ObamaCare Chess: Supreme Court Moves To Checkmate King

It’s political warfare on a Constitutional chessboard. On Friday the Supreme Court announced it would review the King decision. Checkmate.

The Supreme Court did not wait until Monday as it would ordinarily do to crush Barack Obama. Unlike most others, we are not surprised at all. For us, there is no Shock: Supreme Court will decide whether federal consumers are eligible for ObamaCare subsidies.

It is as we have foreseen – on the very day of the Halbig and King decisions:

We wrote about Halbig HERE. It’s a big, big, big, decision which almost surely forces an an Obama appeal to a full panel of the appellate court. Obama will win that fight because he packed the court when Harry Reid ended the Senate filibusters on judges to courts other than the Supreme Court. But then the case will go to the Supreme Court and we’re walking on the sunny side of the street and believe the Supreme Court will ratify today’s three judge panel decision. [snip]

Here’s a complication: There is another case on the same issues in the Fourth Circuit. It is likely the Fourth Circuit appeals court will rule in favor of ObamaCare. The losers in that case will then be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they so choose and force the issue faster than anyone expects but still after the November 2014 elections.

How’s that for bloody good analysis? Almost immediately after we wrote that, the Fourth Circuit did exactly as we predicted. We then wrote an update to take into account the latest decision:

Update II: Well that was quick. Two hours after the Halbig decision the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on ObamaCare. As predicted below, the Fourth Circuit upheld ObamaCare’s subsidy scheme as twisted into existence by Obama. This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review.

More importantly, the plaintiffs that lost in the Fourth Circuit now can immediately appeal to the Supreme Court and not bother with an appeal to the full panel of the Fourth Circuit.

Feel free to point out any small diddly thingamajig in which we were wrong ObamaCare supporters. Go ahead. We dare you. We double dare ya!

Our mockery of the Fourth Circuit decision added tickles when ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber’s videotaped statements emerged from a rathold. Gruber made it clear that ObamaCare subsidies were intended only for state exchanges.

Our brilliant, genius, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, analysis hit full flower soon thereafter:

We predicted that Gruber’s comments will be, either through judicial notice or part of the record, introduced by ObamaCare opponents into the judicial record.

We have been proven correct. Plaintiffs in an Oklahoma ObamaCare case have moved to supplement the record with Jonathan Gruber’s helpful comments and history. For our non-regular readers, here is a video hilarity of Gruber’s helpful comments for ObamaCare opponents:

Some would call it genius. We’ll be modest and just blush. Some of what we wrote was mundane:

Our Gruber prediction was not very daring. It was obvious.

But when others clutched their pearls at the swift Fourth Circuit decision on the same day as HalBIG we stayed fixed to the north star and well… we were brilliant in our analysis:

Less obvious at the time to all but us here at Big Pink was the good fortune of that Fourth Circuit pro-ObamaCare decision that came in two hours after the D.C. Circuit cut the guts out of ObamaCare. Our prediction? We predicted that the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs would race to the Supreme Court and skip the en banc stopover. Result? We are right again.

The Fourth Circuit plaintiffs could have asked the full panel of the Fourth Circuit to take up the case and therefore tie themselves down alongside the ObamaCare plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit where the ObamaCare scam artists ask the full en banc court panel to take up the case. ObamaCare lawyers, it was widely presumed, would appeal their loss in D.C. to the full en banc panel which is packed with Obama appointed judges after Harry Reid destroyed the Senate and its filibuster rules. The likelihood was (although this was before Jonathan Gruber’s comments came to light) that the full D.C. panel would uphold ObamaCare and thereby end the “split” decisions in the circuits making it less likely that the Supreme Court would take up the ObamaCare HalBIG cases.

But we suspected and predicted that the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs would skip the full panel in the Fourth Circuit and instead go directly to the Supreme Court. This they did and we go to the head of the class.

Oh dear, we’re on the verge of being immodest. What will mater and pater say? But damn it to blazes, we were right and so right that old articles we wrote are as daisies fresh sprung from the soil:

On Friday, August 1, pro-ObamaCare lawyers, as predicted by most, filed their appeal for an en banc hearing before the entire D.C. Circuit panel. On July 31, however, the plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit made their move. The “losers” in the Fourth Circuit beat the D.C. “winners” to the Supreme Court.

The writ to the Supreme Court by the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs cites their new pal “architect” Jonathan Gruber: [snip]

As we predicted the timing was the interesting aspect:

Under the court’s rules, lawyers who lose in an appeals court have 90 days to seek a review in the Supreme Court. And normally, lawyers take the full time. But in this instance, the opponents of the Affordable Care Act want the court’s conservative justices to have a chance to take up the new healthcare case in a few months so they can rule by next spring.

The Obama administration has the opposite strategy on timing. The Justice Department said it planned to ask the full appeals court in the District of Columbia to reconsider last week’s ruling by a three-judge panel. If so, that could delay a final ruling from the appeals court until next year and push off a Supreme Court decision to 2016.

By then, millions of Americans will have relied for several years on having health insurance they could afford thanks to the subsidies. A single adult with an income up to $45,960 and a family of four with an income up $94,200 may obtain insurance on an exchange at a reduced cost.

Did we ever tell you we are great at chess? Since childhood. Great at chess. And ObamaCare is a great chess game. Like Deep Blue we here at Big Pink knew how the chess pieces would move before the players knew what they would do. We wrote it is one giant political chess game on ObamaCare and that was the reason the Supreme Court would checkmate King:

We’ll address the issue of hooking Americans to ObamaCare subsidies as a political strategy below. We’ve already addressed why this line of HalBIG cases can be successful politically for the courts and that the Supreme Court will see that these ObamaCare cases are best settled outside the 2016 (and 2014) election window. Obama of course wants to attack the Supreme Court in an election year just like he so successfully used that timing to his advantage in 2012.

The Writ Of Certiorari filed so quickly, not waiting 90 days, comports with the strategy we have espoused of avoiding as much as possible an election year fight which will fill Chief Justice Roberts with angst. A non-election year ruling right after the November 2014 elections but well before 2016 is just what Roberts needs to calm his nerves.

It’s all come to pass. The Supreme Court waited to read the election returns. Now the Supreme Court will move against ObamaCare before the 2016 election and safely after the 2014 elections. ObamaCare has been hit by an electoral truck and is off to the Sarah Palin death panel.

If you doubt ObamaCare is about to die read the analysis of the Greg Sargent analysis. It’s a hoot. Obama high-priest and ObamaCare scorched earth defender Sargent unwittingly wrote the Supreme Court decision against ObamaCare even as he thought he wrote a brilliant defense for ObamaCare! Hilarius. Sargent and Gruber will eventually be seen as the ObamaCare supporters that buried ObamaCare.

ObamaCare supporter Timothy Jost is soiling his briefs with accusations that the Supreme Court is making political, not legal judgements. But the ones playing bad political chess are Harry Reid and Barack Obama with their court packing maneuvers. Chief Justice John Roberts will have to negate the Reid/Obama court packing schemes if he wants to preserve the integrity of the Judicial Branch.

The pearl clutching dummies will see a Supreme Court checkmate of ObamaCare as great for Barack Obama because it will give him an issue on which to fight. But that is a non starter. ObamaCare is hated just about everywhere. If anything a Supreme Court checkmate which destroys ObamaCare will strengthen the newborn Republican congress. Obama will have to crawl to Republicans for help to rescue his “legacy” disaster. Republicans will prove to not be in a giving vein.

ObamaCare, Ebola, they are all dancers in the Masque of the Red Death hosted by Ebola Obama.

Ebola Obama, this wretched creature who believes he is a black king is about to be checkmated by the Supreme Court. The knights, bishops, rooks, Queen, pawns, and the opposing White King will do Obama in. The name of the White King in this game of chess?

The White King is called the Constitution.


138 thoughts on “ObamaCare Chess: Supreme Court Moves To Checkmate King

  1. All the brave talk does not disguise the fact that Obama and Obama Dimocrats are back on their heels. The heels are beginning to deal with the calamity that befell them on Tuesday:


    Two Prominent Democrats Float Idea Of Delaying Immigration Actions

    Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are standing firm: Obama must act now, they say. Where the executive actions stand after Tuesday’s electoral drubbing.

    President Obama vowed he would take executive action to slow deportations before the end of 2014 — but still has not said when exactly he will do so.

    The delay of the long-promised actions until after the election, instead of this summer, was meant to help vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in conservative states. Despite the delay, almost all of those candidates lost, many by wide margins.

    Two prominent Democrats have, since Tuesday, floated the possibility of delaying the executive actions further until next year, and give the newly Republican Congress an opportunity to move immigration legislation first.

    David Axelrod, Obama’s former chief adviser, wrote on Twitter Wednesday that delay could force the GOP hand. “Immigration bill won a huge bipartisan majority in the Senate,” he wrote. “POTUS should agree to shelve exec order for up or down vote in House.” Axelrod did not respond to an email about the tweet.

    On Thursday, former DNC chair and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell suggested April or even June as a potential deadline after which Obama could tell Republicans he’ll act if Congress doesn’t send him a bill.

    “There are two ways I think he could go about it. One, he could impose a timeline now, say, ‘If you send me a bill by April of next year, I won’t issue an executive order, but here’s the executive order I will issue if you don’t send me a bill,’” Rendell said on a conference call hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank. “Or he can issue the executive order now and say, ‘As soon as you send me a bill I’ll sign it, and then if I can sign I will sign — obviously it will supersede the executive order.’”

    Rendell participated in an immigration discussion at the White House on Wednesday this week, as part of a Bipartisan Policy Center delegation. Officials with the group said Rendell’s views were his own and not the group’s.

    Obama and the White House have insisted over and over since the election that executive action is still very much on the table. [snip]

    Likewise, congressional Democrats are still standing by calls for executive action — nothing, they say, has changed since Tuesday’s Republican wave. [snip]

    Speaker John Boehner, who has in the past said immigration should be considered by the House, said Thursday that if Obama takes executive action, it “will poison the well” and there will be “no chance” for a legislative effort.

    Whether the administration really has the authority to take executive action has been a continued point of contention with Republicans since the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals measure that extended protections to some undocumented immigrants. [snip]

    For now, no one in immigration circles seems to be taking Axelrod’s or Rendell’s suggestion of delay very seriously.

    It’s a trial balloon by Axelrod and Rendell at the behest of Obama.

    Obama is scared and that is why he keeps promising to shoot, like a villain in a bad murder movie who waits too long and then the police rush in and stop him.

    Obama continues to draw red lines then he turns yellow.

    Obama is scared and that is why the trial balloons are flying today. After today’s Supreme Court ObamaCare writ Obama must be even more worried.

  2. Admin: From your incisive comments in the last blog, I knew a new one was coming, and rightly so.

    I commend your attention to Sharyl Attkisson’s new book which I received today, which will serve to illuminate more of the dark areas of this administration.

    November 7, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    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 ADMINISTRATIONS 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.”

  3. Our brilliant, genius, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, analysis

    Indeed it is Admin!

    Makes me start to narrow down what your career behind the Pink Vail might be, you are not a barista at Starbucks, that’s for sure.

  4. The reason I suspect Brennan is because according to reports I believe are reliable, there have been three architects of Obama’s failed foreign policy two of whom are political operatives, which explains its lack of depth and overt political bias. They are Axelrod, Jarrett and Brennan. Each of them tried mightily to hide the details and cover their tracks. But Brennan was the only one who had the will AND capacity to do what was done to Sharyl. i was told by a former secretary of the navy to be very very very wary of him.

  5. yesterday when I was driving in my car I was thinking about this website…and how prescient Admin has been from the get go…from just seeing through O from the start when his aura was blinding others…

    I have said it before and it bears saying again…Admin you have been courageous, unrelenting and amazingly spot on while illuminating many twists and turns along this journey we all have been on for the last years…

    this place has been enlightning, educational…and alot of fun…and still is…

  6. Shary’s book may have a greater impact now than it would have before the election. The election tells big media that they are on the wrong side of history. The book tells them that far from being insiders and the friends of Obama, they too are on his hit parade. The confluence of those plus the success of their competitor FOX may have the salutary effect of sobering them up from their six year old delusion and concomitant betrayal of their own profession.

  7. S

    …this place has been enlightening, educational…and a lot of fun…and still is…


    I agree, and without you Admin, absolutely noting would have made sense to me since 2008.

    I’d rather be here tearing my hair out, then alone, trying to figure out if my country had gone completely nuts.

    I actually feel kinda sorry for the old school Dems that don’t know about Big Pink.

  8. Admin: you are right. The delay proposed for executive action on amnesty is a trial balloon. Axelrod speaks for Obama, and Rendell speaks for Hillary. They cannot say it directly, because the loudest voices in their base, having been rejected by voters, now want Obama to govern by executive order. Therefore, the goal at this point will be to convert the promise of imminent action into a fall back position if Congress does not address the issue. But even as a fallback position, it is not the sword of Damocles Obama may think it is. Once he backs off on immediate enforcement, he will lose credibility and public opposition will grow even greater than it is now. It will be seen in the context of a man who is quick to draw red lines, and slow to react to their breach. If he attempts to use that threat to bludgeon Republicans then they need to have their legal case ready to go, as that will serve as a deterrent assuming that the Supreme Court does as you expect and strikes down federal subsidies for Obamacare.

  9. Thanks to all lathering on the praise we so immodestly sprinkled on ourselves. As to the most “fun” place – how about MSNBC?

    HotAir posted a link to a bunch of videos of MSNBC throughout the night that we have finally had the time to watch. They’re a hoot.

    See the post for yourselves although we will excerpt liberally (and leave out the fun comments of the author):


    “9:30 p.m. Eastern:

    10:35 p.m. Eastern:

    11:10 p.m. Eastern:

    12:50 a.m. Eastern:

    4:12 p.m. Eastern, November 5:

    Chris O’Tingles: “There’s so much going on,” Matthews said. “The Denver Post endorsing Cory Gardner. The Des Moines Register Ernst. There’s something weird going on among – even among the educated crowd.”

    “There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.” Our contribution:

    “The people are revolting” say O’Tingles and Obama.

  10. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/supreme-court-to-hear-obamacare-subsidies-case-112687.html?hp=f1

    Supreme Court move comes at challenging time for Obamacare

    The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to take up a challenge to Obamacare subsidies couldn’t come at a worse time: Republicans fresh off big election wins are vowing to dismantle the law while the White House is readying a second enrollment season that it needs to get off to a better start than last year’s disaster.

    The case taken by the court, King v. Burwell, puts at risk the health law’s low- and middle-income subsidies for millions of Americans who live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

    The surprise decision sends the president’s health care law back to the Supreme Court for the third time in as many years. It creates an aura of uncertainty around the law just as the Obama administration prepares to unveil a revamped HealthCare.gov as open enrollment begins one week from Saturday.

    A failure of HealthCare.gov in the second year — or high premium increases in the states that have not yet disclosed rates — would add yet another blow to the health law, now under renewed threat from Republicans in the House and Senate after their big wins Tuesday. [snip]

    Only 13 states and Washington D.C. are operating their own exchanges entirely in 2015. That means if the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration, millions of Americans would not be eligible for subsidies, which were included in the law to make insurance affordable for low- and middle-income Americans.

    The Court’s timing was a surprise since only one appeals court ruled against the Obama administration on the subsidy issue — and later decided to re-hear the case next month, vacating the earlier ruling. But there are three other cases winding their way through the legal system in other parts of the country.

    Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and a prime backer of the King case, said the justices may have internalized a key argument the challengers made about its urgency. The law is already in effect, people are getting subsidies, and the challenges should be resolved.

    “If the plaintiffs are right, then we need a resolution of this case to put an end to the greatest scandal of the Obama administration, because that’s what these cases are about,” Cannon said. He and other challengers argue that certain wording in the statute says that subsidies can only go to states that establish their own exchanges.”

  11. I remember those images, especially the nude, terrified little girl.

    Here’s a version with the all the words to that song.

  12. I have to admit I hope Hillary lays low for a bit too and this “Listening Tour” is totally brilliant. It gives her a chance to just get out in the country and like they say, get a pulse, the losses in Arkansas for them are probably more shocking than any other but they can thank Obama, Reid, and Pelosi !! I think they ALL share in the blame and who do you think wants to be leaders again .. Pelosi and Reid .. 2 OLD WHITE people JUST what they want to accuse the Republicans of being.

  13. Kudos Admin!!

    The mark of great intelligence is seeing things before anyone else does. I can’t tell how often I face up against the most ardent of bumbles supporters – my fellow black Americans – with the arguments that are made in the articles you write, and also the many wonderful posts that all the regulars here make. I just ask that you don’t stop. You and this place that I log onto every night after work and during my downtime at home has been a haven for SANITY since the insane took over. Kudos Admin!! In fact, we need to figure out a way to get you into Hillary’s inner circle as a close advisor (that is, if you aren’t already! :O )

    Hillary 2016

    P.S. – The White House has confirmed that Lorretta Lynch, attorney from the New York area, has been announced as their pick for Attorney General. Link to soon follow….

  14. The Rock

    In fact, we need to figure out a way to get you into Hillary’s inner circle as a close advisor (that is, if you aren’t already! :O )

    I agree!

  15. Admin,

    I would like to thank you for all your insightful posts. And all those who discuss these events. I am really good with math and science, but people I do not always get. I knew something was going very wrong in this country when Bush was elected and then re elected in 2004. But I have been at a lost to really understand it or know what to do about it. The middle class has been disappearing from around me and I am very worried about the world my daughter will have to live in. And what the DNC did in 2008 showed the bad intentions of the powers that be.

    It is not fair to Hillary Clinton to put this all on her. She deserved that nomination in 2008 and could have done amazing things with it. Now she has this mess. But suppose she been elected POTUS and did restore prosperity and freedoms and then Ofucktard and his totalitarian scum had come into power in 2016. Maybe we would not have seen the evil until it was too late. Maybe this is how it is supposed to be. We have to relearn the lessons of the past before going forward to a better future.

    Hillary and her Listening Tour. Love it.

    Hillary 2016!!!

  16. admin:

    Excellent analysis of the Supreme Court strategy on this latest ObamaCare strategy.

    I think Roberts has gotten a bad rap on his decision on the individual mandate. I thought all along that it could easily be called a tax and a conservative court would have to defer to the power of the Congress to levy taxes.

    The whole thing just makes me sad. How much better we would all be if they had passed a less sweeping (and better written bill) that enjoyed some degree of bipartisan buy in.

  17. Obama chooses NY prosecutor as attorney general


    wbb, can you speak to her legal ability? I don’t know her so I’m not sure of the quality of the White House’s selection.

    Hillary 2016

    OT – Admin, here is an idea for a Thanksgiving article – the many names preezy has in this our space. I really like Ofucktard. Obola is real good too. That said, I’m stuck on Bumbles. It seems to fit every situation…. 😛

  18. I am still at sea on whether Roberts will do the right thing in re. Obamacare

    I am willing to stipulate to everything that you and others have said. Specically:

    1. he now has the political wind at his back, unlike before

    2. he has the opportunity to do the right thing, and correct part of the problem he created before

    3. he will invalidate a sound decision rendered by a bi partisan panel of the DC circuit, if he balks

    4. he will validate a court packing scheme by Holder and Obama, that reversed that panel

    5. he will ignore election results which Obama himself claimed where a referndum on his policies. a wholesale rejection of Obamacare

    But in spite of all that there is room for doubt that Roberts will do the right thing.

    To understand why you must go back to the prior occasion when he faced the same challenge and fell through is ass

    1. the case supported the repeal of Obamacare

    2. during the hearing before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General conceded that Obamacare was NOT a tax

    3. in the aftermath of that hearing the left wing pundits, from Larry Tribe to Toobin on down were sure Verilli had lost the case for the government

    4. when the court commenced its deliberations, Roberts was prepared to strike down Obamacare, thus supplying the crucial fifth vote

    5. then, for reasons which have never been clearly explained, he jumped to the other side of the fence.

    6. the NYT and other left wing mouthpieces were warning him that they would attack him personally if he failed to decide their way–drivel about his legacy

    7. Justice Kennedy acted as an emissary from the conservative camp and tried but failed to get the frightened Roberts back on the reservation

    8. Roberts claimed that Obamacare was a tax, thereby adopting the defense which the lawyer for the government explicitly waived in open hearing.

    Unless we know for sure, why Roberts fell through his ass, there is no assurance that he will not do the same thing again.

    Even though he would not be sticking his neck out much to remand the question to the congress to fix the problem or start over.

    There have been theories about why he failed to do the right thing before, the most obvious one being that at that at that point he did not have the political wind at his back, or that he feared retribution from big media, or that there was some skeleton in his closet that Axelrod used, just as he did with the Clintons, to force him to heel.

    But inasmuch as we do not know why he fell through his ass before, the most we can say is he ought not to do it again, but whether he will or not remains for me an imponderable.

    Putting aside the legal uncertainties however, the political impact of agreeing to hear the case is a very positive sign.

  19. TheRock, DrudgeReport has about 8 headlines on Ferguson. The rumors are that the grand jury is not going to indict Wilson. The tensions are high this weekend that Ferguson is about to erupt.

    Ergo, Obama tomorrow nominating another AG. The elections are over now so there is no profit for Obama in Ferguson blowing up again. Obama thinks a black woman won’t get opposed in the Senate and that Ferguson might confuse an Obama appointment with action.

  20. Furthermore, it is yet another incentive for Obama to reject unilateral action and seek refuge in bipartisanship, for as long as his ego can stand it.

    Which will not be very long because

    How ya gonna keep them down on the farm after they’ve seen Par–ee

    Or, as he put it, I can do anything I want . . .

  21. The rumors are that the grand jury is not going to indict Wilson.
    Which would be another nail in the coffin of big media.

  22. There were many election night stories which produced mirth. This one made us laugh loudly:


    Columbus —

    After Democrats faced widespread losses Tuesday, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said he will step down as the state party leader in mid-December.

    Redfern, who lost his legislative seat on Tuesday, has been state party chairman since 2006. He led the party through statewide gains in 2006 and 2008 but saw Democrats get swept on the statewide ticket in 2010 and lose heavily in the 2014 statewide election.

    It is expected that U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown will likely have a major influence over who replaced Redfern. Brown is one of only two Democrats to hold statewide elected office in Ohio.

    Redfern was not available for comment. He said in a written statement: “Tonight, I offered up my resignation as chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, effective mid-December. It has been an honor and a privilege to build what I believe to be the strongest state party in the country.”

    Redfern engineered a no primary gifting of the nomination to Fitzgerald who was later found in a dark parking lot with a woman who was not his wife. Fitzgerald claimed they were lost and trying to get directions in that dark parking lot. It was later discovered that Fitzgerald who drove his car almost daily to work had no driver’s license for over 10 years.

    Fitzgerald in his stump speeches repeatedly claimed this election was about “integrity”.

    Republican John Kasich won by 31 points.

  23. wbb, can you speak to her legal ability? I don’t know her so I’m not sure of the quality of the White House’s selection.
    I do not know her, but I have an opinion about the office.

    In the federal court system for the District of New York, the southern district which covers Manhattan is pimus inter pares. Rudy made that office famous, and those who came after him have upheld that tradition. It has the advantage of covering Wall Street and is the most advanced in the prosecution of White collar crime. The current US attorney for that district is someone I dislike personally, but he has a good reputation.

    The eastern district office is a slow bell in comparison. The guy I knew when I did business back there was Maloney, and he was not particularly astute. It is more of a blue collar than a white collar practice. One of the judges for that circuit, Nickerson, came from the English firm which is a democrat king maker and the attorney who represented Hillary at the RBC hearing on May 31, 2008 came from that firm. He is a fine attorney, but the US Attorneys office is not of his calibre. They lost some big cases against the mob in general and Gotti in particular.

    I suspect this woman was chosen because of her race and her political affiliation. Like the man who preceded her, she is a loyal apparatchik/

  24. Admin, are you clairvoyant?

    Your ability to gather and process all information available – analyze this huge amount of information – form connections to other bits of information, which on the surface, to most of us appear unrelated – construct an hypothesis, and predict the outcomes is unfreakinbelievable, astounding, incomparable.

    I second all of the other accolades expressed by my fellow Pinkers. They have already used up all of the good adjectives, all of which definitely apply to your brilliance.

  25. There’s something weird going on among – even among the educated crowd.”
    The only reason it seems weird to a jackass like Matthews is because he is behaviorally blind, and has no inking that intelligent life exists outside the beltway, and assumes that the life that exists inside the beltway is per force intelligent–as opposed to wealthy, arrogant and self absorbed. The “educated crowd” he refers to are the most vulnerable. Their values are being challenged by the great unwashed and it cannot be comfortable. It might even mean that this country could function quite well without them. The idea that America should be dispensable is fine with them just as long as they are protected. But the idea that they too might be dispensable as well is a bitter pill to swallow. Nothing in their fine Ivy League survival kits is there any remedy for that. It is, or was, unthinkable. How ironic since the middle class has been thinking about this for a generation, while their betters reveled in the lap of luxury–like IRS flunkies in Las Vegas. Lets stop judging these people by their inflated resumes and start judging them by what they have been able to produce in terms of positive results for the country.

  26. So Obama makes a Friday afternoon announcement of sending more troops to Iran on the same day that Rand Paul gets the endorsement of Mitch McConnell.

    Just thinking about the irony of an anti-war Republican nominee going code-pink against an escalating Democratic war in 2016. What a crazy world we live in!

  27. Very interesting . . .

    Anti-cronyism legislation is win-win for the GOP. It is good policy, restoring growth and fairness to an economy that Big Government and Big Business have rigged against the little guy. And it’s even better politics, standing up for the middle class while pinning hypocritical Democrats between their egalitarian talking points and their elitist agenda.

    Taking on crony capitalism is a test of the political will and wisdom of the GOP. To become the party of the middle class and those aspiring to join it—our only hope for success in 2016 and beyond—we have to change more than our rhetoric. The new Republican Congress does have to get things done, but those things have to be for Main Street, too, not just Wall Street and K Street. A big part of our “governing” test is whether we can stand up to special interests. Leaders like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)59% and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)85% in the House, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)81% and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)84% in the Senate have made the fight against cronyism a point of emphasis—and it’s sure to be a theme in the 2016 presidential primaries, too.

    This issue is reaching critical mass on the Right. And as I see it, it’s now a political necessity, another one that we should embrace rather than resist.

    In passing anti-cronyism bills, we can either achieve policy wins for economic growth and opportunity, or we can let the president explain in his veto messages why taxpayers, whose take-home pay is stagnant, should be subsidizing corporations, whose profits have never been higher. That’s a brand-changing debate Republicans can win.

    Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)96% highlights two salient facts that we have dwelt on here at RedState. First, and foremost, Congress can’t govern alone. It wasn’t designed to do so and with the rise of the regulatory state and Congress’s enthusiasm for self-emasculation in delegating rule making authority to the Executive it is quite simply outgunned. An obstinate and obdurate president can flout both the law and the will of Congress… as we have learned to our dismay. The second, as my colleague Leon Wolf pointed out in his epic Dear Republicans: No One Elected You to Work With Democrats, there is no debt owned to Democrats on anything. To the extent they want to vote with us, that is fine, but America turned them out of office because it was not happy with them, not because it wanted Republicans to implement Democrat legislation.

    Of course, the mothership of crony capitalism is the US Chamber of Commerce.

    This is where good policy (anti-cronyism) meets wonderful politics (carrying fire and sword to the Chamber).

    Over the past election cycle, the US Chamber of Commerce has presented a greater danger to conservatives than either the Democrats or the twits who run the NRSC. Their president, Thomas Donahue, is the guy who said that unless the GOP passes comprehensive immigration reform, which would provide an unending supply of cheap, illegal workers in search of eventual US citizenship, the Republicans shouldn’t bother fielding a candidate in 2016. The Chamber has pushed relentlessly for the reauthorization of the atrocity that is the US Export Import Bank. It is first in line to ensure there is plenty of government spending for its members. The sad thing is that even though the Chamber stands for cronyism, it is cronyism that produces “bipartisan” compromises that get approval from the editorial pages of the Washington Post and New York Times.

  28. freespirit
    November 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm


    As I alluded to above, I don’t think Admins vast knowledge and abilities are just a blog hobby. 😉

  29. freespirit

    November 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Admin, are you clairvoyant?

    Your ability to gather and process all information available – analyze this huge amount of information – form connections to other bits of information, which on the surface, to most of us appear unrelated – construct an hypothesis, and predict the outcomes is unfreakinbelievable, astounding, incomparable.

    I second all of the other accolades expressed by my fellow Pinkers. They have already used up all of the good adjectives, all of which definitely apply to your brilliance.


    freespirit…you filled in any blanks anyone else might have missed…and you contbibuted so eloquently with your own additions….yes, beautiful commentary!

  30. TheRock:

    Breibart has an AP article that purports to give more information on this AG pick. The source appears to be Nedra Pickler who I recall from the 2008 primary as very pro Obama and anti Hillary. I view her comments through that lens. The accomplishments of the candidate’s office are modest and underwhelming compared to those of the southern district. The US Attorney for that office who is either Indian or Pakistani was more qualified for the job. But he is also more independent.

    The article implies that the candidate does not have a close relationship with Obama. But that is hardly the point. For you can be quite sure she has a close symbiotic relationship with Holder. As AG, he was her direct boss, he picked her, and through her Holder will retain de facto control over the affairs, and the extremist political agenda of that office. Therefore, with her appointment, Obama can continue to feel that his interests are protected and contempt proceedings issued by congress are consigned to limbo, as they were with Holder. As usual, and true to form, Nedra Pickler misleads the reader.


  31. Is Holder going to run for President? He seems better suited to inheriting the Obama machine than Duval Patrick or Corey Booker. They fact that he would have the Obama anchor around his neck in the general would never occur to the Democrat coalition in the primaries.

  32. Famous last words:

    On October 17, 2013, President Obama said: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it.

    But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”

    Obama’s threat to carry out a unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens threatens the system that he claimed to defend just over a year ago.

    His defense for this apparent inconsistency:

    He was referring to us, not to himself.

    Obama is sovereign and the sovereign is above the law, as Hobbs said.

  33. The itty bitty teenie weenie inconsistency between Obama then and Obama now is noted by Brian Preston @ PJmedia.

  34. wbboei

    November 7, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    Breibart has an AP article that purports to give more information on this AG pick. The source appears to be Nedra Pickler who I recall from the 2008 primary as very pro Obama and anti Hillary. I view her comments through that lens.

    The article by Pickler is the one I linked as well and, for the same reasons as you, didn’t trust it a bit. That is why I asked for your opinion about her. I trust yours, not hers.

    There is no doubt as to the why he picked her. I was just wondering if she has a shred of integrity, maybe from a series of cases she worked on, or maybe from particular criminal syndicate that she prosecuted. I assumed that she is using this as a feather to her career cap since she still has skeletons to hide in that closet of theirs. Maybe she is angling for a university presidency or a cushy law firm gig that come with the connections that only Washington can give you.

    The timing of the announcement has its usual flair for the deceitful. First, it comes when the news cycle in angling towards the Supremes. Also, it gives the 24hr news guys something to prater about for the weekend and into the new week. I predict that they will try and force that story down our throats on Sunday amidst the normal “what will Hillary do now?” segments.

    Hillary 2016

  35. Shadow, I agree – she’s not a barrister, although a good barrister is a wonderful thing. If he/she is not psychic, the only other explanation is off the chart smarts.

  36. wbboei
    November 7, 2014 at 9:55 pm
    Rand Paul gets the endorsement of Mitch McConnell.

    Yes, they both are.

  37. S

    …this place has been enlightening, educational…and a lot of fun…and still is…

    It is that, S.

  38. President Obama firmly rejected advice from top congressional Republicans on Friday that he delay his promised executive action on immigration reform, dismissing calls from critics inside and outside his party to allow Congress to debate the issue next year.


    The new focus on Obama’s plans to revamp the immigration system by executive fiat came as the president is reportedly reviewing proposals to allow as many as 5 million illegal immigrants to stay in the United States at least temporarily, according to several people familiar with his plans. He is expected to announce his intentions after returning from a visit to China, Burma and Australia, either this month or in early December, said those familiar with the subject, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

    If the R’s don’t stop this, they are toast and there will be Hell to pay!

  39. TheRock
    November 8, 2014 at 12:24 am
    Rock, I think your suspicions about her are well grounded.

    As I say, it is not her relationship to Obama that is material.

    It is her relationship to Holder that is important.

    She will act as his agent, and whenever a political problem presents itself she will be on the phone to him.

    He will use her as a way to stay involved, and that was the deal he made with Obama, as a condition of leaving.

    With mounting political pressure on him he had to leave, but with her he can remain at the center of things.

    From Fast and Furious, to the IRS scandal, to Benghazi, Holder has been Obama’s protector.

    On election fraud, voter id proposals, issues like Ferguson and Travon Martin, Holder has been Obama’s enforcer.

    Obama would be naked and vulnerable without him.

    Pickler fails to pick up on what is going on here, and simply accepts the administration talking point without critical analysis.

    Or else she does know, and the head of AP who is a shameless and aggressive Obama supporter edited the most important fact out of the story.

  40. If McConnell thinks he can take a dive on amnesty, but fight Obama tooth and nail over taxation on medical devices he is delusional.

    I have an hourglass with sand in it which I turn over once a month.

    By the time I have turned the glass over 4 times, people will see McConnell for that he is, and more important what he is not.

  41. I hate to be the one to tell this to them, but mere words, i.e. calling Obama’s threat to act unilaterally constitutes waving a red flag in front of a bull, or if you play with fire you can get burned, while promising that they will not case a government shut down or default on debt, after voters have put their trust in these bozos to stop Obama, calls to mind the curious strategy of an army that defeats its adversary, captures the capital, and then surrenders to the adversary and army it defeated. Simply put, that dog won’t hunt, McConnell, Boehner.

  42. Often, in political conflicts such as this, the parties work out a solution in advance, and the end game for getting there. In those cases it is all theater. I seriously doubt that is the case here. It is clear to me that the RINOs want illegal immigration as much as Obama does, Obamacare all the rest of those big government programs. It is also clear that Obama is being squeezed by the progs who want him to govern by executive order, while McConnell is being squeezed by American citizens who believe in the Constitution. Consequently each side has an incentive to come up with a mutually agreed to strategy. The trial balloons we have seen are some evidence of that. Nevertheless, I believe such collaboration is unlikely because Obama cannot be trusted to keep his word, on anything. So I think the chances for escalation, where the parties become prisoners of their own tactics exists.

  43. Admin, Wbboi,

    I can tell you this about the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office. I know someone who works there as a para legal. He has told me that when asking for sentencing for an illegal or undocumented person, they are told to specify one day short of a year rather than a year because if the sentence is 365 days or more, then immigration must be notified.
    Just think of how many more criminal illegal aliens are actually here than the counts we are given. So that is the type of circumventing the law that this District Attorney engages it. I suppose it will be difficult for Repubs to oppose here both because of skin color and gender, but I hope that they do.

  44. Fire Valerie Jarret

    Get out the popcorn. The last para about putting Jarret in charge of Obama library is priceless.

    {Hi S! thanks. It is quite funny how I still remember the password to this site after such a big hiatus. And, what we expected in 2008 to happen before he got elected seems to be slowly happening now and it is satisfying to come back here and add my two cents. We have all waited so long for this.}

  45. I wonder if Valjar is done punishing her enemies yet? What a way to get your jollies. She is one of those that siphoned $100’s of millions, if not billions, out of the Bailout money. She needs to take her loot and move on. Why does she remind me of Nancy Pelousey?

  46. But when others clutched their pearls at the swift Fourth Circuit decision on the same day as HalBIG we stayed fixed to the north star and well… we were brilliant in our analysis____________________________________________

    I love it Check mate!!! 😀

  47. Die Ginsberg, Die.

    Obama/ObamaCare supporter concocts crazy new way for ObamaCare to survive then gets angry when he gets called out for his ‘die Ginsberg, die’ wish:


    The Supreme Court Is Now a Death Panel [snip]

    On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine whether the federal government can continue to subsidize private ACA coverage in states that didn’t set up their own insurance exchanges. [snip]

    If the five conservative Supreme Court justices are so inclined, they can void ACA subsidies for millions of beneficiaries, and cripple the insurance markets in about three dozen states. [snip]

    Conservatives are brimming with excitement over the Court’s decision to hear the challenge. Should the five conservatives rule that the text of the law doesn’t provide for federal subsidies in states that didn’t set up their own exchanges, they’ll place the onus on Congress or state governments to address the consequences for constituents who lose their benefits. The contested text could be fixed with a comically simple technical corrections bill, which Democrats would happily support. If Republicans were to sit on their hands, or use the ensuing chaos as leverage to extract unrelated concessions, it will cost people their lives. That is a cardinal reality facing justices, and the people soliciting their conservative activism.

    There’s an ironic post-script to this article. The Supreme Court is likely to resolve this case with a 5-4 decision, one way or another. Either a single conservative will side with the Court’s four liberals as in 2012, and leave the law unscathed, or the five conservatives will align to void the subsidies.

    Under the circumstances, supporters of the law might be nervous about the potential loss of a liberal justice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health and advanced age make many liberals very uneasy, especially now that Obama’s ability to fill Supreme Court vacancies has come into doubt. But for the purposes of King, this issue is immaterial.

    If Ginsburg’s seat were to become vacant, then the fate of the law would remain in the hands of a conservative swing justice. A 4-4 split effectively upholds the lower court’s ruling—and since the Fourth Circuit upheld the subsidies, the subsidies would stand. If the Fourth Circuit had ruled the other way, her health would be much more material.

    When I mentioned this admittedly morbid but nevertheless important curiosity on Twitter, a large number of dimwitted (or in some cases persistently dishonest) conservatives flooded my mentions column in outrage. Most of them missed the meaning altogether, and accused me of wishing death upon a conservative Supreme Court justice. But even the ones who didn’t managed to contain their enthusiasm over the possibility of millions of people losing insurance for a moment, to reprimand me for being so cavalier about people’s lives.

    Beutler, the author, is upset that anyone accuses him of a death wish against a conservative Supreme Court Justice. But why bring up the death of a Justice as a way to save ObamaCare? Beutler implies very strongly that if there was a 4-4 decision due to the death of a Justice then ObamaCare could be saved.

    Notice Beutler did not mention the possibility that Kagen would recuse herself which is much more likely to happen than for Ginsberg or another Justice to die before June.

    Upon closer examination the entire Beutler premise is, well… stupid. A word we’re using a lot lately. The math Beutler cites is screwy.

    First, the only real way to save ObamaCare at this point is for Roberts to side with ObamaCare proponents. That would be a 5-4 decision. Only if a conservative Justice dies can you get to 4-4. Why mention Ginsberg’s potential death in this calculation? If Ginsberg would die it would require Roberts to side with ObamaCare proponents to bring about a 4-4 split. But if Roberts is inclined to vote for ObamaCare then a 5-4 pro ObamaCare decision would settle the issue. A Ginsberg death would mean at best a 4-4 stalemate (if Roberts would vote for) or a 5-3 decision (if Roberts would vote against ObamaCare). So why bring up the death of a Justice?

    The likely reason for Beutler to dream up a death scenario is that he realizes ObamaCare subsidies for those on the Federal Exchange are about to be struck down and he can’t live with that so he hallucinates wild thoughts which involve the death of Ginsberg as somehow good and a way to save ObamaCare. We take it for granted that Beutler would love for a conservative Justice to die before a decision on ObamaCare is voted on.

    One last point, it is very possible that the decision will be other than 5-4. Even “liberal” Justices have to be concerned that the plain text of a statute might be finagled into passage by the Court in the future. If there is a 5-4 majority against ObamaCare it is possible that Breyer for instance, would figure that the subsidies are going down and it might be a good idea to keep law-writing in the hands of Congress not in the regulatory rules and regulations manipulations of agencies and departments.

  48. wbboei

    November 8, 2014 at 3:32 am

    Spot on as always, wbb. I didn’t even appreciate the Holder/Lynch connection, but it makes all the sense in the world. As an additional benefit to bumbles and his ilk, they can show pony her around as the first black woman to hold the office, while on the back end, she can be execute Holder’s subterfuges.

    THAT is the reason why I asked for your take. All Pickler and the MSM did was provide the question.

    Thanks wbb!

    Hillary 2016

  49. How bad was PPP? This is how much they missed the GOP margin by in key races: GA -8 NC -4 NH +1 KY -7.5 AR -9 IA -5.5 CO +0.5 KS -12

  50. How bad was Rasmussen?

    This is how much they missed the GOP margin by in key races: GA -8 NC -3 NH -4 KY -7.5 AR -10 IA -7.5 CO +3.5 KS -15

  51. admin
    November 8, 2014 at 11:28 am

    Die Ginsberg, Die.

    LMAO! Bobots do not do math. In fact, I think it is a requirement for them.

  52. Shadowfax
    November 8, 2014 at 3:06 am
    President Obama firmly rejected advice from top congressional Republicans on Friday that he delay his promised executive action on immigration reform, dismissing calls from critics inside and outside his party to allow Congress to debate the issue next year.


    The new focus on Obama’s plans to revamp the immigration system by executive fiat came as the president is reportedly reviewing proposals to allow as many as 5 million illegal immigrants to stay in the United States at least temporarily, according to several people familiar with his plans. He is expected to announce his intentions after returning from a visit to China, Burma and Australia, either this month or in early December, said those familiar with the subject, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

    If the R’s don’t stop this, they are toast and there will be Hell to pay!

    In that Salon article I posted a couple of days ago, the far left author urged Barack the Brave (lol) to go crazy with exec orders on immigration, environment, what thehellever he wanted to do – and to dare the Rs to impeach him. The sad, foolish author felt sincerely that if the Rs impeached Barack – the coolest pres evah they would bear the shame of such a heinous act.

    Maybe Barack plans to pander to the only people still in his corner – the hard lefties. Maybe he thinks that even tho he destroyed the Dim party and was responsible for the huge losses in the midterms, he can leave the party with a pool of new voters with by going ahead with his amnesty plan. I don’t think he gives a damn about the party, but he does give a damn about his image. Most importantly, Barack doesn’t like to lose. And, he likes his wins to be easy, with little resistance. He wants his way.

    The American people showed their objection to his amnesty plan when they voted for Rs last week. That issue was a huge driving force in determining for whom voters would cast their ballots. This arrogant, unpresidential, poser in the WH is pissed at Americans, and he plans to show us exactly what he can and will do. The bastard. If there was a mandate for the Rs in the votes they won last week, it was to stop Barack from going through with his amnesty plan. They had damn well better rise to the occasion – for once – and do the right thing.

  53. wbb, this one’s for you. From The Federalist, a look at media bias. The article references the bias of many media outlets, but specifically calls out a CBS reporter/pundit, Nancy Cordes ( I don’t watch network news, so I don’t know what her position is):


    CBS’ Nancy Cordes Perfectly Demonstrates Media Bias Problems

    NOVEMBER 7, 2014 By Mollie Hemingway


    Quote from Cordes:

    “You have a new crop of conservatives coming into the House who have suggested, among other thing, that women need to submit to the authority of their husbands, that Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ, and some of them don’t think you’re conservative enough.”

    continue article:

    “Oh come on. Come on! Seriously? Doesn’t this get tiring? It reads like a Daily Kos blogpost from a junior member and not like what you might expect from someone attempting to be taken seriously. If your brand of journalism involves treating the Christian view of submission as something radical, taking random quotes out of context or otherwise elevating them beyond a normal reading and breaking the news that outside of newsrooms, not everyone thinks John Boehner is far-right, count me out.

    It actually gets worse. Cordes claims that Virginia’s Barbara Comstock is on the “far right” and said undocumented immigrants should be tracked like FedEx packages. I joked earlier about how Cordes’ summary of the incoming class read like a Daily Kos blogger but this claim about Comstock, though untrue, is precisely how a Daily Kos blogger named “Hunter” put it. Hunter said, “Barbara Comstock demands we track immigrants like FedEx tracks packages.” That was in turn taken from a ThinkProgress blog of similar journalistic integrity, which said that Comstock said the “Government Should Track Immigrants Like FedEx Tracks Packages.”




    To qualify, as a feminist, I object to that “submission” quote from the Bible. Of course, one has to consider that that verse was written by a man – no woman would write it.

    Anyway, I don’t think that verse the driving philosophy of all conservatives that Ms. Cordes seems to think. I think there are many on the far right who use their own literal translation of the Bible to govern their own lives, and yes, the would like to use it to govern the country, as well. But, that dog just won’t hunt with most Americans – not even moderate conservatives.

  54. Yes, admin, all the accolades are justified; but as usual, I find a fly in the ointment:

    The White King is the Constitution?

    Unless you mean by “the Constitution” the power of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the Halbig or King cases have anything to do with the constitutionality of the PPACA. Since the row over the individual mandate, there is nothing in the PPACA that can be viewed as unconstitutional. The is a defective phrase in the law, that’s all.

    Then, there’s the fact that the new Senate Majority Leader has vowed to extirpate the PPACA root and branch, by which he means repeal. So, the “slow death” promised by the possible success of King is pointless. If McConnell and the Tea Party have their way, the PPACA will simply be gone, so who cares about the King case?

    The real debate is, Will the Republicans be able to repeal the PPACA (it’s not a foregone conclusion just because they have the majorities)?

    And if so, will and can they do anything to replace it with a better law? They will have to do this, because polling shows that, while the public is largely dissatisfied with the law, less than 35% favor actually repealing it.

    To use freespirit’s battle cry, we will just have to “wait and see” if the Republicans are willing and able to come up with a viable solution to the many faults of the PPACA.

  55. “To qualify, as a feminist, I object to that “submission” quote from the Bible. Of course, one has to consider that that verse was written by a man – no woman would write it.”

    In my several readings of the Bible, I don’t remember anything that says a wife must “submit” to her husband (rather the Genesis version that the woman is the man’s “helpmate”), but maybe it depends on the translation — remember, the English version is a translation of Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin or Greek. Sometimes, things are lost or gained in the translation.

    Anyway, while it’s true that the Bible was written by men, many things of the Bible are fully believed by women today. I have heard some women who proudly don’t want to take on any responsibilities that they consider to be the man’s because they don’t want to be thought of as men. Then there is the traditional marriage, considered to be the biggest day in a woman’s life: The woman’s family pays for it, the father walks the bride down the aisle and gives her away to her husband. She goes through all this with a big smile on her face and surrounded by admiring girlfriends who are all waiting their turn for the big day. It’s all symbolic, and symbols count. I deeply hate watching these abominable ceremonies.

    In other cultures, the husband buys the bride from the father in return for camels, goats or other cattle, or for money. But my point is that one woman in a thousand objects to this and, when doing so, simply says she has a right to choose her own husband. A right to her own life? No, that’s one woman in a hundred thousand.

    The bottom line is: What do women think in today’s America? I’ll bet at least 50% of women are solidly moored to Biblical concepts of the woman’s role in the home and society.

    Count me out on that score, but let me explain:

    I’ve often claimed to be a convinced Christian, which means taking basic life principles from the teachings of Jesus. Jesus saved and pardoned Mary Magdalene, and some say he wanted her to continue his church. The vast majority of Jesus’ followers were women, and I think that’s because he expressed a love that women could understand better than men: a universal, divine love.

  56. Shadowfax November 7, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    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.

    As with most of your comments, we’re on the same page here too.

  57. I wouldn’t waste any Republican political capital fighting Obama’s nobody nominee to a two-year lame duck appointment as Attorney General. It’s not like she’s going to actually do anything (except continue to obstruct justice like her predecessor).

  58. Since the row over the individual mandate, there is nothing in the PPACA that can be viewed as unconstitutional. The is a defective phrase in the law, that’s all.

    You could look at that part of the mandate as a flaw, a typo or whatever you want to call it to try and support the idea that the mandate is good for this country.

    The way I see it, it was no typo. The Dims thought this was going to be the gift of all gifts to the American public, that states would all jump on the bandwagon and build their own exchanges, and the few that didn’t comply, would be a drop in the bucket.

    Turns out, that drop was a river and now about 35 states do not have exchanges. More to that story, obviously, the states had to come up with a boat load of greenbacks to do this, and didn’t or wouldn’t.

    So, now that there are so few exchanges, a website that still doesn’t work, the Dims are trying to act like it’s just a typo.

    I have to leave for the day, but hope you consider this possibility.

  59. There was a NYT article referenced here yesterday (can’t find who contributed it)


    It’s not an opinion piece, but a new article; and it says that Clinton aides are newly optimistic about the 2016 chances, while advising the establishment of an Exploratory Committee in early 2015 that would allow HRC to go on a listening tour before actually declaring her candidacy (maybe around Labor Day like I suggested?):

    Mrs. Clinton will first embark on a listening tour that echoes what she did first as a candidate for the Senate in New York and then as a freshman senator, gathering ideas and advice from a cross-section of influential people about their concerns.

    Such a tour would also let her continue her CGI work, her paid speaking circuit, her book signings, and her grandma glow.

    In the meantime, they say, a natural distance would be established from Obama and some new talking points would arise:

    … a Republican-led Senate creates a handy foil for her to run against: Rather than the delicate task of trying to draw a stark contrast with an unpopular president in whose administration she served, her loyalists say, Mrs. Clinton can instead present herself as a pragmatic alternative to what they predict will be an obstructionist Republican Congress.

    This bears out what I’ve been saying since HRC left State: She will not attack Obama directly or even indirectly but rather cultivate the differences everybody realizes already, and concentrate all the while on constructing a new vision for America that the Republicans seriously lack.

  60. Shadowfax November 8, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Oh sure, that’s more than a possibility, in fact you’re right. I’m just saying that the problem is not a constitutional one.

  61. hwc November 7, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    … Rand Paul gets the endorsement of Mitch McConnell.

    Perfectly predictable political payback, and I hope it counts for a lot. I would love to see Rand Paul get the R nomination. What a rout!!

  62. freespirit
    November 8, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    VH, you’re so right. Poor Nano just can’t quite wrap her brain around it.

    It is the Botox Freespirit not good for wrapping the mind more like warping it. 😡

  63. I would not write off a Rand Paul candidacy as a rout so quickly. His hurdle is with the Republican establishment. If he can position himself as a non-fringe mainstream Republican (which the McConnell endorsement suggests he is doing), then he could be the Dems worst nightmare in the general.

    Imagine, for example, running on a platform that includes over-the-counter sale of birth control pills and the repeal of federal marijuana laws combined with an anti-war, anti-interventionist position. The “youth vote” might not be so predictable.

    Rand Paul was, apparently, the number one surrogate on the campaign trail for Republicans this cycle — a role Bill and Hillary played for the Dems.

  64. jes, I think that verse is in the New Testament – One of the books by Paul, I believe. The other half of the verse admonishes husbands to treat their wives well – I can’t recall exactly how it goes, but I have heard some women say that the second half of the verse balances out the submission part. It doesn’t do it for me. But, then I’m not much into literal translation of any religious book.

    Re the constitutionality and ACA – not speaking for Admin, since she’s more than capable of doing that herself, but I think one can look at the fact that laws pertaining to this act were changed at will by Barack. This angered a lot of people, not just Pubs. It diminished respect for Dims in the senate and house because they were too weak to call for the law to be modified only with the approval of congress, as called for in the constitution.

    Some have argued that it’s not a big point. But, a small hole in the dam becomes a large one if not fixed.

  65. As I was saying:

    From Politico a few moments ago,

    Louisiana Republican Rob Maness, the tea party upstart who finished third in this week’s Louisiana Senate primary, is getting behind GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy ahead of his December runoff with Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will headline a unity rally — during which Maness will endorse Cassidy — on Monday afternoon at Huey’s Bar in Baton Rouge. Also attending will be Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. David Vitter and state Rep. Paul Hollis, who briefly threw his hat into the U.S. Senate race before dropping out.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/maness-la-gopers-get-behind-cassidy-112707.html#ixzz3IVfm5kME

  66. Admin: the chess analogy is excellent.

    But there is another game that this is comparable to as well.

    A game that lasts days or more,

    Keeps one up all night,

    Saps endurance,

    And is not only consequential

    But lethal

    Yes, you guessed it


    “The game that ruins nations”.



    1. In 2007, Steve Capus was the head of NBC/MSNBC. He gave Matthews free reign to slander Hillary every night on Hard Ball. Every-night.

    2. The New York Chapter of NOW picketed and appealed to Capus who gave a mealy mouthed response. He had Matthews offer a mealie mouthed response, i.e. I have done nothing wrong, but if someone was offended by what they thought they heard me say, then I feel sorry for them.

    3. At that point, Capus had Olberman take over the job of attacking Hillary, and Keith got himself into such a lather when Hillary vowed to continue campaigning until every state had voted that he said on the air that someone should take Hillary into the back room and only one of them come out. Remember that little gem? Capus was asked about that he responded no problemo mon.

    4. And then there was David Schuster, a Capus favorite, who relentlessly attacked Hillary and accused her of pimping her daughter Chelsie. Hillary wrote a letter of complaint, that Capus gave Schuster a two week paid vacation and white washed it. Later Shuster was fired because of an unrelated tip.

    5. I remember how outraged I was at the time. I wrote letters to Capus, an to the corporation counsel. I am quite sure they got a good laugh out of this and winked at eachother and said something like who does this pip squeak think he is questioning our judgment . Fuck him, etc.

    6. The memory of all this moved to the back of my mind as subsequent events unfolded. But today, as I was reading Sharyl Attkisson’s book stonewalled , I came across a story where she wrote a story which was politically sensitive, and she submitted it to the former Executive Producer of CBS News, Kaplan. He published it because it was newsworthy, notwithstanding his personal political views.

    7. She then said this: his successor, in my view, would be the polar opposite. In other words, the current Executive Producer would kill the story if it reflected poorly on Obama. And although I have only read 20 pages of the book thus far, I am quite sure that this man was the primary reason why CBS stonewalled the stories she wrote on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare website, etc. And, ultimately, it seems clear that he is a big part of the reason why she left CBS.

    8. Who is this masked man? You guessed it. Steve Capus. He is now with CBS. This man is the cancer that is killing big media. Rhoades keeps him around to do his dirty work, so that Rhoades can play good copy, and protect his brother in the White House.

    9. Simply put, Capus has no place in journalism. He needs to be run off. And if he is not, then no one should watch Scott Pelly, because he is Capus’s shill. Trust me. This ain’t rocket science.

  68. Those debates are such a waste of time. The last thing we need to be doing is feeding the egos of Candy Crowley and her ilk. But if you make the commitment to suffer through them there is always one question that convinces you beyond cavil that this is a waste of time. The question? What do you most admire about the opposing candidate. But if I were asked that question about Capus, I would really have to rack my brain, and so far as I can tell, his only redeeming virtue is he did not go the Harvard. Now there is a first.

  69. Fat ass Candy Crawling for the Oturd .. she makes me sick. I have only turned to CNN a few times since they participated in the rape of Hillary. You notice their rating are in the shit hole, …the company you keep.

  70. DAMN that article on Val is BRUTAL but totally honest. WHAT does she have on them??? She HAS to have some sort of darkest secret EVER to hold over them and control them as she does. I have noticed that Meeschelle seems to have taken a back seat in this second term as well or else I’m just not seeing her as much. Which is FINE by me

  71. I’m not certain this reprehensible, unfathomable plot is receiving attention here in ObamaLand.
    UK police foil homegrown ‘Islamist plot’ to kill Queen on Remembrance Day – report — RT UK
    Heightened security arrangements have been adopted for the forthcoming Remembrance Day commemorations in London, after four men were arrested by counter-terrorist police. The Sun reports the men were plotting a knife attack on Queen Elizabeth II.
    On Thursday, police arrested four men between 19 and 27, three of them in London, as part of an“ongoing investigation into Islamist-related terrorism.” All those arrested are reportedly UK residents.
    UK media reported that the police had been tracking the suspects for months with help from the domestic security agency MI5, and unusually, used an armed unit to arrest one of them on the street, suggesting an imminent threat. No firearms were found at the suspects’ houses, but the Sun newspaperclaimed the knife attack would be carried out during the annual Remembrance Day ceremony, which this year takes place on Sunday 9th November….

  72. I’m watching the Monument Men..hard to watch with so many ultra liberals in this movie. Behooves me why Cloney and Damien are in this, they really don’t understand America,or American exceptionalism…

  73. call me naive…but if i were the repub leadership…with all their majorities coming to power very soon…I would start making a concerted effort to dialogue with the American people regarding what O wants to do re: his immigration grab..

    I would start having their members speak directly to people so they understand that the President …all on his own…wants to give at least 5 million illegal immigrants status to stay in the USA…just by his say so…and what the ramifications of that are going to be…

    the republicans should be explaining what that means to legal immigrants who are playing by the rules and waiting for their chance…

    the republicans should explain…in detail…what it will mean to the american taxpayer at this current time…how everyone is aware that the job market is still very bad and the people who are making money are the people at the top…

    (examples are what this will do the construction and landscaping industries…cheap green card labor where americans used to be able to win a good wage…there are many examples)

    but for the middle class and struggling americans going through tougher times even than the middle class…with 5 million more people who suddenly have green cards and are competiting for the jobs…and will work for even less than Americans who are now protesting to try to earn more…the rug is going to be yanked from underneath them…and their plight is going to become more and more difficult…

    what good is $10/hr going to be with 5 million illegal aliens competing for the job and willing to work for less…this does not make any sense…and I hate to say this but we all know what communities are going to be the hardest hit…

    who is looking out for these Americans? Obama is working against Americans…

    ..this is not to say that we should not have a “comprehensive immigration plan”…it needs to be stressed this typical ramming and jamming of O…just like his O’care…is not the way to do it…

    wait two months until the new Congress is elected and then debate it and work on a balanced and fair approach…and one that does not further hurt Americans and legal immigrants that are struggling to make ends meet…

    if I were the repub leadership I would start an all out campaign to educate people to what O is trying to pull…I would have my members writing articles, holding town hall meetings, interviewing people who are out of work and have been for a long time…

    show the human interest side of this…reflect on all the children we just let in and for the sake of everyone how our schools and communities can only handle so much at a time, etc …heck, buy some time on TV and explain to the American people what O is trying to do, in spite of the last election and what the american people want…

    this is a big deal…this is a coup on O’s part…it is really politics at its worst…the repubs need to get public opinion on their side to stop him…including fair minded democrats

    Would dims want a republican president to just issue an executive order to change tax policy, etc?

    the repubs need to start playing hardball…at this juncture I think even Matthews agrees with them…

    meanwhile O is going to try to act like he is still running the show…he needs a reality check…

  74. Fox has been non stop anti-Hillary since election night. Not one credible news channel to watch.

    Nobody forced Clinton to essentially announce her candidacy the day after the election with a major NY Times article, clearly sourced (if not written) by her campaign chieftans, outlining her presidential campaign strategy for the rest of the year.

    She might as well wear a sign around her neck saying, “hit me!”.

    BTW, George Will graciously obliged by smacking her with a brutal hit Op-Ed hit piece in the Washington Post tomorrow:

    Time to Rethink Hillary in 2016

    Her husband promised “a bridge to the 21st century.” She promises a bridge back to the 1990s. Or perhaps to 1988 and the “competence” candidacy of Michael Dukakis, which at least did not radiate, as hers will, a cloying aura of entitlement.

    The energy in her party — in its nominating electorate — is well to her left, as will be the center of political gravity in the smaller and more liberal Democratic Senate caucus that will gather in January. There is, however, evidence that the left is too untethered from reality to engage in effective politics.

    But, George Will and Fox aren’t really her big problems right now. I don’t see the Dem base getting fired up and ready to go yet…

  75. S
    November 8, 2014 at 9:03 pm

    You know what is crazy S? That is exactly what FDR did in ’32, Reagan did in ’80, Bill did in ’92, and is EXACTLY what Hillary needs to do in 2016. The winning strategy in this country has not changed and WILL NOT change no matter what year it is and no matter what party is in power. Its the economy that wins the White House. Period.

    Hillary 2016

    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.

  77. jbstonesfan
    November 8, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    Fox has been non stop anti-Hillary since election night. Not one credible news channel to watch.

    I agree with you on that!

    I only turned Fox on for a few minutes on election night to see if Hannity was dancing on the table wit a lampshade on his head. Funny thing, he wasn’t.

  78. jbstonesfan
    November 8, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    Fox has been non stop anti-Hillary since election night. Not one credible news channel to watch.

    Sorry bastards. They have not let up since 2008. It wouldn’t matter if Hillary saved a carriage full of infants from an oncoming train, FOX would spin it into some negative shit. The conservative media talking heads on both radio and FOX appeal to the voters who want simple answers to complex problems. They spread fear to scare voters, and they wax nostalgic for some magic time in the past – that never existed to begin with.

    I supported a republican takeover of both houses. I’m glad it happened., but never because I had an ounce of respect for the Pubs. I just had less for the Dims this time around – and for the past 6 years. The Republicans would appeal to a wider group of voters if they didn’t have the likes of Hannity, Rush, Megan, and the other idiots who stir their audiences by describing the Dims as “baby-killers” and worse.

    Hannity, especially whined on the air forever about Palin being treated so badly – which she was. But, it’s supposed to be fine for him and the other cretins in conservative media to trash talk Hillary non-stop?!


  79. Sorry my intro above was unclear.

    The elites are purposely misinterpreting the message voters sent in the mid term election. That message was stop Obama. Now they are trying to voters the message the voters sent was not a referendum on Obama, but a message that they want the two parties to work together, which is complete bullshit. But it is typical of the elites because they love nothing better than ominibus bill that bring billions of taxpayer dollars into Washington and hide the game they are playing. So when some ignoramus tries to tell you that the message of the 2014 election was that the parties must work together, don’t let them get away with that lie. It was a rejection and a repudiation of Obama, period.

  80. The Republicans would appeal to a wider group of voters if they didn’t have the likes of Hannity, Rush, Megan, and the other idiots who stir their audiences by describing the Dims as “baby-killers” and worse.

    I don’t know about Rush and Hannity as I really don’t listen to talk radio, but the most surprising thing about this election cycle was how little the Republicans talked about abortion and other social issues. It’s clear from some of the post-mortems that this was no accident. These candidates were carefully prepped and extremely disciplined in not pulling a Todd Akin. For example, when the Republican National Senatorial Committee flew their candidates in for the first orientation/training session, they were met at baggage claim by operatives posing as journalists peppering them with gotcha abortion questions.

    This after the NRSC had worked hard during primary season to ensure that no Todd Akins got nominated.

  81. It isn’t just FOX News who is vicious about Hillary. Go to some of the Republican sites like “Breitbart” and read some of the comments. There are some vile, down right nasty, nasty comments about Hillary that have nothing to do with her policies…just personal hatred of her and Bill and they can twist anything she says into an attack. Disgusting! I have a Republican cousin like that who is just eaten up with partisan Clinton Derangement Syndrome to the point that if I say anything semi positive about Hillary I get verbally attacked.
    But this cousin has said for years that our country does not need one party controlling the Congress AND the Presidency. Hum…does that mean he will vote for a Dem. in 2016? 😉

    I’ve lost respect for BOTH the rabidly partisan Republicans as well as partisan Obama Democrats.

  82. Staggering exit poll numbers from the Louisiana Senate race:

    Voting in the Senate election broke down along racial lines, he said. A near unanimous 98 percent of African-Americans voted for Landrieu while only 16 percent of whites cast a ballot for Landrieu.

    Landrieu only got 16% of the white vote. Yikes.

    NOLA.COM article

  83. if I say anything semi positive about Hillary I get verbally attacked.
    You are looking for love in all the wrong places.

    If you want to watch FOX hit the mute button until Greta, Carvalle, Begala or Caddell come on. At least FOX has some bona fide liberals on their channel. There are no conservatives on big media.

    As far as your cousin, I would tell him that he has his opinion, but you would prefer to deal in facts. Then show him how the GDP took off, a budget surplus was achieved, there was high employment—during the Clinton presidency.

    Beyond that however Hillary has not given you much to work with. She needs to separate herself from Obama, and you need to know how her approach would look. As long as your adversary can tie Hillary to Obama, you cannot win.

    The problem is Hillary has not given supporters like you much to work with, other than me too-ing Obama’s policies. I would not even engage with these Hillary haters at this point. I would just reiterate her experience, the fact that during the Clinton presidency all boats rose with the tide, and tell them its too early to talk about specifics, until we know whether she will run, and how she will differ from Obama. I might add that if she does not run, it would be a loss for the country.

  84. You are right, SB. Some of the conservative sites are every bit as bad as FOX and conservative talk radio. Who the hell knows why they have such a personal hatred for the Clintons?! Some of the conservative pundits talk about their Christianity and its importance in their lives – especially Hannity and some of the less well known conservative radio folks. I mean, just how seriously do they take their religion, really? They like to use it as tool to garner audience members, their behavior their lies and trash talk about Hillary and others would not be condoned in any religion I’m aware of. No ethics. No honor. No sense. They’re pathetic.

    HWC, I did not refer to republican candidates – only to the media who identify with their party, and who represent themselves and the Republicans poorly. I

  85. From CSPAN’s video of the Christian Science Monitor breakfast forum with RNC Chair Reince Preibus yesterday:



    Yikes. Hillary needs to lie low and let Obama take the hits. admin is right. They want to use her as a human shield.

  86. Southern Born: when I campaigned for Hillary in the 2008 primary I was given a list of her positions, which I would discuss in detail with voters, if they would give me the time. Those who gave me the time were interested in how those positions would affect them personally, for better or worse. Often, their questions were very specific. And, I was able to handle them because I knew where Hillary stood. That is why I suggest you keep your powder dry until we know where she stands. And if you want to worry about anything, worry that she will not put enough daylight between herself and Obama, because that is an acute vulnerability, and if I were on the other side, I would insist that her candidacy is not Bill Clinton 1994-2000, but Obama lite.

  87. I don’t understand why people are surprised that Fox and right-wing radio are bashing Hillary.

    They exposed some stuff about Obama and the dems, but they’re not *truly* fair and balanced. IMO, there isn’t *any* media that’s objective anymore. Individuals maybe, perhaps Atkisson, but then to be honest, I don’t actually know if she would go after republican scandals as she did democratic scandals (I don’t know much about her).

    As a matter of fact, next time there is a republican president, people are going to have to start watching left-wing media again to hear some truth, because Fox and the right-wing media won’t be telling it.

    IMO, the best thing is to take what is helpful (Fox and rw radio have investigated and educated about some dem problems), but not to “marry” them or assume they’re dedicated to telling the *whole* truth and won’t bash the other side. The only way they would say something nice about Hillary is if she is not a threat – but as long as she might run or might help others win dem seats, she’s a threat.

  88. My strategy is a combination of Fox News and NPR (mostly in podcast format). Both are equally biased and equally unbalanced, but at least I get both viewpoints. I don’t do network TV news, period.

  89. Oh, and my absolute favorite is when NPR has an hour long podcast on FOX News with three left wing moonbat pundits sitting around a table bemoaning how awful it is that Fox only presents one side of a story…. 🙂

    Or, this week when I listened to an hour of three left wing wing journos (Karen Tumulty and so forth) dissecting and analyzing the Republican wave on Tuesday. Not surprisingly, they were just full of insights on how this was really bad for the Republicans…

  90. I’m catching up on the post-election punditry from right, center and left about HRC and her future. Here’s what I find from the dozen articles I’ve read so far:

    Aside from Sharpton’s remark, fwiw, this idea of admin’s that HRC should have stayed at home during the campaign, to avoid the backlash from the D losses that were in store, is actually of little consequence and criticism of her is coming only from Republican ranks.

    That is, it is only a few Republicans, beginning with the delusional Rand Paul, who are indeed pushing this meme that HRC is to blame for the Democrats’ losses. These self-serving assertions are quickly countered by almost all analysts, including even by Fox news, where Doug Schoen said flatly what I’ve been saying for months:

    “I think that the Clinton brand is separate and distinct from President Obama. I don’t think this [the election losses] has an appreciable impact on her fortunes and future.”

    And center and left pundits are quick to point out that HRC will have plenty of time to lay plans, construct a viable platform, and run against the “obstructionist” Republican Congress, hamstrung as it is by the Tea Party members of its caucus.

    So all in all, the picture everyone is painting is a rosy one for HRC. This prompts me to take back my point of agreement with gonzotx the other day: HRC stands a good chance of winning both nomination and general election, on a progressive agenda. I’m ready to open the checkbook again.

    I’ve also been saying that HRC will never attack Obama openly and try hard to distinguish herself from Obama — she doesn’t have to, politically speaking, and she doesn’t betray people – even her adversaries – for political expediency. It’s not in her DNA.

    All she needs to do is to hold off for a while: For example, (i) open an Exploratory Committee in January, (ii) go on a listening tour (town halls) for a few months, (iii) sprinkle the tour with book signings, paid speeches, CGI work and grandma time, and (iv) declare her candidacy later in 2015, like Labor Day.

  91. The Grimes campaign is soliciting me for funds for the Landrieu runoff. What do you people think: Should I go for it? Or is it a waste of time?

  92. I don’t think it’s quite that simple:

    1) How do you run as Obama’s third term when his policies have just been resoundingly rejected by the voters?

    2) How do you distance yourself from Obama when you were a major player in his cabinet?

    3) How do you energize Obama’s (NOT the Democrats’) unique base (i.e. massive African American turnout) when they don’t like you to begin with?

    4) How do you sell fresh ideas in a change election when you and party leaders (Reid and Pelosi) are 69, 76, and 76 years old?

    5) How do you do all of those mutually exclusive things?

    I’m not convinced that Hillary will run.

  93. The DNCC has pulled the plug on funding Landrieu. Cancelled all their ads. The only think they are doing is an e-mail request for “money bomb” donations.

    And then her big splash was the kickoff of a Where Was Bill? campaign, signs, website, the whole nine yards. Press conference and tweets asking where Bill Cassidy was after Katrina (before he entered politics).

    He responded a few hours later with links to magazine articles about his leading volunteer efforts to set up a makeshift hospital in an abandoned KMART in Baton Rouge to accept Katrina refugees.


    She’s toast. Her only shot was a split between Cassidy and the tea party candidate who got 18% of the vote. The tea party guy is endorsing Cassidy Monday at the event with Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal and David Vitter. She only got 16% of the white vote the first time around. I doubt that Obama is going to rev up the African American turn out machine for her in the runoff. She distanced herself from the One, doncha know? Payback’s a bitch…

  94. If there is a rosy scenario here, then it is in their heads. There are many forces bearing on Hillary Clinton at this time, and frankly what a right wing pundit says about her is the least of her worries. If you want to worry about that however, just realize that at this point, she has not given her allies on that network much to work with, not only to rebut those charges, e.g. Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious and and to set forth a positive vision and specific agenda that resonates with the public.

    Moreover, there are some difficult strategic choices she will need to make such as how do you rebuild the party, distance herself from Obama, explain away some of the questions on her resume, i.e. Benghazi and at the same time win the general election. Furthermore, much depends on whom the Republicans select, and fortunately, that decision is more than a year off. If it is Bush, then she is in good shape. If it is Kasich–and there is no present indication it will be, then she is not in good shape. But still there is no rosy scenario–just a million unanswered questions.

    That nerd Howard Kurtz–the toothless big media critic threw a hissy fit that the economy was not an issue in this election. I see no reason it should be what will the phony way they measure unemployment and the elephant in the living room pundits like him pretend to ignore. As in, who gives a fuck of 214.000 jobs were added last month if 92 million people of working age are not working. And why should it be an issue when everyone who is paying attention knows for a fact, and it has been proven, that the administration gooses the numbers on the eve of every election–and we even know now who did it.

  95. S said.
    meanwhile O is going to try to act like he is still running the show…he needs a reality check…

    Sorry S but teh Won don’t know nuthin bout no reality!!! 😆

  96. At this point, the politics have caught up with Obama. I do not dispute the fact that he has great power at his disposal, nor that whatever he does to the nation big media will defend him. What I do see, however, is a lame duck who has made so many promises to so many groups, which he is powerless to make good on. He is in the same position as Hitler was after he conquered Europe and had to switch from the offensive to the defensive. He is like Hans Guderian the brilliant German Pazer general who rolled over France, got to the English Channel, and found that his strategist had failed to plan for that scenario and define what he should do next. That is so true of Obamacare, and so many other policies which given his control of Congress were easy to pass–or relatively easy, but hard or impossible to implement, certainly not the seamless implementation envisioned by their Harvard trained planners, brilliant though they supposedly were, according to big media. This change of control of congress is a megapolitical change, the effects of which have not yet dawned on the messiah, much less his supporters. They signify a sea change in public support and institutional control. In essence, they give the two other branches an opportunity to bring him down in answer to the proverbial question on what meat hath the big media beloved messiah dined that he has grown so great, and made the rest of us so impotent. Try thinking of it this way. He is now, and will be for the rest of his term in office, the proverbial fly entrapped in a spider web of his own making. The more he struggles, the more he is entwined. No Houdini here. No charm offensive can save him. His best bet–his only bet is compromise, and that will alienate him from the progressives.

  97. Don’t color me surprised about FOX, Lorac. I never trusted the bastards, even when they were pretending to criticize MSM for their O bias against Hillary in 2008. Snakes may shed their skins periodically, but they’re still snakes.

  98. He who lives by the sword will surely die by the sword.

    Can it be any different when it comes to politics?

    He who lives by politics will surely die by politics.

    When internal politics determines not only military strategy by military tactics—like when to reinforce a vulnerable position so it is not overrun by the enemy, in this case ISIS, and who to trade in a POW exchange like the 6 terrorist for that great American hero Berghdal, and who to write secret letters to as Chamberlain did, then military and political failure are the result.

    The idea of compromise cuts against his grain. A blind man in his political position could see the necessity. But how will he answer the deranged progressives who want him to govern by executive order? How will he answer his donors, in particular Soros, when he says I installed you to accomplish my agenda, and I do not much care whether you do it by hook or by crook, just do it. Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

  99. HWC, Landreiu was toast a long time ago. It was evident when at every turn she said that she would happily vote for ObamaCare again. That was an act of desperation meant to bring out black voters who only care about the color of Obama’s skin. Landreiu thought she needed to turn out that “base” vote even if it would cost her votes with the vast majority of those in Louisiana that hate ObamaCare. That was the first “tell” she had no chance of winning and was attempting a “Hail Mary” pass.

    As to the runoff, it is madness for anyone to think she has a chance at all. If she would have finished Tuesday’s vote with close to 50% and ten point above the nearest Republican competitor there would have been some plausible way for her to win, (such as the Republican split you hypothesized, if it existed which it does not at this point).

    But Landreiu came nowhere near 50% of the vote on Tuesday. Landreiu only managed 42.08% to Cassidy’s 40.96%. She came in barely ahead and barely in the 40s. She lost close to 60% of the vote.

    But the real reasons why Landreiu does not stand a chance in the runoff is that there is no point in a fight. None. To the contrary, there is a lot of potential damage to anyone that helps Landreiu.

    Consider these 3 reasons as to why Landreiu is a runoff loser: The Obama Dimocrats spent a lot of money on these elections. They took out a bunch of loans to tide them over Now they have all that debt to pay off. In order to help Landreiu the Obama Dimocrats will have to spend more borrowed money in order to lose again. Is this a wise investment of borrowed cash? Any cost/benefit analysis (there we go again with I/E) indicates that borrowed cash to back someone who only managed 43% of the vote is not a wise investment of borrowed cash.

    Cost/benefit analysis? If Landreiu’s election meant control of the U.S. Senate it would make a lot of sense for Obama Dimocrats to borrow and spend in order to elect Landreiu. But Landreiu is irrelevant at this point. She’s just one less Obama Dimocrat vote not the tipping point of Senate control.

    Why would anyone help her? The Republicans will control the next House of Representatives and the next U.S. Senate. Any vested interest who donates to Landreiu will incur the anger of the Republicans. Landreiu always got a bulk of her money from energy interests. These industries/lobbyists know that Landreiu has no chance to win even if they give her money. Add to their cost/benefit analysis that if they put bags of money in her sinking ship they too will go down.

    Mary Landreiu is an officer in the Obama Dimocrat navy. She is about to sink because the captain is a boob. The captain’s name?

  100. hwc
    November 9, 2014 at 3:45 am
    That is sound analysis.

    The only way to do it is to hear what the public is saying, and position yourself as the change candidate with experience who listens to what people say.

    Where she has gotten herself tripped up is in failing to position herself as a change candidate, thereby avoiding the stench of Obama.

  101. Biden and Obama not talking…at war.


    President, VP May Differ on Immigration Strategy: ‘Obama Angrily Cut Biden Off’

    President Obama and Vice President Biden might not see eye-to-eye on immigration strategy. A hint of an apparent disagreement was on display during Obama’s lunch with congressional leaders on Friday at the White House.

    “The meeting was tense at times, according to a senior House Republican aide. The aide was not authorized to describe the back-and-forth publicly by name and spoke only on condition of anonymity,” the Associated Press reports.

    “Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, about to lose his grip on the upper chamber, barely said a word. The aide said at one point as House Speaker John Boehner was making an argument on immigration, Obama responded that his patience was running out and Vice President Joe Biden interrupted to ask how long Republicans needed. Obama angrily cut Biden off, the aide said.”


    read on.

  102. “We will be bringing new folks in,” Obama says, when asked about staffing changes.

    Jarrett reportedly getting the axe.

  103. Where she has gotten herself tripped up is in failing to position herself as a change candidate, thereby avoiding the stench of Obama.

    It is going to be a difficult challenge to get the stench off after she dove head-first into his mud hole and swam enthusiastically for years. The Republicans were only able to claim that Mary Landrieu voted with Obama 97% of the time. Hillary, to this point, can be attacked for being with Obama 100% of the time.

    How does she run on the foreign policy achievements of the Obama administration? How, for example (just to pick one that will be brought up) is that reset button with the Russians workin’ out?

  104. two things:

    listening to some of the Sun morn political dialogue…and when talking about common ground both sides bring up fixing roads, bridges, etc…ok, no argument about rickety bridges…but

    what happened to the $ 831 BILLION that was already given for reconstruction, etc in the “Stimulus” BILL in 2009:

    (you remember, the one O joked about and said the jobs really weren’t “shovel ready”)


    $831 Billion dollars – so where did that go? Solandra? into deep pockets? WTH?


    re: the immigration issue and my question about who is looking out for the struggling Americans

    why can’t the Congress promote a jobs bill first…get the emphasis on putting the American people back to work…

    then take up minimum wage

    then work on a compromise for Immigration Reform


    Why just push the struggling Americans to the side while we open the doors and start giving jobs and education, health, licenses, etc to people who have not followed the law…I am not saying to forget these people but why do they get priority over Americans who live here

    for example,

    this AM, I think it was ABC did a segment on the struggling ‘out of work’ and ‘going out of business’ Americans…they focused on the South and interviewed many AA

    the bottom line…they feel ignored, forgotten and like things are being done that are making it harder for them…businesses that have been in their families for years are closing, no jobs, etc

    Shouldn’t they and other Americans across the country be given priority before illegal immigration?

  105. This is in effect the Dem’s problem and why it will fall on Hillary for 2016……they have not learned a thing, Obama murdered the party core.


    Two midterm elections have hollowed out the Democratic Party

    When President Obama was elected in 2008, his victory signaled a generational change and the prospect of renewal for the Democratic Party. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Over the past six years, the party has been hollowed out.

    The past two midterm elections have been cruel to Democrats, costing them control of the House and now the Senate, and producing a cumulative wipeout in the states. The 2010 and 2014 elections saw the defeat of younger politicians — some in office, others seeking it — who might have become national leaders.

    As the post-Obama era nears, the Democrats’ best-known leaders in Washington are almost entirely from an older generation, from the vice presidency to most of the major leadership offices in the House and Senate. The generation-in-waiting will have to wait longer.

    Presidential campaigns and open nomination contests help bring new leaders to national prominence. That appears unlikely in 2016. For all her positive attributes, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton is a suffocating presence when it comes to intraparty presidential competition. Her command of the Democratic machinery, from fundraising to grass-roots organizing, is so extensive that almost everyone else is understandably intimidated about even testing their talents against her.

    Think of it this way: If Clinton were to win the presidency and serve two terms, the next opportunity for a new generation of Democrats to compete nationally would not come until 2024. The Democrats could go 16 years between competitive presidential nomination contests, wiping out opportunities for today’s younger generation to define or redefine the party apart from either the Obama or Clinton eras.

    Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis makes her concession speech at her election watch party. The 2010 and 2014 elections saw the defeat of younger politicians — some in office, others seeking it — who might have become national leaders. (Tony Gutierrez/AP)

    But don’t blame Clinton for these problems. The party’s national bench is so thin that Democrats count themselves lucky to have her available in 2016. If she were to decide not to run, the Democrats would have trouble identifying a field of candidates as extensive as Republicans are likely to put up in the coming presidential race.

    The last competitive nomination campaign, in 2008, included — in addition to Obama and Clinton — an experienced field: then-senators Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and John Edwards, and then-governor Bill Richardson. Clinton has been on the national stage for two decades. Biden, who might run if Clinton does not, was elected to the Senate four decades ago. Dodd and Richardson are out of office. Edwards is in disgrace. With the obvious exceptions, that field has disappeared.

    Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has been moving toward a presidential candidacy. But he suffered a significant setback in Tuesday’s midterms when his state turned to Republican Larry Hogan to replace him. Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) has a populist message for Democrats, but he is not going to be the party’s future. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is a favorite of progressives and capable of stirring passions, but she shows no serious signs of running as long as Clinton is in the race, and perhaps even if Clinton isn’t.

    The more serious problem for Democrats is the drubbing they’ve taken in the states, the breeding ground for future national talent and for policy experimentation. Republicans have unified control — the governorship and the legislature — in 23 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democrats control just seven. Democrats hold 18 governorships, but only a handful are in the most populous states.

    In California, Gov. Jerry Brown won again at age 76, his fourth, non-consecutive term in the governor’s office. His victory means that younger Democrats will have to wait until 2018 to compete for one of the nation’s most high-profile political jobs. In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo won a second term, but can’t get out of Clinton’s shadow. The only other state among the top 10 in population held by the Democrats is Pennsylvania, newly won by Tom Wolf.

    Meanwhile, Republicans control governorships in Florida, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia and Massachusetts. Democrats were hoping to knock off Republicans Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Scott in Florida and Rick Snyder in Michigan. All survived. In Ohio, John Kasich won by the second-largest margin in state history, thanks in part to the implosion of his Democratic opponent.

    Ohio is an interesting case study of the fortunes of the two parties. It has been ground zero in presidential campaigns for years. Obama won it twice — but at the state level, Republicans are firmly in control. GOP candidates have won all the statewide elected offices there in five of the past six elections.


    Read on, he does make some valid points here, Obama has decimated the party to extinction of new blood. A Clinton Presidency will give the party time to rebuild, it was right to be decimated after the shenanigans of 2008, it deserved it. Now it gives the Clintons time to rebuild it in their image and wipe away all vestages of the Obama period.

  106. Talking Points Memo and the rest of the progressives are nothing more than shills for Obama. They are not liberals—they are paid political bloggers for Obama. The latest example of this was an interview of Sharyl Attkisson by this young nerd named Chris Hayes on the network which according to its president Phil Griffin freely admits that they are not journalists but “insiders” in the Obama Administration. So Sharyl appears, and this little waste of protoplasm demands that she tell him who is behind this government spying which she discusses in her book. When she refuses to tell him on advice of her attorney he dismisses the entire story as if it never happened, and TPM describes this embarrassment as a “grilling”????

    If Hayes had any integrity as a journalist, then he would be doing what Glenn Greenwald–an honest man of the left is doing, which is to say looking for corroborating proof of this Orwellian attack on civil liberties, rather than trying to disprove it on behalf of a corrupt Administration which has violated every line in the Bill of Rights. . You may recall when David Gregory, formerly of that same network, attacked Greenwald for speaking truth to power, he got hit with a punch from which his career never fully recovered. A progressive is not a liberal, because a progressive’s commitment to the bill of rights vanishes when he acquires political power. For a liberal, the commitment to the bill of rights is absolute, true and adorable.

  107. I’m surprised, the NYT actually gets something right, Tells Hillary not to rush, get the campaign message right and iron out potential problems before hand, beware those around you and pitfalls…….I am shocked.


    For Hillary Clinton, the Right Time to Get Ready

    WASHINGTON — The Democrats’ drubbing in the midterm elections simplified one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s challenges: Now she can strike some distance from President Obama. Everybody else is doing it.

    The former secretary of state, who is almost certain to run for president in 2016, has the luxury of time to elaborate her strategy. There will be matters beyond her control: relentless attacks, including some from the left.

    But it’s mainly the political right and Republicans who will work tirelessly to dig up dirt on the expected 2016 Democratic nominee. For all the talk of empowered congressional Republicans investigating every facet of the Obama administration, they won’t miss any opportunity to look into Mrs. Clinton.

    She’s tough, resilient, and likely to be prepared for this predictable onslaught. More instructive is whether she’s prepared for matters within her control. These include defining her candidacy and possible presidency. It won’t be sufficient to run on competence, breadth of experience and reminders that, by the way, her husband’s White House years were the salad days for the United States economy.

    Her foreign policy credentials are fodder for champions and critics alike. But there is no domestic centerpiece. She needs an innovative, or even bold approach — this is a cautious politician — to dealing with middle-class economic stagnation and income inequality.

    That requires choices and trade-offs. She has a good and lucrative association with Goldman Sachs. She also praises the liberal Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts: “I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get it,” she said last month at a campaign rally in Massachusetts. One of the institutions Ms. Warren likes to “give it to” is Goldman Sachs.

    Can Mrs. Clinton put together an efficient, functioning campaign? In the 2007-8 cycle, the Clinton camp was rife with infighting, warring clans as the many elements of Clintonland weighed in, sometimes not helpfully. Especially controversial was top strategist Mark Penn, who had to step down late in the campaign when it was disclosed he was simultaneously working for the government of Colombia.

    It is expected that former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, John D. Podesta, will assume the role of chief executive in the 2016 campaign. It would be a widely praised selection. As a strategist, he understands the nexus of politics and policy as well as anyone since James A. Baker III, the renowned Republican who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

    Mrs. Clinton is also seeking advice outside her political circle, most notably from David Plouffe, who ran Mr. Obama’s presidential campaigns.

    And this time she is determined get the crucial technology and data right.

    The big question is whether she will assemble a coherent team that holds at bay some of the more disruptive elements of the far-reaching Clinton constellation.

    Will there be a Bill problem? The former president’s indelicate comments caused her some anxiety in 2008. He was rusty then, having been out of the campaigning limelight for a while. But in 2012 and during this year’s midterm elections, he has shown that he’s easily America’s best stump campaigner as well as the most popular politician.

    Everyone else pales next to him on the campaign trail, including Mrs. Clinton. He also possesses superb political instincts; she is more methodical. Unfavorable comparisons will be made, but she can’t let that get to her.

    The former secretary of state’s book and promotional tour this summer fell flat. Yet she won raves for her campaign appearances this autumn.

    In modern American politics, there has never been such a prohibitive front-runner who wasn’t the incumbent president. No one, in either party, can boast of such odds of winning. Yet Mrs. Clinton’s path will be full of unforeseen changes, and more than a few ugly moments.

    How she prepares in the next few months may well determine how she weathers the storms.

  108. moononpluto
    November 9, 2014 at 11:50 am

    This is in effect the Dem’s problem and why it will fall on Hillary for 2016……they have not learned a thing, Obama murdered the party core.

    Amen Moon all that is left to do now is bury it. 😆

  109. It’s pretty telling that the only people fundraising for Landrieu are Wendy Davis and Allison Lundgren Grimes, neither of whom have proven to be fountains of electoral instincts

    I’m sure that Obama has decreed that she be left twisting in the wind, now that she’s of no use to him.

  110. jeswezey
    November 9, 2014 at 3:40 am
    The Grimes campaign is soliciting me for funds for the Landrieu runoff. What do you people think: Should I go for it? Or is it a waste of time? ——
    I would be SHOCKED if anyone, including myself, said to go for it.

    I hope your question on Big Pink was a joke.

Comments are closed.