PUMA, this is the mentality we’re up against:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-s-supporters-see-vindication-in-dems-2014-debacle-20141105

    Elizabeth Warren’s Supporters See Vindication in Dems’ 2014 Debacle
    It’s the first round of the Democrats’ struggle to define themselves in the wake of their midterm defeat.

    Don’t blame Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats’ midterm defeat. Follow her back to victory.

    That’s the message progressives have for their fellow Democrats after Tuesday’s widespread losses. Warren’s supporters say the party fell short because it failed to emphasize the Massachusetts senator’s message of economic populism—and that pushing that message is the road back to congressional control.

    Elizabeth Warren was the most popular Democrat on the campaign trail this cycle—in red states, purple states, and blue states,” said Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “And that’s because her economic populist message … resonates everywhere.”

    It’s just an initial shot, but it’s a sign of things to come. As the party autopsies its 2014 loss, factions promise to further fracture as they debate what went wrong, who’s to blame, and where to go next. And for progressives, that means a concerted effort to pull the party to the left. [snip]

    With Democrats on the outs in Congress, however, those calls promise to get louder.

    Warren’s allies point to Tuesday night’s results as proof that their preferred candidate has national appeal.

    Warren hit the trail for Democratic candidates across the map this year, in deep-blue states like Oregon and red ones like West Virginia and Kentucky. She spoke about economic populism issues such as the minimum wage, fixing student-debt problems, and expanding Social Security, a message that worked in states across the ideological spectrum.

    While Republicans immediately jumped on both President Obama and Hillary Clinton as the major losers of the night, Warren appeared to have a better track record in the races where she personally campaigned for candidates. [snip]

    Democracy for America, another progressive group that’s among Warren’s biggest cheerleaders, sent an email to its supporters touting Warren-esque candidates like Merkley and Schatz.

    The bright spots in this election come from candidates who understood that the path to victory is to run hard on a populist progressive economic vision—Elizabeth Warren’s vision for fighting and winning across America,” the email said.

    On the issues, allies note that Warren’s positions won out in some red states even if Democratic candidates there didn’t. Minimum-wage measures passed in four states—Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Nebraska—even as voters there favored Republican Senate candidates (in Alaska, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is trailing his GOP opponent, though the race hasn’t been called yet).

    Charles Chamberlain, DFA’s executive director, said the fact that minimum-wage measures passed even as Democratic candidates fell in some states shows that Warren’s messaging and stand on issues could have helped Democrats who ultimately lost on Tuesday.

    “Look, the same voters [who] voted to raise minimum wage in South Dakota voted to elect [Republican] Mike Rounds,” he said. “The problem isn’t what we stand for, it’s who stands for us. Those Democrats [who lost] were not strong enough on our issues.

    So are the results of the midterms enough to make Warren reconsider a presidential run? It was a rough night for Clinton—and as Republicans jump on her midterm record ahead of 2016, there could be an opening for a Democrat who’s seen as more of an outsider. And for Warren, who will soon be in the minority in the Senate, seeking national office would certainly give her a bigger platform to compensate for her diminished clout in the upper chamber.

    “If I were Sen. Warren I’d be thinking about, what is the strongest way for me to advocate for the change I believe we need to see in America?” Chamberlain said. “When you think about it—languishing in the minority versus leading the entire country—I think that’s a real strong calculation she’s going to have to make.”

    Erica Sagrans, the treasurer for the draft-Warren group Ready for Warren, which is ramping up its activities on behalf of the senator (and with which Warren has denied all involvement), said Tuesday’s result “does change the calculation” for Warren because a presidential bid could “give more of a voice to her ideas and values.”

    Regardless, supporters say she’ll have a role in shaping the overall Democratic message in 2016 no matter what her decision is—and that her influence on Clinton, for example, is already clear.

  3. More from the NYTimes to combat “Hillary won” syndrome:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/politics/in-states-seen-to-be-tilting-left-voters-defy-democrats-forecast-.html?_r=0

    Longtime advisers to the Clintons were also digesting the implications of double-digit Democratic losses in places like Kentucky and Arkansas, where former President Bill Clinton’s base of white working-class voters has drifted from the party. Talk that Mrs. Clinton could compete in heavily white Southern states now seems likely to dissipate.

    For those voters who remain devoted to Bill Clinton, he’s not in office anymore, and they don’t like the dysfunction that’s up here,” said Paul Neaville, a Democratic strategist and Arkansas native who works in Washington.

    Hillary must attack Barack Obama in order to regain the trust of the white working class. And, yes, she should have stayed home in 2014 and give Obama all the blame for Tuesday.

  4. They have had 6 years to come up with a whole new host of advisors .. caught off guard again

    Warren, as I said a few days ago is gonna be the Golden Girl ..Obama LIGHT skinned female

    He hates Hillary and the only thing he gave her to do while she was SOS was rack up flying miles and anyone who thinks anything else needs to shake them self awake as well

    I advise her to let them flail it out WITHOUT her, she does not deserve this, however she does not seem to be open to taking good advice, only shit.

  5. if I see anymore of Hillary and Bill praising O or any more of the obvious prostituting and silly alarmist pandering remarks I will throw up…If supersmart Hillary and Bill can’t see the writing on the wall…maybe their time may have passed…i hope not…

    …last thread i mentioned that O has left the Democrats scorched and impotent…

    geesh…it is worse than even I thought…

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/his-party-is-at-a-low-point-and-obama-seems-passive-20141105

    His Party Is at a Low Point, and Obama Seems Passive

    From Congress to state capitals, the last six years have taken a huge toll on Democrats’ fortunes.

    By George E. Condon Jr.

    It wasn’t until the conclusion of his hour-long press conference Wednesday that President Obama allowed himself to get philosophical about the drubbing Democrats took in Tuesday’s election. “Maybe I’m just getting older, I don’t know,” he said. “It doesn’t make me mopey; it energizes me.”

    Well, you could have fooled the 200 reporters jammed into the East Room or the millions of Americans who watched on television. The president didn’t seem energized at all and certainly wasn’t very interested in analyzing the political cataclysm that now will color the remainder of his time in office. Instead, Obama was flat and unemotional in his mien, bloodless in his assessment of an election that claimed so many of his supporters, and passionless in his declaration of goals for the next two years. He even refused to come up with a word like “shellacking” (2010) or “thumping” (2006) to describe the slaughter. “Republicans had a good night” was as far as he would go.

    It was a surprising performance for a president who had just suffered such an electoral wipeout, almost totally lacking in the anger of Harry S. Truman after the 1946 election, the determination of Bill Clinton after the 1994 election, or the contrition of George W. Bush after the voting in 2006. Instead, there was a passiveness and a resignation. And some recycled platitudes about the greatness of the country. Most striking was a reprise of the message he sent so inspiringly in the 2004 Democratic National Convention address that established his national reputation. “I continue to believe,” he said Wednesday, “we are simply more than just a collection of red and blue states. We are the United States.”

    In one sense, of course, he is correct. After six years of his leadership of the Democratic Party, there aren’t that many states colored Democratic blue on those maps maintained by the networks. Perhaps coming from the blood of so many candidates who lost because of their support for Obama, those maps are awfully red these days. It is now undeniable that no Democratic president in the last century has had as devastating an impact on his party as has Obama. When he took office in 2009, any political map of the United States was much more Democratic blue than Republican red. That was true across the board from the White House, to the Senate, the House, governorships, and state legislatures. Today, in the wake of Tuesday’s defeats, all those maps are predominantly crimson.

    The numbers are sobering for Democrats, demonstrating both how far the party has fallen and how difficult it will be to climb out of the current hole. Almost all the attention has been focused on the loss of the Senate. But the damage to the party is considerably deeper than the top of the ballot and considerably dispersed from Washington.

    The numbers tell the story: In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them; in 2015, they will have 45. In 2009, Democrats had 256 members of the House; in 2015, they will have 192. In 2009, Democrats had 28 governors; in 2015, they will have 18. In 2009, Democrats controlled both legislative chambers in 27 states; in 2015, they will control only 11. In 2009, Democrats controlled 62 legislative chambers; in 2015, they will control only 28 (with one tie and two still undecided).

    The impact of the carnage in state legislatures on Obama’s watch is hard to overstate. This is where the future classes of mayors, governors, and members of Congress are bred. This is where the boundary lines are drawn for congressional and legislative districts. This is where party leaders come from. And this is where the rules are made for party primaries and election laws are set. According to Tim Storey at the National Conference of State Legislatures, what we saw on Tuesday was an almost unprecedented “Republican wave,” which he said, leaves “Democrats at their lowest point in state legislatures in nearly a century.”

    Among the legislatures flipping to Republicans were the West Virginia House, Nevada Assembly and Senate, New Hampshire House, Minnesota House, New York Senate, Washington Senate, Colorado Senate, and New Mexico House. The West Virginia Senate went to a tie.

    Also on the state level, Democrats in the Obama era have watched their constitutional officers fall to perilously low numbers in many key states. Ohio, the quintessential presidential-battleground state, is perhaps the best example. If national analysts wonder why Ohio Democrats could not put up a serious opponent to a less-than-popular Republican governor, they need look no further than the lack of any Democrat in any statewide office. When Obama took office in 2009, Democrats held the offices of Ohio attorney general, treasurer, and secretary of state. In 2015, not a single statewide office will be held by a Democrat.

    So color Democrats in Ohio more than a little “mopey” about the state of their party. There—and in the states where Democratic candidates were mowed down on Tuesday—they are seeing lots of red. And not all of it is on the maps.

    ****************************************

    O’s leadership of the Democratic party has destroyed the party…he will leave it in shambles…and if Hillary and Bill do not wake up he is going to take them down with him and snuff out their last chance at the Presidency…

  6. Back to reality article. If this the case and she does not get it back on track, she should not put herself and us through it again.

  7. The Democrats aren’t Clinton’s only problem. She would have a lot of work to do with her former independent supports. Take me, for example:

    1) Having seen what the Democrats have become, watching them as a group from 2008 through today, I don’t know that I could vote for a Democrat no matter what. There are no DLC centrists left. And, on social issues, much of what I’ve seen from the Democrats is despicable.

    2) Clinton’s appeal was competence. Yet, American foreign policy is in shambles and an American ambassador was murdered and dragged through the streets, while Clinton was Secretary of State. Any objective assessment has to give her very low performance marks. Now, this may be all on Obama, but she would have to do some very detailed explaining to rationalize why her years as SecState were so disastrous.

  8. Sharpton.. fuck him. He should be cowering under the bridge somewhere, instead he has a cushy job on a national network.

    Admin, right on the money! I said the same thing commenting here on Nov. 2 that she should have sat this election out. Why are they even talking, this Ploufe idiot and others, after hoisting the mega-idiot on the country? Don’t they have any shame? More importantly, why are the Clintons indulging these fools? She should run as an independent. The country is ripe for a Independent candidate that absorbs the good from everywhere and looks out for the country. But I see Hillary hampered by her own sense of ‘something’ that you so eloquently characterize, that I am beginning to think she is not as smart as we give her credit for, may be, just may be.

    Your human shield metaphor is bang on. It is heartbreaking/angering to see how these unscrupulous Obama thugs are pushing everyone, everyone around.

  9. admin

    November 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    Sharpton, “blame Hillary”

    It’s not that Sharpton said or believes the drivel that he is spewing. Its the teeming masses that are so deluded as to believe it as well.

    Asshats (haven’t used that in awhile. Thanks Lu4Puma for resurrecting that one!)

    Hillary 2016

    P.S. – I started to resist the urge to disagree with the tone and tenor of the past few posts that have called Hillary to account. I’m glad I did because (as it seems admin always does) this post really lays out the case why Hillary needs to go the hell home. Don’t worry about testing out how you will do on the stump. You are married to the best person alive on the stump. Don’t worry about currying favor from the obacolytes that have just lost. There will be an ARMY of us ready to work for you as soon as the time is right and you are ready. Finally, don’t worry about the feeble minded progs and dimocrats, bumbles goof troop of advisors or big media. Can’t do anything about them so don’t let them control your actions.

    Big Pink has your back. Kudos Admin!

    Hillary 2016

  10. Admin: as you know, I concur 100% with your thinking on the subject.

    She would do well to ask herself three (3) questions:

    Q-1: if obama was willing to throw his supportersw in congress under the bus, then why should I be any different?

    Q-2: if I become an Obama clone, do I really believe the progs will love me, trust and support me?

    Q-3: if I endorse Obama’s policies, which voters have soundly rejected in the mid term, how likely is it that they will elect me?

  11. TheRock, we know our tenor is brutal. What you are reading is a watered down version. You should have seen the first draft of the front page article – you would have taken out a hit on us.

    We don’t like the language we use lately. But Hillary has to wake up. This is worse than 2008 because the Obama thugs are standing right next to her. As you can see from the articles we quote, we are not the only ones exasperated and honking horns to wake Hillary up.

    We feel a little like this old fogie in the fabulous white outfit:

    The poison of the Obama Worm-tongues must be drawn out.

  12. Wbboei you posted earlier a comment on the Obama presser of yesterday which drew us away from computers. You wrote something to the effect that Big Media “reporters” did not ask Obama the obvious question: “you said your policies were on the ballot and now they have been rejected. when will you resign?”

    After that comment not much more was needed. It said it all. The obvious will not be asked if it reveals the poison that is Obama.

  13. HWC, we’ve been remiss in saying “Howdy, long time no see”. Ditto Outris. That article at The Guardian is amazing for what it says about the mental state of the Obama Hopium guzzlers.

  14. Thanks admin. I’ve not posted in a long time, but I’m sure there are many like me who rely on this site for a sense of normalcy in this crazy world.

  15. admin
    November 6, 2014 at 9:32 pm
    ———–
    Admin: this is one of these times when I wish we had a parliamentary system.

    Surely the mid terms were a vote of no confidence in him and his policies.

    In which case, a call for a new government would be in order.

  16. If you can’t count your friends to tell you when the back of your dress is tucked into your panty hose, who can you count on to tell you? We are definitely Hillary’s friends – the ones who have been in it for the long haul. And Admin, you told her she needed to pull her dress down and cover her backside.. I hope she listens. I really do.

  17. Just started reading your new post Admin, and I agree with:

    Hillary should have sat back, shut up, and have the party come crawling to her. She doesn’t need no damned dirty chits.

  18. Hillary as human shield for the boob Barack. Lovely. Hillary listens to this guy??? Stupid!!!! Still think we’re wrong?

    ——-
    Not so far…

  19. . Now these Obama cultists want Hillary to take on some of the Obama stink on the elections. These Obama cultists want Hillary to fight the Republican congress for two years and be a human shield for Barack Obama.

    ——
    Still with ya, Admin.

    I don’t really read this slowly, making dinner at the same time 😉

  20. Brian Wolff, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who is a longtime supporter of both Clintons, said the former Secretary of State would do well to keep her own counsel, rather than listen to what Obama’s strategists want.

    ———-

    Amen to Wolff

  21. If Warren ends up running for pResident, I am going to find out where her office is, and send her a plastic tomahawk and a box of feathers.

  22. Ebola Obama is to blame:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/05/republicans-now-have-every-congressional-seat-for-arkansas-for-the-first-time-in-141-years/

    Republicans now have every congressional seat for Arkansas for the first time in 141 years

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — While a student at the University of Arkansas in 1985, Sen. Mark Pryor (D) wrote his college thesis on the state of Arkansas’ two-party system.

    “The state’s Republicans have traditionally failed to produce politicians that Arkansas would elect,” he wrote. “The Democratic party, as a result, has thrived on a sort of perpetual motion.”

    That perpetual motion came to an end Tuesday night. Voters chose Republican Tom Cotton over Pryor, and for the first time in 141 years, there will be no Democrats in Arkansas’ congressional delegation. Republicans also won the gubernatorial race and every other statewide race. [snip]

    Cotton, a 37-year-old Harvard and Harvard law grad and Army veteran who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, tied Pryor to President Obama throughout the campaign, saying Pryor voted with Obama 93 percent of the time. He was disciplined about his message too, using everything from Ebola to President Bill Clinton’s visits to stump for Pryor to remind voters about Obama (“I’m not so worried about Bill Clinton’s support for Mark Pryor. I’m more worried for Mark Pryor’s support about Barack Obama,” he and his spokesman would say when asked whether they were concerned about the still-popular Clinton’s numerous campaign stops for Pryor in the campaign’s final weeks).

    Pryor distanced himself from Obama, running ads highlighting differences he had with the president and presenting himself as a bipartisan more capable of working across the aisle than Cotton, who he said represented gridlock and supported the government shutdown.

    But Obama is deeply unpopular in the state, with a 29 percent approval rating. Opposition to Obama energized Republicans, and even flipped some voters who’ve supported Pryor in the past.

    “I know lots of Democrats who are voting for Republicans,” said Michelle Harris, 33, of North Little Rock before voting Tuesday. She said she wasn’t enthusiastic about Cotton, but wouldn’t vote for Pryor. The number one reason: His support of the Affordable Care Act.

  23. This article from The Federalists criticizes the arrogance of Obama and predicts a serious political and legal crisis if O goes forward with his executive amnesty plan. . It also takes on Salon, which it refers to as a “Fever swamp of the far left”, for encouraging O to proceed with his executive orders.

    Just look at this quote from the Salon article. Have you ever seen a more deluded, childish, ridiculous POV?

    “If congressional Republicans want to impeach him for not betraying future generations, then, once again, he should welcome them with open arms…. Let those who would attack him simply for being who he is show their true colors and stand the judgment of history.”

    ________________________

    Call Obama’s Bluff on Executive Amnesty

    by: Robert Traciniski
    November 6, 2014

    President Obama gave a post-election press conference in which he pretty much took a pass on all of that stuff about acknowledging the public’s rebuke of his party or seeking common ground with the Republicans who will now control a co-equal branch of government.
    Instead, he “reiterated…that he intends to use his executive authority to stem deportations of some undocumented immigrants before the end of the year.”

    In other words: amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, on the unilateral authority of the president. There is little need to analyze the legality of this. It is an obvious attempt to treat Congress as an annoying obstacle rather than as the branch of government that actually writes the laws.
    It is just as obviously an attempt to provoke a constitutional crisis. Even Republicans sympathetic to immigration reform will feel that it is necessary to block the president from unilaterally imposing his own policies. As The Federalist‘s David Harsanyi observes, “there is almost no doubt this would plunge DC into both political and legal crisis. Which might very well be the point. The White House does best when it finds new ways to vilify conservatives. Immigration is a perfect way to initiate the fight.”

    Indeed, we find the fever swamps of the far left egging Obama on to deliberately provoke impeachment: “if Republicans want to impeach him for taking executive action to stop being the deporter-in-chief, he should welcome them with open arms. It would be a golden opportunity for Obama to demonstrate his willingness to put something of his own at risk to stand with those who feel he has abandoned them.” Oh, and they also want Obama to bypass Congress on global warming regulations: “If congressional Republicans want to impeach him for not betraying future generations, then, once again, he should welcome them with open arms…. Let those who would attack him simply for being who he is show their true colors and stand the judgment of history.”

    True, this is an article in Salon, by a guy who also writes for al-Jazeera. So it’s not exactly mainstream. But it’s the only calculation that explains Obama’s apparent eagerness to precipitate a constitutional crisis. The idea is to provoke an all-out war with the new Republican majority in the hopes of making them look like the ones who are extreme and unreasonable.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/06/call-obamas-bluff-on-executive-amnesty/

  24. It seems like at this point, Hillary’s chances of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee for 2016 are quickly becoming dismal. Therefore, with not much really left to lose, she should start speaking her mind of what she really thinks of Obama, his policies and his puppeteer Jarrett and let them have it with both barrels.

  25. Tom Cotton has a very impressive resume. At age 37, he could be in the Senate from Arkansas for a very long time. He’s one of quite a few impressive younger Republicans emerging in recent years. Nice to see the party move beyond the Chrishun Coalition SoCon “family valyoos” shackles of the prior generation. A lot of credit to their message discipline this cycle.

    Alas, we can only wait for the Huckabees and Santorums to blow that smart strategy up as the 2016 primary season gets underway.

  26. freespirit
    November 7, 2014 at 12:36 am

    Indeed, we find the fever swamps of the far left egging Obama on to deliberately provoke impeachment: “if Republicans want to impeach him for taking executive action to stop being the deporter-in-chief, he should welcome them with open arms. It would be a golden opportunity for Obama to demonstrate his willingness to put something of his own at risk to stand with those who feel he has abandoned them.” Oh, and they also want Obama to bypass Congress on global warming regulations: “If congressional Republicans want to impeach him for not betraying future generations, then, once again, he should welcome them with open arms…. Let those who would attack him simply for being who he is show their true colors and stand the judgment of history.”

    True, this is an article in Salon, by a guy who ALSO WRITES FOR AL-JAZEERA (emphasis added)

    ——————-

    As posted 2 days ago . . .

    wbboei
    November 5, 2014 at 10:31 pm
    The Wall Street Journal Editorial today sheds important light on how Obama is likely to respond to the change in control of the Senate which occurred last night:
    —————–

    “(PROGRESSIVES) WHO HAVE CHEERED OBAMA ON AS HE DROVE THE PARTY INTO THE DITCH ARE NOW ADVISING HIM TO DOUBLE DOWN ON PARTISANSHIP. VETO EVERYTHING . RULE BY REGULATION, INCLUDING A VAST IMMIGRATION DIKTAT THAT WOULD POISON ANY CHANCE OF BI PARTISANSHIP AND DURABLE POLITICAL REFORM. DEMONIZE REPUBLICANS AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, ETC.”

    Also, note that the salon writer with swamp fever writes for al-J. This suggests to me that he is pro Muslim, just like Obama.

  27. >> Therefore, with not much really left to lose, she should start speaking her mind of what she really thinks of Obama, his policies and his puppeteer Jarrett and let them have it with both barrels.

    She can’t. No Democrat can. The math is simple. The only path to a Dem nomination and the only path to Dem election wins in most states is to turn out enthusiastic support from African American voters. That’s the whole ball game. If you can’t turn out 90% majorities among black voters, you can’t win.

  28. … he thinks she’ll wait as long as possible before making an announcement, provided that she plans to run. Those who are advising her otherwise, he said, are pursuing their own agendas.

    Now, that is smart.

    I think it’s smart too. I wrote a letter to Chappaqua early this year explaining why I thought HRC should wait until Labor Day 2015 before announcing. I’ve written a half-dozen verbose letters to Chappaqua since 2007 — it sounds like maybe someone read this last one.

    A male adviser who worked with HRC at State? That sounds like it might be Jake Sullivan. He’s really smart too, and HRC trusts him completely.

  29. hwc November 6, 2014 at 8:26 pm

    … American foreign policy is in shambles and an American ambassador was murdered and dragged through the streets, while Clinton was Secretary of State. Any objective assessment has to give her very low performance marks…. she would have to do some very detailed explaining to rationalize why her years as SecState were so disastrous.

    “Her years as SecState were so disastrous”?? Really?

    This is the kind of bullshit peddled in Republican and Hillary hate blogs. Nothing less than that could have instructed your perception of what happened in Benghazi.

    I suggest you start with Hard Choices.

  30. Tony Stark November 7, 2014 at 12:38 am

    … with not much really left to lose, she should start speaking her mind of what she really thinks of Obama, his policies and his puppeteer Jarrett and let them have it with both barrels.

    Not going to happen.

    “Not much left to lose” says it all: She may become the D nominee, but she will never be president. The country has turned its sights backward.

  31. jeswezey
    November 7, 2014 at 4:20 am
    The country has turned its sights backward.

    The pendulum swings. Left and right. It is best when it is in the “sweet spot” in the middle. Forward and backward is a judgement based upon one’s political and social proclivities. But sometimes you need to stand still and think. The country wants the relentless “change” to stop so they can think, assess, analyze, and regroup. And they want to stop being called names and demeaned. This is not unreasonable. One way to do this is to throw them out. It stops “change” and name calling pretty effectively.

  32. Thanks Shadow!!!

    I busted out crying seeing that. Hillary Clinton has a piece of my heart, a place IN my heart, that no other candidate EVER had. Watching her in 08 struggle against ALL of the onslaught, the lies, the personal attacks made me love her even more.

    Her whole platform then was stolen by Obama and tweaked to turn in on her and then when he got elected by the stupid people who fell for his bullshit he forgot her policies

    Now I think the American people are VERY confused, they have forgotten the Hillary of 08 and all they will see now is the new media HillaryLoser, WhatDifferenceDoesItMake, She’sJustNotaGoodCandidate, SheAllowedBenghazi

    Really down hearted right now. Torn, for sure. IF she runs I will support her BUT I hope to see the Hillary platform of 08 .. and maybe the same haircut

    We are NOT looking backwards as someone here said too. We are looking AT her policies which are getting LOST in all the stupid stuff SHE is doing and allowing to happen around her.

  33. Mormaer November 7, 2014 at 5:51 am

    Yeah, you’re right. Thanx for the thoughts.

    Still, the popular “center” in the US is actually about 10% right of center. You say people are sick of “relentless change” but (1) what they’re really fed up with is the country “going in the wrong direction,” and (2) all the Republicans they elected are offering is Just Say No and repeal this and that. To me, that means “backward.”

  34. Shadowfax November 6, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    It’s my favorite photo of her too.

    Yeah, I had that photo on my computer screen background for about 3 years before the computer crashed and I lost it.

    My soulmate, who is an Obot, had screaming fits each time she came into the office and saw that picture. She even accused me of racism.

    Yesterday, she came in and asked if I had heard Obama’s speech. I told her “everyone’s fed up with his fucking speeches and I can’t even stand his voice!”

    She said, “Yeah, like Hollande….” She said that because she knows I’m socialist but doesn’t know I can’t stand Hollande any more than she can. Politically, we’re not soulmates at all.

  35. Oh my brother WAS an Obot but he has since awakened from the stupor of stupidum 😉 He used to watch MSNBC too so that is a lot of WHY he believed the crazy shit he was fed.

    That being said it concerns me that DISH has put MSNBC down on CNN spot now so that MSNBC has TWO spots now on DISH, and it does not look like CNN is coming back.

    I just wish they’d block the spot off, I wonder how much $$$ that NBC paid to get that slot directed to MSNBC

    Hopium is BAD shit

  36. Kudos to you admn. Says a lot that you are not just blind fans.
    The dims have jumped the shark. So much hubris in 2008. Reid, Pelosi, Brazille have become jokes.
    If jeb runs I will vote Hillary if Betsy runs(warren) I will vote jeb.
    Still remember Brazille saying wr had no where else to go. Well you smug bitch see Tuesday night and 2010. Annoying piece of crap.

  37. Taking steps back, at this conjuncture, would be a very good thing. The fraud has put America in many perilous situations, not the least of it, his willingly engagement with Iran on nuclear weapons. He has written 4 letters to Khomeini. .4, the last just a few ml weeks ago, that were leaked out by someone, who knows, maybe Iran.
    He hates America, there is no doubt. He wants to flood her with 34 million illegals and as many Muslims as he can get over here.
    He has tried, and succeeded, to destroy our relationship with Israel. One has to wonder if she will survive the next the 2 years.
    Hillary MUST repudiate the fraud in every sense 9th the word, or she will never be POTUS. Never.
    People have begun to wake up, but unfortunately, she has not.

  38. There are great analytics on change and at what point a species can’t handle it.
    I think We reached That point as a nation, I reached it in 2008.

  39. Is it wrong that I ache to see Harry Ried in a straight jacket quivering as she is taken from the Senate floor.

  40. Barack has recently sent a letter – his 4th – to Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei. This last on encouraged a joint effort between the US and Iran to fight ISIL, but it’s larger goal was to assure the Ayatollah that Barack had no interest in forcing a regime change.

    To date, the Ayatollah has not replied to a single letter, so we’re told. But this doesn’t seem to have discouraged little Barack from trying to be the Ayatollah’s BFF.
    _________________

    By David Blair
    1:11PM GMT 07 Nov 2014

    The emissaries of America and Iran now talk with such frequency that their contacts often pass unnoticed. Over the last year, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, and his most senior aides have held dozens of meetings with their Iranian counterparts.

    The fact that President Barack Obama has tried to establish a direct channel between himself and Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, shows once again the seriousness of America’s diplomatic effort.

    The letter that Mr Obama is reported to have written to the Ayatollah last month was at least the fourth of its kind since 2009. So far, the Supreme Leader has not deigned to reply, meaning that the channel between them is decidedly one way.

    But the timing of the latest letter is highly significant. Iran and America have set a deadline of Nov 24 for settling the confrontation over Tehran’s nuclear programme with a comprehensive agreement.

    The purpose of Mr Obama’s latest letter appears to be twofold.

    In the message, he is believed to stress how resolving the nuclear issue would allow cooperation between America and Iran on a range of other subjects, including the threat posed by Isil in Iraq and Syria.

    By holding out this prospect, however, the president is also trying to achieve a more subtle and delicate goal. In speech after speech, Ayatollah Khamenei accuses America of trying to overthrow Iran’s Islamic regime. The Supreme Leader believes that US economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Iran have nothing to do with the nuclear programme and everything to do with removing him from power.

    By offering cooperation as a quid pro quo for solving the nuclear issue, however, Mr Obama is implicitly saying that “regime change” is not his aim. If Iran agrees to defang its nuclear programme, then America would work with the Ayatollah, not try to destroy his regime.

    So the real purpose behind Mr Obama’s letters is to reassure the Supreme Leader about America’s intentions. Whether this one-sided correspondence will succeed, however, is open to question. Judging by Ayatollah Khamenei’s failure to reply – and the furious denunciations of America that remain fixtures of his public speeches – the Supreme Leader may be firmly unmoved by Mr Obama’s blandishments.

    http://dailynewspaper.co.uk

  41. dot48 November 7, 2014 at 8:29 am
    … it concerns me that DISH has put MSNBC down on CNN spot now so that MSNBC has TWO spots now on DISH, and it does not look like CNN is coming back.

    I just wish they’d block the spot off, I wonder how much $$$ that NBC paid to get that slot directed to MSNBC

    Don’t understand a word of all that… it’s like talking relativity to a kid. Got no TV

    Does DISH mean dish antenna?

  42. my two cents…

    I’d like Hill to just go low key for the next few months…take Begala’s advice and enjoy the holidays with the family…and then go underground working nonstop with her team…her team…not O’s opportunistic rethreads…and really re-examine where she went wrong last time…where her weak spots were…how she …and Bill…allowed themselves to be taken advantage of and made pawns in the treacherous primary game…are Hill and Bill going to be aware of traitors this time around?

    …and then put her plan for the FUTURE systematically together in a way that families and single people will identify with…and of course foreign policy, etc

    remember Bill’s ‘Putting People First’ it was easy to understand and people “got it”…many republicans “got it” and supported Bill’s campaign (remember all the signs ‘Republicans for Clinton’)

    Hillary can do the same thing…she should wait until the dust settles and the new congress takes shape…get a feel for the temperature of the country at that juncture…

    when she is prepared and self assured…has her ducks all in a row…has her CAUCUS STRATEGY organized and confirmed…so she won’t be sabatoged again…she must set up security and protection for the Caucuses…extremely important…a danger point…

    …once she has that organized then announce…she cannot assume anything and she has to be prepared for everything…

    Stay away from O people…Tommy V, Messina…Burton (creepy)…(does she like have daggers around her)

    Hillary can be the ‘People’s President’…and one with international experience and cache…(and she has her own secret weapon with the ongoing love and popularity of Bill)

  43. Erickson @ Red State seems to accept the bleak future which lies ahead, rather that fighting it. Perhaps he knows that the RINO would rather switch than fight. As for the Democrats, when Bambi leaves they will have no coalition ket. He destroyed the traditional coalition, and the artificial one he replaced it with will prove to be nothing more than a passing fancy.
    ———————

    The Democrat’s Obama Problem

    Democrats began telling themselves demography is destiny back in 1968 after Richard Nixon’s election. They have been saying it ever since. That day may eventually arrive, but today is not that day. They may also believe they are a permanent party, but history is filled with Ozymandias like permanence.

    Last Tuesday’s voter turnout should not give the Democrats the comfort they have taken from it. As should now be obvious, the Democrats have no coalition of their own. It is controlled by the very man who, the day after Curb-Stomp 2014, went on national television to stomp his feet in retaliation, rhetorically show voters his middle finger, and behave generally like a petulant man-child. Democrats have a Barack Obama problem.

    Republicans, now making kissy-face with Democrats and pledging “to work together,” should tread carefully. Most anyone who worked too closely with Barack Obama in the past few years has suffered the fate of the dodo bird — hunted mercilessly to extinction. At least twenty-five Senate Democrats who voted for the President’s healthcare plan now have the title “former” preceding their title “Senator.”

    From Massachusetts to Maryland to Illinois and more, pundits who two years ago cheerful described the Republican Party as a “regional party” mostly in the South, had to bitterly and through gritted teeth admit a crimson wave swept the country. It started, interestingly enough, in Guam. Fifteen or so hours before the polls began closing domestically, that American territory saw Republicans capture it. The tsunami only grew as it began making landfall in Maine. Most commentators expected Republican Governor LePage to lose. He did not.

    In Florida, where virtually every poll showed Charlie Crist would take back the Governor’s Mansion, Governor Rick Scott held on forcing Crist and his oscillating fan to find a new wind direction. The savage destruction of the Democrats leave that party in the fetal position mumbling their safe words, “demography” and “turnout.” One word that is no longer safe is “Obama.”

    The day after the election, President Obama’s press conference descended into farce. He declared he will do what he wants, veto what he does not want, and will work with the Republicans only to the extent they do what he wants. A man who has been given everything in life on a silver platter, cannot be expected to act graciously when the platter is finally taken away. But President Obama’s defiant and petulant tone last Wednesday suggests he is a President in search of new voters who will appreciate it.

    Americans should, therefore, not be surprised if by executive fiat the President ushers in a new class of American — the illegal alien. Christian sinners may be washed in the blood of the lamb, but President Obama intends his Cult of Personality to be washed in the red wake of a Republican take over. An action he could not take before the election because of its deep unpopularity will be taken after the election because he needs new disciples.

    What can the Democrats’ do? They have been renting Obama’s coalition. Should they distance themselves from President Obama, they will anger President Obama’s base. Should they embrace President Obama, they will anger everyone else. Hillary Clinton will have a hard time running a big government campaign when Americans no longer trust big government. But should she try to claim government was not the failure, just Obama, she will have to fight him for votes. Democrats comforting themselves on low turnout in 2014 ignore that they will have to have a civil war to capture President Obama’s base from him in 2016.

    President Obama will not go quietly. The Democrats will have to deal with this, their own problem of their own creation. Jesus Christ so loved the world, he suffered that those who believe in Him might live. In Barack Obama’s world, Obama so loves himself, we must all now suffer that he might live on politically relevant. God help us all.

  44. wbboei…

    that was a good article…thanks for posting

    he nails it…

    What can the Democrats’ do? They have been renting Obama’s coalition. Should they distance themselves from President Obama, they will anger President Obama’s base. Should they embrace President Obama, they will anger everyone else. Hillary Clinton will have a hard time running a big government campaign when Americans no longer trust big government. But should she try to claim government was not the failure, just Obama, she will have to fight him for votes. Democrats comforting themselves on low turnout in 2014 ignore that they will have to have a civil war to capture President Obama’s base from him in 2016.

    President Obama will not go quietly. The Democrats will have to deal with this, their own problem of their own creation. Jesus Christ so loved the world, he suffered that those who believe in Him might live. In Barack Obama’s world, Obama so loves himself, we must all now suffer that he might live on politically relevant. God help us all.

    *************************************

    dims better become Dems again…grow a backbone…realize they have been had…look at what O has done to the party and the careers of many behind them…now gone…

    they better start distancing themselves and working for the American people…they better learn how to say NO to O

  45. dot48
    November 7, 2014 at 7:58 am

    Thanks Shadow!!!

    ——-

    You’re welcome Dot, and I’m glad it made you remember who Hillary is, not who Fox says Hillary is…at least for a brief moment.

    This isn’t some aging photo of someone I once admired, it is the essence of Hillary that is still beneath the surface. She needs to shed her SOS skin and come out roaring. Not too soon, but wait like Admin said, until the party is on it’s knees, begging you to run.

  46. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/lame-duck-swims-to-asia-112667.html

    from the country we owe a large chunk of the debt O borrows for his failures:

    snip

    If President Barack Obama expects to escape the spate of brutal post-election news by traveling 6,000 miles and 12 time zones to Asia, he’s in for a surprise.

    Regional players are taking stock of whether the U.S. president once seen as a global rock star will now have diminished heft on the world stage, and some are delivering their verdict well ahead of his arrival Monday for an eight-day trip to China, Burma and Australia.

    Global Times, an English-language newspaper published by China’s state-run People’s Daily, has carried two withering editorials in recent days.

    “The lame-duck president will be further crippled” in the wake of a GOP victory, the newspaper warned in one before the voting was complete. “He has done an insipid job, offering nearly nothing to his supporters. US society has grown tired of his banality.”

    “This will be the most recent manifestation of America’s weakness and they will figure that into their deliberation,” said Jon Hunstman, a Republican who served as U.S. Ambassador to China under Obama and pointed to Chinese adeptness at sizing up power. “They will see it through that prism and consider whether this president still has the swat to actually get anything done.”

  47. jeswezey
    November 7, 2014 at 8:18 am

    Yeah, I had that photo on my computer screen as background for about 3 years before the computer crashed and I lost it.

    ——-
    I also had it on my computer at work and home as the desktop background.

    Since 2008, in the freakin’ heart of obot land, I have and still have a blown up 8×11 copy of that photo on the wall behind my desk at work. I also have one the same size of the Big Dawg next to her.

    Amazing how all the Obots at work, do NOT question my political loyalty. I might as well have it tattooed on my forehead. It’s like a Hillary safe zone in the middle of Hell.

  48. Mormaer
    November 7, 2014 at 5:51 am
    jeswezey
    November 7, 2014 at 4:20 am
    The country has turned its sights backward.

    The pendulum swings. Left and right. It is best when it is in the “sweet spot” in the middle. Forward and backward is a judgement based upon one’s political and social proclivities. But sometimes you need to stand still and think. The country wants the relentless “change” to stop so they can think, assess, analyze, and regroup. And they want to stop being called names and demeaned. This is not unreasonable. One way to do this is to throw them out. It stops “change” and name calling pretty effectively.

    _______________

    I totally agree, Mormaer.

    S, I agree also with your thoughts about Hillary staying out of the spotlight for a while.

  49. Boo hoo Boehner gets it right. Video at link.

    ________

    “In his first news conference after Tuesday’s elections, Speaker John A. Boehner had stern words for President Barack Obama and his expected executive action on immigration, telling the president he was inviting “big trouble” if he continued to act without Congress on issues such as immigration.
    Asked whether the president would be “poisoning the well” with Congress if he issued an executive action on immigration, Boehner offered this advice: ”When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself. And he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”

    “The American people made it clear on Election Day,” Boehner said, “they want to get things done — and they don’t want the president acting on a unilateral basis.”

    http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/boehner-on-obamas-immigration-action-hes-going-to-burn-himself/?dcz=

  50. Speaker John A. Boehner had stern words
    ————-
    How many divisions does the Pope have.

    Drudge is pessimistic.

    The only saving grace for me is that Jeff Sessions will be head of the Senate Budget Committee, and he had been the strongest and most eloquent voice against this immigration swindle. He can, and he will stop any federal funding for this rape of the American People, and when the funding request is therefore pushed down to the governor level don’t expect them to open their wallets and be as kissy faced about it as McConnell either. In political terms, that is the classic definition of trouble: to create a new right without public support and then find there is no money to fund it. I have no illusions. Boehner will cave, McConnell will cave, BUT on this fine point, Sessions will stand tall in the middle of the battle, and we will say about him what what Lee said about his best general—he stands there like a Stonewall. The RINO cannot buy him, or Cruz off.

  51. I woke up this morning imagining what I would say to Obama if I were one of his advisers. I gave up before I went forward with the project, because of my firmly held view belief and conviction that beneath charming and always adorable facade, lurks a stone cold sociopath, one who has attained the pinnacle of power, and whose greatest fear either now, or whenever he gets past denial, is that if he steps back even one inch he will fall to earth like a head shot goose.

    That said, if he were at least rational, meaning the least bit rational, the plea to him would consist of pointing out that if he is to have any legacy, and not be regarded as a pariah in the eye of history, then he must ease off on his threat to expand the scope of executive action, which might have worked in the limited context in which he has pressed it thus far, but to assume from these prior successes, that a precedent has been set which permits him to now govern this nation by executive order in derogation of the popular will, and the law of the land, as set forth in the Constitution is a quantum leap. If the takes that leap, the best he can possibly hope for is a Pyrrhic victory and whatever legacy he hoped to achieve will be in ruins. Furthermore, the African American population who still regards him as a messiah will be the hardest hit if he follows through on this improvident venture. The known unknows and the unknown unknowns and the unintended consequences will place him in the middle between the majority of American who oppose this abuse of power, and the beneficiaries who will expect him to move beyond simple legalization to full citizenship to the unemployment rolls. In sum, this is a no win for him.

    At this point, the snarling progressives are urging him to pursue this course of action without regard to the risks. But the truth is, they do not have his interests in mind. Rather, they are using him to achieve their own perverse ends at the expense of whatever legacy he hopes to achieve. Therefore, the prudent course of action for him will be to step around this gotterdamnerung and work with congress. There is no practical alternative, if he cares at all about his legacy.

  52. The ones who think they are “smart” but do everything to avoid reality are the first to be suckered. Enjoy these Hollywood suckers as they realize they got conned by a master:

    http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/11/06/clay-aiken-asked-to-cut-la-fundraiser-from-tv-docuseries-by-donors-who-feel-duped

    Clay Aiken Asked to Cut LA Fundraiser From TV Docuseries By Donors Who Feel ‘Duped’

    Before anyone had any inkling that Tuesday’s elections would be a tsunami for Republicans, it looked like former “American Idol” runner up Clay Aiken had a chance—a slim chance, to be sure, but a chance to defeat Tea Party Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers in Aiken’s bid for a seat in North Carolina’s 2nd Congressional District. After all, the Democrats were all-in trying to save Kay Hagen’s Senate seat, as Aiken told supporters at a Sept. 30 fundraiser at the hilltop Los Angeles home of Extra correspondent Michael Corbett.

    That didn’t happen. [snip]

    Well, perhaps. But some of those who attended the fundraiser at Corbett’s house, organized by actor/producer Steve Tyler, (above) now want the filmmakers to edit them out. Tyler told me he is furious, having received angry calls from friends personally invited to the fundraiser who called after they heard the news. [snip]

    Tyler sent Aiken an email expressing his anger (see camera in the upper left shooting the discussion):

    Hi Clay

    Again, I am sorry for the loss on your bid for Congress, but apparently you had yourself covered with a reality TV show deal the entire time, just in case you didn’t win. I cannot speak for the NC Voters or contributors, but I can speak for myself and many of your Los Angeles supporters when I say we feel duped, taken advantage of and lied to. When we were asked to sign waivers by your film crew, we were told it was for a BBC documentary that would not air here in the United States.

    I have received calls from many supporters at the LA fundraiser all demanding that the LA event not be included in your TV show, as the crew misrepresented use of the filming. It is obvious you had this TV deal prior to the votes being tabulated as GOOD MORNING AMERICA announced the deal just hours after votes were barely in.

    On a personal level, I worked very hard convincing people of your integrity, viability and the need for them to donate. It all reflects badly on my credibility amongst donors because of your actions. Now it looks like I deceived donors.

    I do hope you realize this prevents you from ever running again for an elected office. You will no longer be credible as someone that wants to help the public more than your need for fame. Had the LA donors known you would personally benefit from their donations and appearance at the event – they would not have donated to your campaign. Your TV deal was announced all over TV yesterday and in the Los Angeles Times today.

    It pains me to write this because I so believed your Congressional Campaign was for the right reasons and the greater good. Obviously I misjudged you.

    Respectfully

    Steve Tyler

    Comedy gold. It is what Obama has done to them but they still can’t come to terms with that reality. At least Obama won with his “yes we can” schtick.

    Clay Aiken never had a chance. The district he ran in is too Republican. Hagen herself only had a slim chance of winning and that was if everything went well for her and the Republicans imploded (always a smart bet). Her only chance was to use her incumbency to secure her spot. But Aiken? Aiken never had a chance. But Hollyweird believed because he was one of them.

    Hooray for Clay! He suckered them, got money that was needed elsewhere, will make more money with the reality show. If the show does well, the Hollyweird will forgive Clay and enjoy the joke on themselves.

  53. Wbboei, the Erickson article jibes with what we have written since 2007. All that “analytics” talk, all the “demographic destiny” crap, all that “ground game” rubbish has been exposed as a con man’s sting.

    As to the craven Republicans in the Senate, there are signs of hope. Even that weakling Orrin Hatch is in fight mode:

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/orrin-g-hatch-and-c-boyden-gray-after-harry-reid-the-gop-shouldnt-unilaterally-disarm-1415232867

    Specifically, the new Senate must begin by restoring the twin pillars of the institution’s deliberative character: full debate and an open amendment process. Sen. Robert C. Byrd described those two institutional safeguards—open debate and amendment—as bulwarks that ensure “the liberties of the people will remain secure.” In the end, the Senate’s procedural safeguards exist not to protect individual senators, but to preserve Americans’ liberty.

    But that fundamental goal—protecting liberty—counsels against blindly returning to the prior status quo. Some bells cannot be unrung. Chief among these is Sen. Reid’s decision to invoke the “nuclear option” to strip minority senators of their ability to filibuster judicial nominees.

    The nuclear option allowed President Obama and his allies to reshape the judicial branch dramatically to suit their far-left agenda. And the Democrats were not shy in boasting of their achievement. This summer, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the administration’s efforts to extend subsidies to the federal ObamaCare exchange—in clear violation of the plain words of the Affordable Care Act and the stated intent of its architects—the newly minted majority of Democratic appointees on that court voted to rehear the case “en banc.” Sen. Reid announced that the “simple math” of the D.C. Circuit’s new majority of Democratic-appointed judges would serve to “vindicate” Democrats’ use of the nuclear option, presumably by preserving the administration’s signature legislative achievement. …

    It will fall to the next Republican president to counteract President Obama’s aggressive efforts to stack the federal courts in favor of his party’s ideological agenda. But achieving such balance would be made all the more difficult—if not impossible—if Republicans choose to reinstate the previous filibuster rule now that the damage to the nation’s judiciary has already been done.

    When FDR unwisely tried to stack the Supreme Court partisan Big Media outlets opposed him. Even his fellow Democrats stood by the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution and voted against FDR. The unAmerican court packing scheme of FDR did help him intimidate the courts in the end but at least powerful Democratic allies of Roosevelt saw what he proposed was dangerous.

    In this current Congress Obama Dimocrats fell into line against the spirit of the Constitution and democratic process in order to save their precious Barack. Now, they inherit the wind.

  54. S, the Supreme Court waited for the election returns. The likelihood the subsidies go down now that the Court knows it will be protected by the Congress from the vile Executive have gone to nearly 100%.

  55. AP Breaking

    Supreme Court agrees to rule on insurance subsidies in new challenge to Obama health law
    ———-
    Have the election results given them the guts to step up to the plate?

    Will Roberts be Roberts and fall through his ass—–again?

    Does this this harbinger a new willingness by the court to clearly define the limits of executive power— as Jonathan Turley has advised them that they must do–for institutional reasons?

    Or, is it all just noise?

    Many years ago, Justice Jackson, the last country lawyer to serve on the court, the prosecutor at Nuremberg and the heir apparent to Chief Justice Vinson, before Eisenhower surprised everyone in 1952 and appointed the Republican governor of California (the other Warren) to that position, said about the Supreme Court, namely, that the sanctity of the law and the inviolate nature of the Constitution nothwithstanding, their decision are guided in part by election results. And this makes eminent good sense, because they are the one non-elected branch, with neither the power of the purse nor of the sword.

  56. S, from the NYT article – 11:56

    .” The lopsided outcome and conservative tilt makes it less likely she would face an insurgent challenger from the left.”

    ______________

    That’s what we have all been saying here. The progs can take off their war paint – there’s no point in entering this skirmish.

    The article also mentions that Clinton aides will be studying exit polls, to determine what issues most concerned voters, with concerns about the economic state of the country being considered closely.

    They could save themselves that trouble. As noted in WSJ article Admin posted above, preservation of liberty and governmental adherence to the constitution must be primary concerns right now, particularly in view of Obama’s attempted slaughter of both.

  57. The easy play for Roberts is to through the big hot steaming turd of Obamacare funding he was handed back into the lap of congress, with a very different makeup which reflects the most recent consensus of the American People. Does this trembling tower of tapioca have the guts to even do that much? Like the sign says John: just do it.

  58. I have zero faith in the newly elected Congress, Bonar and his sidekick McCon…that is no more confidence than I do in the Dim and NO confidence that any of these blustering blowhards will do anything substantial in the next two years.

    My faith in the Supremes is just as bad.

    If someone, anyone with the power to actually accomplish anything that resembles the constitution and helps our citizens…I will be pleasantly surprised and may feel encouraged.

    Until that day, to me it’s more bla, bla…bla.

  59. The tyranny of labels drives me bezerk:

    Since when is someone who seeks to centralize all power, disenfranchise the American People and rule by diktat a liberal?

    Since when is someone who believes in the constitution, and believes government should respect its constraints a conservative?

    And, if those are the extremes, where is the so called middle, the mainstream which assholes like Brokaw fictionalize about.

    On that subject, have you watched him lately?

    I have, and he sounds pretty senile to me.

    Previously, I had challenged him to step up to the plate as an elder statesman and rehabilitate big media.

    Listening to him now I realize that was a pipe dream, and the more fool I for believing it is possible.

    Among the ravages of old age, one of Roosevelts’s four wise men (George Kennan) said this:

    The phenomenon of declining powers, and becoming over time a mere caricature of one’s earlier self.

    Exhibit 1: Tom Brokaw.

  60. Shadowfax
    November 7, 2014 at 1:43 pm
    I have zero faith in the newly elected Congress, Bonar and his sidekick McCon
    ————–
    Then, you do not believe this prom night will last?

  61. If I were asked to define the center in this winter of discontent, I would be guided in part, by those wise words of Queen Margaret in The Life and Death of Richard the Third, act 4 scene 4 by Shakespeare:

    QUEEN MARGARET

    Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days;
    Compare dead happiness with living woe;

    THINK THAT THY BABES WERE FAIRER THAN THEY WERE
    AND THAT HE WHO SLEW THEM FOULER THAN HE IS:

    Bettering thy loss makes the bad causer worse:
    Revolving this will teach thee how to curse.

  62. We have no doubt, zero, that the Supreme Court will rule against ObamaCare. The Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch will move in unison against the Executive Branch.

    We’re not just walking on the sunny side of the street here. We’ll try to pull up quotes from what we have written about Halbig to explain our great confidence in this prognostication.

    ObamaCare proponents realize we’re probably right and they are apoplectic:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_SUBSIDIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-07-12-51-59

    In the appeal accepted Friday, opponents of the subsidies argued that the court should resolve the issue now because it involves billions of dollars in public money.

    The court rarely steps into a case when there is no disagreement among federal appellate courts, unless a law or regulation has been ruled invalid.

    But at least four justices, needed to grant review, apparently agreed with the challengers that the issue is important enough to decide now.

    Supporters of the health care law were flabbergasted and accused the court of verging into politics. The news came a week ahead of the second open enrollment season for subsidized private health insurance under the law.

    “All of the general guidelines that the court traditionally uses in determining whether it should schedule an appeal are totally absent in this case,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group that supported Obama’s health overhaul from its inception. Pollack called the court’s action “an unusual political act.”

    The legal challenge to the subsidies is “the most serious existential threat” facing the Affordable Care Act, added Pollack. [snip]

    When the court upheld the law in 2012, it still made a major change to Obama’s signature legislation by ruling that its Medicaid expansion for low-income people was optional for states. So far 27 states and the District of Columbia have accepted it. This week’s Republican election success makes it unlikely that the remaining 23 states will move any time soon.

    The subsidies issue is being fought in several courts. In July, the Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the law for consumers in all 50 states.

    On that same July day, a panel of appellate judges in the District of Columbia, sided with the challengers in striking down the IRS regulations. The Washington court held that under the law, financial aid can be provided only in states that have set up their own insurance markets, known as exchanges.

    For those federal exchange consumers, the subsidies cover 76 percent of their premiums, on average. Customers now pay an average of $82 on total monthly premiums averaging $346. The federal subsidy of $264 a month makes up the difference.

    But in October, the entire Washington appeals court voted to rehear the case and threw out the panel’s ruling, eliminating the so-called circuit split. The appeals argument has been scheduled for December 17, but that case now recedes in importance with the Supreme Court’s action to step in.

    The case, King v. Burwell, 14-114, probably will be argued the first week in March, with a decision expected by late June.

    Chief Justice Roberts now comes into major play. His weaknesses become strengths for ObamaCare opponents. If Roberts wants to save the judiciary his bureaucratic instincts and judgements now play in favor of ObamaCare opponents. Roberts knows that the Federal District court has been packed by Obama. Roberts also knows that the en banc decision is a political decision by the 9 judges on the Federal District bench. Roberts will now have to play politics to fight politics.

    We will be most interested to know if that forecast by AP on when arguments will be heard are accurate in any way. We believe all gloves are off now that the Republicans have won such a resounding triumph in the elections.

    Note especially on the question of timing that the high court did not wait until Monday to announce it’s grant of certiorari. We intended to write about the Halbig cases next week but the Supreme Court beat us to the punch.

  63. SCOTUSblog agrees in large measure with our prognostication. This is from a law professor who is an ObamaCare supporter who agrees with the ObamaCare on the merits of subsidies for the Federal Exchanges:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-court-will-hear-king-thats-bad-news-for-the-aca/#more-221092

    Symposium: The Court will hear King. That’s bad news for the ACA.

    In a significant setback for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court just agreed to review King v. Burwell, the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding an IRS rule extending tax credits to federally established exchanges. The government had asked the Court to take a pass because there’s no split in the circuit courts over whether the IRS rule is valid. At least four justices—it only takes four to grant certiorari—voted to take the case anyhow.

    As I see it, what’s troubling here is not that the Court took King in the absence of a split. Its rules permit it to hear cases involving “important question[s] of federal law that ha[ve] not been, but should be, settled by this Court.” It’s not remotely a stretch to say that King presents one such important question. On this, I part ways with those who claim that granting the case marks a clear departure from the Court’s usual practices.

    No, what’s troubling is that four justices apparently think—or at least are inclined to think—that King was wrongly decided. As I’ve said before, there’s no other reason to take King. The challengers urged the Court to intervene now in order to resolve “uncertainty” about the availability of federal tax credits. In the absence of a split, however, the only source of uncertainty is how the Supreme Court might eventually rule. After all, if it was clear that the Court would affirm in King, there would have been no need to intervene now. The Court could have stood pat, confident that it could correct any errant decisions that might someday arise.

    There’s uncertainty only if you think the Supreme Court might invalidate the IRS rule. That’s why the justices’ votes on whether to grant the case are decent proxies for how they’ll decide the case. The justices who agree with King wouldn’t vote to grant. They would instead want to signal to their colleagues that, in their view, the IRS rule ought to be upheld. The justices who disagree with King would want to signal the opposite.

    And there are at least four such justices. If those four adhere to their views—and their views are tentative at this stage, but by no means ill-informed—the challengers just need one more vote to win. In all likelihood, that means that either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy will again hold the key vote.

    None of this bodes well for the government. That’s not to say the government can’t win. It might. As I’ve said many times, the statutory arguments cut in its favor. But the Court’s decision to grant King substantially increases the odds that the government will lose this case. The states that refused to set up their own exchange need to start thinking—now—about what to do if the Court releases a decision in June 2015 withdrawing tax credits from their citizens.

    The Supreme Court read the election returns. The Supreme Court saw that ObamaCare is still hated by the American People. The Supreme Court saw that the majority of ads which helped secure the Republican victories were against ObamaCare. ObamaCare is about to be euthanized.

  64. admin
    November 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
    ————
    Maybe so Admin.

    As you know, I have the highest respect for your opinion.

    The election could be the catalyst for the Judicial branch to restore some semblance of the constitutional order.

    Just as it could be the catalyst for Congress to assert its institutional rights and prerogatives.

    My faith in Roberts was shaken beyond repair by the dive he took on Obamacare.

    Beyond that I am 100% sure of what I want him to do, but what he will do remains for me an imponderable.

    The most I can say about it at this point, it provides yet another incentive for the Administration to ignore the loreli call of the progressive and to negotiate with Congress.

    If this is all what I think it is, a WWF event it may go that way. But if Obama is the stone cold sociopath who is immune to logic and reason, the one who said I do not have to stand for another election, I can do anything I want, then he will march us all to the gates of hell.

    If Roberts does step up to the plate, as you believe he will, now that he has the political wind at his back, then I will be forced to swallow some of my own medicine.

    THINK THAT THY BABES WERE FAIRER THAN THEY WERE
    AND THAT HE WHO SLEW THEM FOULER THAN HE IS:

  65. Clay Atkins is Gold…Guess they don’t care about all the hundreds of millions I am sure the fraud has stashed away, which he pan handled from them.He will use the stash to buy his blow and live in opulence post Presidency. All those talk shows he will ramble on, and on, and on…. Maybe he will be a talking head at MSNBC… Oh, the visuals.

  66. The Supreme Court read the election returns. The Supreme Court saw that ObamaCare is still hated by the American People. The Supreme Court saw that the majority of ads which helped secure the Republican victories were against ObamaCare. ObamaCare is about to be euthanized.
    —————-
    I cannot dispute your logic.

    However.

    An old landlord of mine, who was an army bullcook with a waistline to prove it used to always say: bullshit rules the world.

    Let’s hope logic does, this time around, when destiny gives Roberts something most people pray for in vain:

    A second bite at the apple.

    A chance to prove that he is not a worm.

  67. Another SCOTUSblog supporter of ObamaCare tolls the bell:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/court-to-rule-on-health-care-subsidies/#more-221077

    Court to rule on health care subsidies

    The Supreme Court, moving back into the abiding controversy over the Affordable Care Act, agreed early Friday afternoon to decide how far the federal government can extend its program of subsidies to buyers of health insurance. [snip]

    Rather than waiting until Monday to announce its action, which would be the usual mode at this time in the Court year, the Justices released the order granting review of King v. Burwell not long after finishing their closed-door private Conference.

    By adding the case to its decision docket at this point, without waiting for further action in lower federal courts, as the Obama administration had asked, the Court ensured that it would rule on the case during the current Term. If it decides to limit the subsidies to the state-run “exchanges,” it is widely understood that that outcome would crash the ACA’s carefully balanced economic arrangements.
    [snip]

    The two cases probably will be heard by the Court in the first week of March. The argument calendar was full up to that point. [snip]

    The fate of those subsidies apparently will now depend upon how the Court interprets four words in the Affordable Care Act. In setting up the subsidy scheme, Congress said it would apply to exchanges “established by the State.”

    The challengers to subsidies for those who shop for insurance on a federal exchange have argued that those words limit the availability to the tax benefits solely to state-run exchanges. [snip]

    The lack of such a split, however, did not prevent the Court from going ahead to grant review of the King case, as the challengers had asked it to do. They had argued, among other points, that the longer the subsidies continue to consumers who had gone to federal exchanges, the harder it would be to undo the program if the Court were to accept the challengers’ interpretation.

    It would have taken the votes of four Justices to grant review. The Court, as usual, did not indicate the way the Justices had voted on that question. It will take a majority, of course, to decide the case in the end. A ruling is not expected to emerge until near the end of the current Term, in late June or early July.

    The new case appears to be as important to the functioning of the ACA, as it emerged from Congress in 2010, as was the mandate that every individual in the nation (with few exceptions) had to obtain health insurance by this year, or pay a financial penalty. [snip]

    The question presented by the case that the Court granted today is how to interpret legislative language chosen by Congress. Underlying that issue, however, is the broader question whether the words Congress chooses are to be the sole guide to what a law does, or whether the larger purposes that Congress seems to have in mind should determine how to read the words.

    The challengers take the “literal interpretation” approach, although they also have policy reasons for reading the ACA as they do. The Obama administration takes the “broader purpose” approach, contending that Congress would not have set up the insurance program on a basis that is as limited as the challengers contend. There are Justices on the Court on both sides of that debate over interpreting federal laws.

    The four words primarily in dispute have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service, which is in charge of the tax subsidy program, to apply to every exchange across the nation, whether set up by a state or, if a state declined to do so, by the federal government in place of the state.

    Here is the question that the petition put before the Court: “Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under section 1321 of the ACA.”

    That is essentially the same issue that the D.C. Circuit has agreed to examine en banc. It is scheduled to hold oral arguments on December 17. Whether it would go ahead with that review, knowing now that the Supreme Court is going to decide the issue, is unclear at this point. The challengers would be free, it appears, to ask the D.C. Circuit to hold its case in abeyance during Supreme Court review.

    Banc on it. ObamaCare just fell down a long staircase.

    When the two decisions came down on the same day ObamaCare supporters cheered as the King decision was contrary to the Halbig decision. We said that the King decision would now open a clear path to the Supreme Court for ObamaCare opponents. That is exactly what has happened today.

    Obama and ObamaCare supporters cheered the King decision apparently unaware that it would destroy the Obama strategy to pack the Federal District Court and the Obama strategy of delay, delay, delay, and more delay until ObamaCare was so entrenched it could not be surgically removed from the body politic. We saw it immediately as the great ticket to the Supreme Court which the lawyers in King also saw. That is why they rapidly filed their writ with the high court.

  68. foxyladi14
    November 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    WE the People have spoken
    ————-
    Oh come now.

    What about the 2/3 who did not vote, because they were met with shotguns at polling places, and nails were placed on the highways to those locales and masked men stood outside hurling racist invectives–despite the best efforts of Holder to ensure a fair election.

    Oh, that’s right. Those were Obama supporters who were perpetrating the fraud and intimidation. In which case, no wonder Holder turned a blind eye. And, had they voted the margin of victory would have been higher.

    Bottom line: the messiah is even more unpopular with those who did not vote than he is with those who did. (Maybe he is talking about the 34 million illegals)

  69. The 34 million illegals he has promised the sun, the moon and the stars to, with no ability to deliver. All the can do is issue the executive order. He cannot control the forces that will unleash, even when they bite him in the ass.

  70. Then, you do not believe this prom night will last?

    ——–
    Nope, there hasn’t been a prom since 2008, and the melting Greek columns have been recycled into Peace Prizes yet to come.

  71. Adm, is just my ipad and PC, as I have great difficulty with the site loading at times. particularly with ipads. Does the site need more bandwidth? I will be glad to contribute?

  72. The Supreme Court read the election returns. The Supreme Court saw that ObamaCare is still hated by the American People. The Supreme Court saw that the majority of ads which helped secure the Republican victories were against ObamaCare. ObamaCare is about to be euthanized.

    —-

    That would be the first of many huge problems that the Dims/Ebola have created, and I will be happy, if the entire ObamaCare ship is sunk. That would also end Hillary’s hope of recreating a Universal Health care plan with the R’s in Congress.

    If that were to happen, would Big Pharma rush back with open arms and a rate hike to those vulnerable Americans?

  73. When the two decisions came down on the same day ObamaCare supporters cheered as the King decision was contrary to the Halbig decision. We said that the King decision would now open a clear path to the Supreme Court for ObamaCare opponents. That is exactly what has happened today.

    Obama and ObamaCare supporters cheered the King decision apparently unaware that it would destroy the Obama strategy to pack the Federal District Court and the Obama strategy of delay, delay, delay, and more delay until ObamaCare was so entrenched it could not be surgically removed from the body politic. We saw it immediately as the great ticket to the Supreme Court which the lawyers in King also saw. That is why they rapidly filed their writ with the high court.
    ————-
    The packed DC court of appeals, did cure the conflict in the circuits before the USSupreme Court agreed to take the case up. The fact that they did means that the court had independent grounds for reviewing the matter. That is perhaps the most encouraging sign. But it is still very much up to Roberts. The other thing to keep in mind here is the legal pundits have been wrong before. They believed that the Constitution would be sufficient inducement for Roberts to swim against the political tide, whereas now, the heavy lifting has been done for him by the voters, so he can do the right thing.

    The flip side of the coin is encouraging as well. Will he defy the Constitution (again) and the will of the voters as well? And if he does that, would it not tarnish the court’s reputation and his—the one thing a vain man like him is primarily interested in.

  74. IMO, that NYTIMES article, essentially laying out a full campaign, obviously sourced from Clinton insiders, is the 100% wrong strategy for Clinton (if she wants to run). Her best bet would be to do everything she can do to suggest that she had decided NOT to run and force the party to “draft” her.

    If she learned anything from 2008, it should be the realization that an inevitable coronation march is a flawed strategy.

    ————–

    As for Benghazi, I have no idea what happened. All I have been told by the Obama administration, was a complete lie that it was the result of a YouTube video. It is obvious that Clinton refused to be the spokesman for that lie, but I have never heard what the ambassador was doing in Benghazi with essentially no security or any other post-mortem on the whys and wherefores of what went wrong. I have to note that Clinton never resigned over a disagreement with Obama policy. Until I hear an explanation from her, I have no choice but to assume she was on-board with Obama policy (and stonewalling).

    As for the US foreign policy being in shambles, that seems self-evident to me: Russia, the Middle East, Israel, and so forth. It is hard to argue that the State Department under the Obama administration has notched rousing successes.

  75. LOVED that new article about Hillary’s listening tour!

    NOW this is the Hillary of old, she’s putting it together people!!! She really, really, really is and I like the tone of this article because it lays out that they have been working all along and that it was about building and rebuilding relationships when she campaigned for her friends

    This article makes me feel better but I still don’t trust the Obamabots

    DISH is DISH satellite network .. cable satellite and Turner could not come to terms with DISH for extension of carrying CNN and several other Turner stations .. NOW DISH is airing MSNBC on TWO of their stations … on old CNN and on regular MSNBC too

  76. Correction from 3:24

    If that were to happen, would Big Pharma the insurance companies that first represented these Americans rush back with open arms and a rate hike to cover these people?

  77. hwc

    I have to note that Clinton never resigned over a disagreement with Obama policy. Until I hear an explanation from her, I have no choice but to assume she was on-board with Obama policy (and stonewalling).

    As for the US foreign policy being in shambles, that seems self-evident to me: Russia, the Middle East, Israel, and so forth. It is hard to argue that the State Department under the Obama administration has notched rousing successes.
    _______________

    hwc,

    I respect your right to your opinion. However, it seems a little unreasonable to expect that Hillary should have resigned over O’s handling of Benghazi. She is on record of having objected to the video excuse. She refused to be the Obama’s rep on the talk show circuit. She called for a full investigation. She referred to the attack as terrorism. The blame for Benghazi belongs to Obama. As to whether she should have resigned in protest – not if she wanted to run for POTUS. Although we (I should say I – not speaking for others) are disgusted with the Dim party now – maybe forever, depending on the direction it takes, Hillary couldn’t afford to piss off her party by slamming O. Not if she planned to seek office again. The political climate of today is different than it was when when Benghazi occurred.

    As for the foreign policy being in “shambles”. My take on it is that we can thank Hillary that it’s not in worse shape.

  78. drum roll…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/392322/first-fight-lame-duck-eliana-johnson

    The First Fight of the Lame Duck

    By Eliana Johnson

    The lame duck session hasn’t yet convened, but its first major battle — over how best to thwart the executive action on immigration the president is expected to issue in the coming months — is already underway. Conservatives are pushing to include a measure attempting to deny the government the funds it needs to administer the amnesty in a must-pass spending bill, the so-called continuing resolution.

    National Review Online obtained a copy of a letter that Arizona congressman Matt Salmon is circulating to his colleagues to generate support for such a move. It is addressed to representatives Hal Rogers and Nita Lowey, who lead the House Appropriations Committee:

    Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey,

    As the House continues to deliberate and draft appropriations legislation before the current continuing resolution expires on December 12, 2014, we write to encourage you to include language that would prohibit funding for the President’s reported intentions to create work permits and green cards for undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.

    There are currently millions of undocumented immigrants living within our borders. Recently, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a procurement request for 34 million work permits and green cards over the next five years. President Obama has spoken publicly and privately about his intentions to use executive action to create these work permits for those who are here illegally. This would be in direct violation of U.S. law. As you know, the Congress has the power of the purse and should use it as a tool to prevent the President from implementing policies that are contrary to our laws and the desire of the American people.

    We respectfully request that as you work to finalize the year-end funding legislation that language be included in all relevant appropriations legislation for FY 2015 to prohibit the use of funds by the administration for the implementation of current or future executive actions that would create additional work permits and green cards outside of the scope prescribed by Congress. We thank you for your efforts with this legislation and for your consideration of this important request.

    Sincerely,

    Matt Salmon

    Member of Congress

    Senator Harry Reid is sure to oppose a continuing resolution with this restriction, and even if it got past the Senate, President Obama would almost certainly veto it. That raises the specter of a government shutdown, the prospect of which is not going over well with House leadership. According to a leadership aide, leaders will consult with members about how best to respond to an executive amnesty “in a way that keeps the government open.” One of the options cited by the aide is including the forthcoming amnesty in the lawsuit that House speaker John Boehner is filing against President Obama for taking unilateral actions that he considers executive overreach.

    Some Republicans are already strategizing about how to avoid the blame for a shutdown: One Senate aide says a preemptive move to prevent an amnesty or a move in the immediate wake of one will put the onus on the president. Others think there’s no way for Republicans to avoid looking like obstructionists.

    Salmon, according to an aide, plans to send his letter to Rogers and Lowey on Monday. Though a Salmon aide says the congressman is more concerned with “discouraging the president” from issuing an amnesty than with persuading GOP leaders, that may be the battle he and the other signatories of the letter must win first.

  79. As far as calling for a “full-investigation”, did the State Department conduct one? Did they cooperate with the Congressional investigations? Do you give the Secretary of State a free pass? Without explanation, I do not….

  80. MO, that NYTIMES article, essentially laying out a full campaign, obviously sourced from Clinton insiders, is the 100% wrong strategy for Clinton (if she wants to run). Her best bet would be to do everything she can do to suggest that she had decided NOT to run and force the party to “draft” her.

    If she learned anything from 2008, it should be the realization that an inevitable coronation march is a flawed strategy.
    ——-
    Precisely/

    This strategy of getting the money people in line, saying all the right things, being risk adverse, parroting the year of the woman leitmofiff and following in the footsteps of a lame duck whose damage to the nation is now a matter of record, is a way to win the nomination and lose the election.

    But experience has shown that the public at large does not pay much attention to details. What they want is bread and circuses. Yes, that is all there is, Peggy Lee. In that case, the strategy has one big gaping hole in it: where is the drama?

    And if you throw in Jebediah on the other side, the boredom will be contagious. Nobody believes the political class any more.

    But if she does as you correctly suggest, and make the party come begging to you, then the imminent prospect of being hung if she says no, will quash the progressive voice. Then she will have some latitude to deal with the realities of the general election and cast off the yoke of the progressive.

  81. dot48
    November 7, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    Harry Reid is the MOST poisonous person in American politics. I have NO well wishes for the turd!
    ———
    You can understand the desperation of his chief of staff when he lost, and how Obama refused to give him the money. For Harry, I’m sure, this was the unkindest cut of all. For the rest of us, the punishment fit the crime.

    I watched Harry during his rise to the top. I was invited to a big fundraiser in Washington honoring him, and I was told by one of the lobbyists, he will be the next speaker. From loves close kiss (then) to hell’s abyss (now) is one short step I trow.

    But this tees up a related issue which I have been keen to mention. Now is as good a time as any.

    The winners and losers in this election are not just the candidates, but their staffers who must now begin the arduous prospect of looking for a job, and weaning themselves off Potomac fever. Some of these people are star struck youngsters, some are people with political ambitions of their own, and some of them belong to the criminal class.

    This is why elections are good, and why we do need term limits.

  82. I just received Sharyl Atkisson’s new book Stonewalled. A portion of the cover jacket reads as follows with a few obvious edits by me to amplify the point”. I will be off the blog and reading this for awhile. (Note: for what it is worth, I would bet good money that the hacker was acting under orders from John Brennan, head of the CIA, aka Dr. Strangelove.)

    “A dogged reporter with a well earned reputation as a pit bull, Sharyl filed a series of groundbreaking stories on Fast and Furious, Obama’s green energy boondoggle, the unanswered questions about Benghazi, and the disastrous roll out of the president’s signature legislation Obamacare–the greatest civil rights victory since 1964 according the the NYT. Instead of being accepted for the truth of their contents, they were met with a blizzard of PR tactics including emails and phone calls up the network chain of command, villification by paid for commentors and bloggers, and a campaign of character assassination that continues unabated to this day. Worst of all she reveals that when she broke these stories, her computers and phone lines were hacked by an unrevealed but very sophisticated party.

    Stonewalled is the story of the Obama Administration’s efforts to monitor journalists, to intimidate and harrass opposition groups, and to spy on private citizens. But it is also a searing indictment of the press, and the dangerous decline of investigative journalism and unbiased truth telling in America today.”

  83. An Accountability Review Board looked into the Beghazi.

    The Accountability Review Board and it’s word were subjected to review.

    Three House committees – Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, and Government Oversight and Reform – investigated.

    A select committee headed by Rep. Gowdy is currently investigation.

    Whether Hillary and State Dept. fully cooperated depends upon who you talk to – Republican or Dimocrat.

    The idea of “a pass” is irrelevant. Hillary hasn’t been formally accused of anything to my knowledge.

  84. THE PROBLEM IS NOT NOT NOT GRIDLOCK. THAT IS A FICTION PERPETRATED BY THE BELTWAY ELITES WHO JUST GOT THEIR CLOCK CLEANED. THE PROBLEM IS OBAMA. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. REAL SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD AND OBVIOUS.
    —————————
    The Kumbaya Temptation
    Friday – November 7, 2014 at 2:10 am

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    Nov. 4 was a national vote of no confidence in Barack Obama.

    Had a British prime minister received a vote like this, he would have resigned by now.

    The one issue on which all Republicans agreed, and all ran, was the rejection of Obama. And by fleeing from him, some even refusing to admit they voted for him, Democrats, too, were conceding that this election was about Obama, and that they were not to blame for his failures.

    Yet, though this was a referendum on Obama and his policies, and though both were repudiated, some pundits are claiming that America voted for an “end to gridlock” and a new era of compromise and conciliation.

    How so? If the American people were truly saying that, why did they vote to turn the Senate over to Mitch McConnell? Why did they vote to send more Republicans to strengthen the hand of John Boehner and those in the House who had “shut down” the government?

    Did America vote for the GOP to go back to Washington and work with Obama? Or did America reward the GOP for promising to return and continue to oppose Obama’s policies?

    Is the answer not obvious?

    What Republicans are hearing now is the siren song of a Beltway elite that just got its clock cleaned, an elite that revels in Republican defeats, but is ever at hand to give guidance and counsel to Republicans when they win.

    And that counsel is always the same: Time to put the acrimony behind us. Time to reach out and take the extended hand of the defeated. Time come together to end gridlock and move forward. And invariably this means move in the same old direction, if a bit more slowly.

    Consider several areas where the kumbaya temptation is strongest.

    The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

    Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no vote on whatever treaty he brings home.

    This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.

    Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and killed the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.

    Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower’s America?

    The party should re-embrace economic patriotism, stand up to Japanese protectionists and Chinese currency manipulators, and put American workers first, ahead of corporate outsourcers.

    Immigration reform is a second area where the GOP is being urged, even by some of its own, to compromise.

    In return for Obama agreeing to improve border security, Republicans will be asked to go along with amnesty for millions here illegally.

    But did any Republican run on amnesty? Is the nation demanding amnesty? If not, then who is?

    Answer: Corporate America, Obama, La Raza and the editorial pages of newspapers that routinely brand Republicans as xenophobic bigots.

    Republicans should pass a stand-alone border-security bill, and then dare Senate Democrats to filibuster it and dare the president to veto it.

    If Obama declares an executive amnesty for five million illegals, as he threatens, he can credibly be charged will defying the manifest will of the nation and usurping Congressional power. The GOP would then be within its rights to declare all-out political warfare.

    Let voters decide in 2016 whether invaders should be rewarded with paths to citizenship or whether presidents should be duty-bound to defend the border.

    A third temptation will be Obama’s request for Congress to formally authorize the war he has begun in Syria and Iraq. If the GOP signs on, the party will own that war going into 2016, as it owned the Iraq war going into 2006, when it lost both houses of Congress.

    That the Islamic State is brutal, barbaric and anti-American is undeniable. But its occupation of northern Syria and western Iraq is the problem primarily of Syria and Iraq, and their neighbors in Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

    This is, first and foremost, their war, not ours.

    As Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said last week, “The long-term war against [the Islamic State] needs to be fought by the indigenous capability there. It needs to be fought by Iraqis. It needs to be fought by Syrians. It needs to be fought by other Arabs, because it’s their country and they need to win that back.”

    Before succumbing to the kumbaya temptation, Republicans should ask themselves not how to find common ground with Barack, but how to get America out of this Slough of Despond.

    And anyone who thinks last Tuesday was a call to compromise with Obama has either an ax to grind or a serious hearing problem.

Comments are closed.