Ebola Obama Corpse – The Autopsy

Update: At the end of our article we note that the GOP has some chips to play in the identity politics game. Others have noticed:



GOP wins with Democratic demographic playbook by ewillies

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart and Jessica Williams points out a rather interesting irony on the huge Republican win this week. On the more popular races, the Republican Party looked as diverse and fresh as the Democratic Party. Actually, it seemed quite a bit fresher. [snip]

“Jon, Republicans didn’t just take Democrats’ seat,” Jessica Williams said. “They stole their essence. The GOP went from a Brooks Brothers catalog to a United Colors of Benetton ad. [snip]

Jessica Williams then enumerated the list of ironies. “But sorry Democrats,” Williams said. “Utah just elected a young black congresswoman. Conservative Arkansas passed a minimum wage increase. What the f$ck kind of bizarro world is this Jon?” [snip]

This skit is funny. It is worth looking at the deeper message within and what it means for both parties.

Identity politics – the new GOP wildcard? Meanwhile, in the aftermath of Obama Dimocrats’ beheading, Obama golfs like an entitled Enron executive.

——————————————————–

Bathe in gasoline and light a match. Do you really need an autopsy to determine cause of death? Stand in a pile of nuclear waste. Is it difficult to determine cause of death? Lick the juices oozing from an Ebola Obama. You don’t need a medical examiner to tell you what mistake you made.

Obama Dimocrats are about to spend some of their borrowed cash for an autopsy of 2014. We’ll save them that deficit expenditure. We performed the Democratic Party autopsy back in 2008. The autopsy was in our series “Mistake In ’08” (which will likely have a new installment after Veterans’ Day). It’s all there in Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII.

There’s also our series on the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” coalition of death which explains it all. Read it Debbie and save yourself some money: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.

Vito Corleone did not need an autopsy report to figure out what killed Sonny.



Can’t you figure out what killed Luca?



Do you really need an autopsy for cause of death?

Ebola Obama. No autopsy required but a fake autopsy to shift the blame will do nicely:

DNC chief: We have a problem

The Democratic National Committee is planning a “top-to-bottom assessment” of its campaign strategy after suffering worse-than-expected defeats in last week’s midterm elections.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), who leads the group, announced Saturday that a committee will examine the party’s performance in the 2014 and 2010 elections.

“We are going to look at where we fell short. We’re going to identify our mistakes,” she said in a video that was sent to party supporters.

Our party has a problem,” she added.

The committee will specifically look at messaging, get-out-the-vote efforts and digital operations. It will form in the next few weeks and present a report at the organization’s winter meeting in early 2015. [snip]

“I’m not going to gloss over the facts: On Tuesday, the Republicans had a good night. We didn’t. We worked hard for months, we even won a few tough races, but it wasn’t enough,” she said.

In addition to losing control of the Senate this week, the Democratic party has lost 69 seats since Obama took office.

The problem is Barack Obama. The mistake is the Mistake in ’08. ‘Nuff said.



It will all be Obama excuses and phony explanations to avoid the obvious. The Obama Dimocrat “autopsy” will be a fake. Once again the blame will be shifted to “messaging”. The problem will be identified as “digital”. It’s all a fake. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” You don’t need an autopsy to know that Ebola Obama kills.



After 2012 the Republican Party held an inquest and autopsy too. The geniuses of the GOP came up with two conclusions. One of those conclusions was smart. One of those conclusions was stupid.

The smart conclusion, or rather the obvious conclusion was that the Republican Party had great need to catch up with the technology of elections. A modern campaign must utilize all modern technology and not go to sleep after an election. They spent money to come up with that brilliant conclusion. Mitt Romney’s ORCA system fell completely apart on election day so yeah, um, the GOP technology did fall short beyond a doubt so they spent money to uncover the obvious.

The stupid conclusion was on comprehensive immigration reform. This is another way for the “leaders” of the party to say “we have to pass amnesty on illegal immigration because that is what our Chamber of Commerce moneybags want to keep wages low”.

Fortunately for the GOP the rank and file as well as some leaders, like Ted Cruz, realized that amnesty was not a solution but a deadly draught. Amnesty, comprehensive immigration reform, was not the solution. In 2014 Republicans did much better with Latinos in part because they began to talk honestly about illegal immigration and their legitimate reasons to oppose amnesty.

In Texas Greg Abbott won 40% of the Latino vote. Part of his unique ability to garner Latino support came from the fact his mother-in-law is Latina. But the reason that fact was a benefit was because Abbott made sure the electorate knew he was not a Latino hater even if he opposed illegal immigration amnesty and supported border security.



Identity politics. Yup. Bill Clinton has warned against identity politics:

“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity.”

We’ve seen the bitter fruit of identity politics in the Barack Obama harvest. But if Obama Dimocrats are gonna play that card, the GOP had to learn to play the game too. And they did in 2014. With Tim Scott, Mia Love, Susanna Martinez, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Allan West, Brian Sandoval, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, George P. Bush, Columbia Bush, Joni Ernst, and Ben Carson, identity politics can cut both ways especially if Republicans continue to expand their minority gains as well as continue to gain with their already large support base among the white working class. The GOP has a lot of identity politics chips to play with in this scurrilous game.

What will be the biggest lie to come from the Obama Dimocrat autopsy? Willie Brown who thought Obama Dimocrats would win in November 2014 writes the plan for 2016:

Veteran California politician Willie Brown has warned this weekend that presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “is going to lose” in 2016 “[u]nless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation.” [snip]

“Everybody keeps asking me, “Why did this happen?’” Brown wrote. “Beats me. When it came to the elections, I was a dreamer who thought the Democrats were going to retain the Senate. Instead, we got walloped.”

Brown suggested that Democrats erred by running away from President Barack Obama, “which simply played into the Republicans’ strategy of portraying him as a failure.” The party also failed to turn out young voters, he said.

Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose,” Brown concluded.

Last year, Brown had predicted Clinton would win easily in 2016: “..[A]ll she has to do is continue to breath[e] and in 2016 she’ll be elected to the presidency of the United States,” he said.

In fairness, Brown appears to be saying that Hillary Clinton 2016 will fail unless the apparatus of vote turnout improves. But the suggestion that anyone should get closer to Ebola Obama is malarkey. On every issue he cites as reasons why Obama is popular, the polls state that the public as a whole is opposed to Obama’s policies – which were on the ballot in 2014 – every single one.

Anyone who suggests Hillary Clinton should stick by Ebola Obama is no friend to Hillary Clinton 2016. Hillary should not be a human shield for Barack Obama as so many Barack Obama supporters advocate.

Harry Reid who helped gift Barack Obama the nomination in the great “Mistake in ’08” is angry with Obama and blames Obama for the fact that he will now be a has-been in the Senate. Even bumblin’ Joe Biden has reason to be pissed off at his once savior and that’s not due to too much guzzlin’ liquor. If you think Reid and Biden are grinding their teeth, picture the Obama Dimocrats decimated in state and local elections.

If Hillary Clinton is anywhere near Barack Obama in 2016 we won’t need an autopsy to determine cause of death. Cause of death will be Ebola Obama.

The contagion of Ebola Obama will continue to kill in 2016 as in 2014. The solution is total cremation of Ebola Obama and the Ebola Obama Dimocrats. That’s the path to a healthy future.

Share

149 thoughts on “Ebola Obama Corpse – The Autopsy

  1. Admin:
    The Democrat Party does not need an autopsy.
    It needs an ABORTION.
    Even in the Land of Oz, some things are constant:
    1.) The Man,
    2. ) The Moment, and-
    3.) The Message.
    The Man: Obama who has a perverse agenda, and is a lying son of a bitch
    The Moment: a perfect storm of scandals and policies which landed our nation in the ditch
    The Message: to the nation: yours not to make reply, yours not to reason why, yours but to obey and die you racist bastards, etc. —all in the Valley of Death, rode the 600.
    STRIKE ONE. STRIKE TWO. STRIKE THREE. YOU ARE OUT.
    To quote the big media loved messiah: “there’s no way to put lipstick on that pig”.

  2. Ode to a dead party.

    Time to take off your party hats and toss out all the trampled cake.

    Time to get honest with yourself instead of looking for excuses in someone else’s backyard.

    What happened in 2012 that continued as a monster in 2016?

    What happened to your party faithful that didn’t vote for your candidates? Wasn’t 50% black DNA enough for the American voters?

    Did you underestimate the intelligence of the American public, and their anger at your misdirection’s and incompetence?

    If you haven’t learned from your mistakes in 6 years, you probably never will and you should just find another career path. Maybe as a party planner with your own clown. I hear your Dear Leader will be in search of a new job soon.

  3. All these Dimocratic fairy stories are very disturbing. Obola got the 2008 nomination and won elections by cheating and thuggery. 1/3 of his election campaign funds were “Unitemized” and examination of the 2008 funds suggest that around $200 Million was dirty money laundered as coming from donors under the limit. It looked like some of that funny money came in to his campaign during the primary and were used to defeat HRC. Pigs.

    Obama was fined a record $375,000. The news stories minimized it but here is the FEC link to MUR 6142 from PUMA PAC http://www.fec.gov/press/press2013/20130111digest.shtml

    In 2008 Hillary could have won honestly against the Repugs. But now?

    I have to say that the great “technology” of Obama’s campaign was a farce. He won on dirty money pumping hype and the exploitation of Black America.

  4. Amen Admin and wbb.

    Rather than admit what every one knows to be truth about why the Dims lost , some of them, including Obama, continue to pretend the Dim losses last week were not a statement about O’s incompetence, his amnesty plan and other initiatives, as well as his dictatorial style of governing. Actually, Obama knows that. He just doesn’t give a damn. The will of the people means nothing to him. The few followers he has left care much less about the wellbeing of this country than they do about Obama.

    Regardless of what O thinks and plans to do, the truth is that he and the progs and the New Dim Coalition have LOST. They “won” the battle in 2008 (even if they had to cheat to do so). But, after they took over the party, they didn’t have a clue how to hold onto it. The left-wing “take-over” of the Democratic Party was temporary. The so-called New Coalition did not prove to be the force Brazille and others claimed it would be.

    Speaking of Brazille, it is so good to see her get some of the criticism she so richly deserves.

  5. Update: At the end of our article we note that the GOP has some chips to play in the identity politics game. Others have noticed:



    GOP wins with Democratic demographic playbook by ewillies

    The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart and Jessica Williams points out a rather interesting irony on the huge Republican win this week. On the more popular races, the Republican Party looked as diverse and fresh as the Democratic Party. Actually, it seemed quite a bit fresher. [snip]

    “Jon, Republicans didn’t just take Democrats’ seat,” Jessica Williams said. “They stole their essence. The GOP went from a Brooks Brothers catalog to a United Colors of Benetton ad. [snip]

    Jessica Williams then enumerated the list of ironies. “But sorry Democrats,” Williams said. “Utah just elected a young black congresswoman. Conservative Arkansas passed a minimum wage increase. What the f$ck kind of bizarro world is this Jon?” [snip]

    This skit is funny. It is worth looking at the deeper message within and what it means for both parties.

    Identity politics – the new GOP wildcard? Meanwhile, in the aftermath of Obama Dimocrats’ beheading, Obama golfs like an entitled Enron executive.

    ————————————————————————————–

  6. I want to correct something I said yesterday. Richard Kaplan was the original head of CBS News that Sharyl spoke of and he was a stand-up guy who did not pervert or censor the news to accomodate his own political beliefs. She made it clear however, that his successor was dirty, just as the president of that network who just happens to be the brother of a key Obama adviser is likewise dirty, but he pretends not to be and uses his direct reports to be the hatchet men. I erred in assuming that Capus was the successor Sharyl was referring to because he Capus did not join that network until last summer. Therefore, she was referring to someone else, and Capus was his successor not Kaplan’s. But the more important point is that while Kaplan was a journalist, and his successor was dirty, Capus follows in the same footsteps of that successor, meaning that he too is dirty, and there can be no doubt that he was hired to continue the strategy dictated by the president of that network who held that position at all times material, to protect Obama at all cost, and to see to it that he won the election. The witholding of the portion of the 60 Minutes interview by the head of the Evening News by the dirty successor on the eve of the election which Sharyl discusses in the clip above was a breach of journalistic ethics and a form of election fraud–a wrong without a remedy.

  7. imo…everyone agrees that O is very unpopular now…

    the next two years are not going to make him more popular…in fact, if he continues the way he is…with his ‘rammin and jammin, my way or the highway persona’ he will be even less popular…imagine he will get worse…not better…

    O wanted to be king of the mountain…well now he is, too bad he has no friends, no army…he is a country of one…himself…that is what happens to someone who feels no loyalty to anyone else…poor, delusional O…what a pity!

    oh to be a fly on the wall to hear how what is left of the Dims really think of O and his self centered, narcissitic ways…

    the country is not stupid…they see the arrogance of the skinny guy who thinks he will just continue to stammer to get his own way…when he has already been told NO

    we’ll see…O will not be the phoenix that rises…we always knew he would do himself in…it took a while…but he will not disappoint…and he does not give a damn…

    get ready for more golf games, more parties, more trips, more restaurant hopping…and more I, I, I, me, me, me, my, my, my…anything to escape his reality and karma…

  8. Time to confess. Today we’ve been prowling around DailyKooks like Sigourney Weaver with a flashlight on an alien infested spaceship. We’ve found some freakazoids.

    That Jon Stewart clip we found at a DailyKooks diary featuring Howard Dean. You remember Howard Dean? He’s the guy who said after the elections in 2008 that he did not know there was any misogyny going on in 2008 because he did not have cable TV.

    The DailyKooks are sulking. They don’t want Hillary in 2016 and they’re upset that Ebola Obama is not sucked on. Here’s Howie:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/09/1343515/-Howard-Dean-slams-Democrats-Where-the-hell-is-the-Democratic-Party

    “Jim Clyburn was the most right person in that lead up,” Howard Dean said. “It was message. Sure it was an off year. We can make all these excuses. But the fact is we have never, — and even through the days of the fifty state strategy, taking over the House and the Senate and the Presidency in four years when I was running the DNC — I could never get the Washington Democrats to stay on message. The Republican message was we are not Obama, no substance whatsoever. We are not Obama. What was the Democrats’ message? Oh well we are not either. You cannot win if you are afraid. It felt like it. Where the hell is the Democratic Party. You have to stand for something if you want to win.”

    Chuck Todd mentioned Dan Balz’s Washington Post piece about the hallowing of the Democratic Party. He concentrated mostly on the weakening of the states’ Democratic Parties. Howard Dean pretty much gets it right about national guidance and money with local control. This would ensure necessary regional issues are addressed.

    The most important passage in the Dan Balz piece however is what a Hillary Clinton coronation will do to the Democratic Party with respect to fresh blood and grooming progressives.

    Go to Hell you dumbass Kooks.

  9. Speaking of autopsies and reports, Rience Preibus talked a bit about the report the Repubs commissioned after their 2012 shellacking and especially about ground game infrastructure gains they have made. He suggested that they would be increasing the funding for those efforts three fold going forward from what was in place for 2014. For example, they are leaving their paid staff in place starting this week in the 2016 battleground states.

    The most interesting thing to me is the message discipline among the Republicans I’ve been seeing this week.

    BTW, it’s clear from the Howard Dean interview that Hillary Clinton has already announced her candidacy. A big mistake, IMO.

  10. Dim hacks are offering all manner of excuses for their wipe out by voters. Willie Brown who told us Hillary was a shoe in and is now casting doubt on the very thing he opined before says the reason the party lost is because they kept their thoroughbred Messiah Obama in a cage, rather than turning him loose on the people who love him. The reaction of most people to Obama is overwhelmingly negative. They see him as a liar and a destroyer of nations therefore it would have been like throwing a drowning man an anvil to have dragged him out on the campaign trail. And then there that zombie Howard Dean. He claims the dims lost because they had no message? That is another lie. The problem is not that they have no message. Their message was made perfectly explicit by Obama himself—his policies would be on the ballot. In other words, contrary to what Dean would have us believe and is willing to admit, they lost because they had the wrong message. This is similar to the excuse proffered by Obama, when he was rebuked in 2010: it was not a failure of policy, it was a failure of messaging. This is what they call denial, and as long as they are in denial they will never recognize much less address their core problem, which is of course Obama himself.

  11. The most interesting thing to me is the message discipline among the Republicans I’ve been seeing this week.
    ————-
    Especially when you compare it to the multiple explanations by dimocrats on why they got shellacked.

    One thing Clyburn needs to understand is his race baiting anti American agenda has no place in this nation. It is one of those paths that leads only to despair and from which no one ever returns. He is a latter day Joel McCarthy.

  12. When you sell snake oil, rob banks or shill for Obama (which subsumes the priors) sooner or later you get caught.

    Or–as Debbie Downer put it

    I have got to be honest, the Republicans had a good night and we had a not so good night.

    (Note: wait a minute. Was’t it just last week she assured us they would hold congress?)

    And good night to you Debbie Downer.

  13. Shadowfax
    November 9, 2014 at 8:36 pm
    Darn, I thought the video about Dean was his howl…
    ———-
    Reminds me of big Al Capone in the tertiary stage of syphilis holding court in Alcartraz.

    Since he is reputed to be a doctor

    I have just got to ask:

    How would you like to go in for minor surgery

    And find Howard Dean with scapal drawn and raised in the air

    Waiting for you in the operating room

    Grinning from ear to ear

    And babbling this nonsense

    With Tom Harkin as the scrub nurse.

  14. HWC, the message discipline has been an asset. There’s also a certain “hunger”. Peter Beinart, another Obama shill extraordinare wrote about this:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/the-scariest-part-of-the-republican-blowout-for-democrats/382375/

    Why the GOP Blowout Is So Scary for Democrats
    It’s not just that the GOP won key races across the board. It’s that the party showed a new hunger to cross over to moderates and win.

    Does Tuesday night’s GOP blowout presage anything for the presidential election that starts in earnest on Wednesday? The conventional answer is probably still no. [snip]

    But despite all this, there is one big takeaway from tonight’s Republican landslide that should worry Democrats a lot: The GOP is growing hungrier to win.

    It’s about time. As a general rule, the longer a party goes without holding the White House, the hungrier it becomes. And the hungrier it becomes, the more able it is to discard damaging elements of party orthodoxy while still rousing its political base. Between 1932 and 1952, it took Republicans five election defeats to convince their partisans to rally behind Dwight Eisenhower, who accepted the New Deal. Between 1980 and 1992, it took Democrats three defeats to convince their base to get behind Bill Clinton, a former head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council who supported cutting taxes and executing murderers.

    In 2008 and 2012, Republicans couldn’t pull this off. Party elites backed John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom had records of bipartisan achievement and ideological independence that might have made them attractive to swing voters. But McCain and Romney faced so much hostility from the GOP’s conservative base that in order to win the nomination, and then ensure a decent base turnout in November, they had to repudiate the very aspects of their political identity that might have impressed independents. [snip]

    This year has been different: GOP activists have given their candidates more space to craft the centrist personas they need to win. [snip]

    Then many of those Republicans downplayed their opposition to gay marriage and highlighted their support for greater access to contraception in an effort to win over the young and women voters who in past elections spurned the GOP as too extreme. [snip]

    Sincere or not, these efforts to not appear retrograde and extreme helped Republicans say close among women voters. And yet conservatives turned out for them in huge numbers nonetheless. Thus, Republicans in 2014 combined candidate impurity with grassroots passion, which is what they’ll need to do to win in 2016.

    It’s a lot of pro-Obama spin, but the GOP effort has been disciplined and effective.

  15. On message discipline:

    Another thing Prebus mentioned was that the Republicans are not going to allow the nomination/debate schedule to destroy their own nominee. It’s winner take all from the get go instead of divvying up delegates over six months. And, they are limiting the number of debates with draconian delegate penalties for any candidate participating in rogue debates. Thank god…

    When the media is actively working for the Dems, it’s insane to give them unlimited opportunities to play gotcha.

    It’s still going to be tough for the Republicans to stay centrist. I can only hope that the money men shut down Huckabee and Santorum before they leave the starting gate. And, the field has to be better than Herman Cain and Tom Tancredo and Michele Bachmann!

    Let’s see:

    Rubio
    Jeb
    Perry
    Christie
    Walker
    Jindal
    Rand Paul
    Ted Cruz
    Ben Carlson
    Kasich
    Paul Ryan

  16. hwc
    November 9, 2014 at 10:21 pm

    Let’s see:

    Rubio
    Jeb
    Perry
    Christie
    Walker
    Jindal
    Rand Paul
    Ted Cruz
    Ben Carlson
    Kasich
    Paul Ryan
    ______________________________________________________

    Can we add one more to the list? Another Republican governor in a BLUE state re-elected by another large majority….

    Gov. Susanna Martinez-New Mexico

  17. Based on the post election articles, it seems as though Hillary will have a tough road should she decide to run. Admittedly, I erroneously thought a democratic defeat like we saw would help her as the party would embrace the type of centrists democrats the Clintons represent . Instead, it appears as though the democratic base voters are doubling down on Ebola Obama( lol every time I read that name) and she will not easily win their support or that of the African Americans who will simply not show up in 2016( racists who only voted for AA candidate ?). Also, the extreme left which will pander to Warren to run and under cut Hillary as we saw in 2008. That leaves her with a tremendous deficit to overcome at THIS time, but hopefully she is listening and can start to run the type campaign suggested herein.

  18. jbstonesfan
    November 9, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    ____________________________________________________

    And make no mistake about it, Warren is running.

  19. Jb: I would not read too much into the post election reactions . The party has just suffered a crushing defeat, and they are all in a state of denial. This can be seen in their re-election of Reid and Pelosi–the architects of defeat, and the looming threat by Obama to govern by executive order which they will all pay the price for. After the holidays, the Republicans will take power, and thereafter Hillary will announce. By then she will have the money men lined up and those in the media will begin carrying her water, simply because the alternative of a Republican Presidency is for them unthinkable. By mid- summer Obama will be perceived as a lame duck, and increasingly a pariah, and an obstacle to the political process. Then the political tide will turn. A renewed press for senate investigations of Obama’s scandals will further expedite his demise. Wall Street will never allow Warren to win, any more than they allowed Howard Dean to win. And party regulars will line up behind Hillary. Let us therefore hope that the Hillary that emerges is the one we saw in 2008 rather than the one we have seen more recently who is pro Obama. That mask needs to come off, and she needs to decide who is for me and who is against me. She must hold the progs at arms length if she hopes to win the general election. She needs Carvalle to manage her campaign.

  20. I want to give an independant voter view of this list of “great” candidates.

    hwc
    November 9, 2014 at 10:21 pm

    Let’s see:

    Rubio- no mas
    Jeb-last resort
    Perry-only if the entire country decides to secede to TX
    Christie-Yes, and Snooki can be his VP choice
    Walker-very viable
    Jindal-not viable at all
    Rand Paul-viable to those that live in their parents’ basement.
    Ted Cruz-viable to those that live in their parents’ dungeon
    Ben Carlson-when supporters don’t even know his name is Carson, his chances are as viable as Brailey..Bailey..oh whatever his name is as Michelle O said on the campaign stump speech.
    Kasich-beyond viable (which is why he won’t run)
    Paul Ryan-only if Bill Clinton stumps for him.

    BTW, couldn’t help but notice this Republican list has NOT ONE woman according to you. I am sure Nikki Haley and Suzana Martinez who are equally as qualified as Walker since they were both re-elected to second terms, and Martinez in a BLUE STATE, are pleased.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same for the Republican mindset.

  21. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not longer there. Just look at the transformation in coal country. That was a major base of support for Clinton: WV, western PA, Southern Ohio, Kentucky, etc. That’s gone for the Democrats.

    Basically, the Dems have the coasts and the cities, the Republicans have everything else. So trying to see a path to the nomination for Clinton has to be filtered through that lens.

    There are no more centrist Democrats. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Wiped out by Ebola.

    Can she reenergize some of her old base? Sure. But, at what cost to the new Dem base? Does she come out in support of rolling back Obama’s anti-coal regulations? How ’bout Keystone Pipeline? After all, we are told the only thing holding that up has been the State Dept. review. 🙂 What position does she take on Obama’s troop increases in Iraq?

  22. I think Martinez (especially) and Haley (to some extent) would be on a much longer list of potential VP candidates. I’ve not heard any rumblings of either considering a Presidential run in 2016.

    As for Republicans putting women on the national ticket, I believe they nominated a woman for VP in 2008 (although I fervently pray that she is not considering a Presidential run in 2016).

    If I had my druthers, my first choice for a Republican nominee would probably be:

  23. BTW, the reason I say that Nikki Haley has only limited appeal on national ticket has nothing to do with her and everything to do with the fact that the Republicans probably don’t need much help carrying S. Carolina’s 9 electoral college votes in 2016.

    I was not endorsing candidates on the list. I’m just suggesting that the Republicans have a deep field of interesting, mostly younger, candidates.

    I have no idea which ones will emerge between now and the nomination. No clue.

  24. After the disaster of a young supposedly “charming and brilliant” Barack Obama with his young immature speech writers (remember the one groping the poster of Hillary in 2008) and staff, age is not necessarily a plus for me in a president candidate although it may still be a factor for the rest of the country. I’ll take “old, experienced” Hillary any day compared to most, if not all, of the present young Republican candidates.

  25. Southern Born November 10, 2014 at 5:18 am

    There’s some confirmation from Willie Brown that experience and age are an attraction to HRC.

    Yes, Willie Brown was all wrong about the outcome of the 2014 elections when interviewed just before the rout (see the video starting at 7:30):

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/11/09/Willie-Brown-Hillary-Clinton-Is-Going-to-Lose

    Also, he feels that Democrats made a mistake running away from Obama (but substantiates his point):

    “They are totally and completely wrong. Either you’re a Democrat or you’re not a Democrat. He’s the head Democrat and he has proven repeatedly that he is more popular than you are. [Grimes] has got to be out of her mind. Why wouldn’t she say, “I voted for Obama with pride, and I voted because of healthcare, minimum wage, immigration reform, educational policy, climate… all those things get you back to a debate between the two parties and what they’re about. Shying away from Obama is a major mistake. All she had to do was compare Obama to the guys who ran against him, and say why she voted for the head of her party.”

    Finally, he now feels that HRC “is going to lose [in 2016] unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation.”

    However, he has good objective insights into the differences between Obama and both Clintons. Transcript of these parts of the interview:

    “There is no question BHO is the single most inspirational person of color in this nation. He’s that inspirational for young people almost as well, and for women…. But:

    Bill Clinton is the best politician of our time, period. He first of all really likes people. He pays attention to people — not intellectually, but emotionally and spiritually. And he has the knack to be the bartender in any setting. He can be the quarterback on any team. He can be the chef in any kitchen.

    Obama has none of those skills. Obama is an intellectual, really talented, a good deliverer of lines written by himself and others. Bill Clinton is so superior in all those categories that I don’t even think it’s fair to compare them. They are totally a different species. Bill Clinton was born to be a politician and Obama was born to be an intellectual.

    The business of really liking people means you’re almost like a door-to-door salesman. You can take whatever you’re doing and make it interesting for the human being you’re talking to. Obama doesn’t have that kind of skill. Obama is really rather stand-offish. He’s shy, and when I say he doesn’t really like people, I may be doing him somewhat of a disservice; but it may be that he is so shy and so hesitant to ‘interfere’ so to speak, whereas Bill Clinton considers it his obligation to interfere.”

    To the question, “Who’s the better politician, BHO or HRC?” he responds:

    “Hillary…. [because] She graduated.

    In February 2008, she was at her lowest ebb. If she had had the political skills she now displays, BHO would never have been president. He would have been her VP, and he would be now thinking about the Presidency.

    But she was so riveted on distinguishing herself from her husband, and his numbers were not as good, his popularity was not as good, she was almost reflective of what Al Gore did in 2000 when he foolishly threw the presidency away by rejecting WJC.

    [since then] She has grown tremendously. She has grown in part because of the Secretary of State stint, her US Senate membership, plus the fact that she’s just gotten older and wiser and she now knows that she does not have to apologize for anything or anybody. She’s suffered through every humiliation that would cause you to show humility. In that category, she has now emerged as a first-class politician and probably the best ever from a woman’s standpoint.”

    So, while Willy Brown was totally wrong about the 2014 results, he also furnished pretty good reasoning why Democrats would lose: They didn’t know how to man up to Obama.

    His current prediction that HRC 2016 will lose is based on the idea that the Democrats have to “change their operation,” which is undeniable. However, it is just as undeniable that nominating HRC will change the operation.

  26. Southern Born
    November 10, 2014 at 5:18 am
    …..I’ll take “old, experienced” Hillary any day compared to most, if not all, of the present young Republican candidates.

    I would generally agree with that but a lot of the public will be impressed with younger, vital, top of their game (mentally and physically) males. One of the things I have found so odd about the Obama worship is the guy always looked skinny, frail, weak, and unhealthy to me. What is god-like about that? President-ing is a very demanding job both physically and mentally. Obama looks crappier every day. He is not thriving doing this even doing as little as he does. While they all age in the job most manage to still look like they enjoy it. Old Barky looks sick, miserable, whiny, querulous and old for an essentially still “young” guy. If the institutional Democrats (elected officials plus donors plus party bigwigs) turn on him (I think they are doing it now) and he persists in being an impediment to future power, Obama may be forced to quit due to “health”. EVERYBODY (except the die hard loons) hate him now. Harry Reid’s body language in that luncheon was classic hatred and revulsion with crossed arms, scowl, refusal to look at him, and spine bent sideways away from Barky. The Secret Service had to have been watching Reid closely. Obama (and Jarrett) now have to fear the powerful Democrats as much as the Republicans if they aren’t too stupid to do so.

  27. Harry is really, really mad at Obama and the White House. LOL.
    “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signaled he’s open to making a DEAL with Republicans to clear a FINITE list of President Barack Obama’s languishing nominees, but the idea sets up a potential conflict with fellow Democrats and the White House who want to ram through as many as possible now before they hand over their majority.”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/senate-dems-squabble-over-nominations-112727.html#ixzz3IfKyybAl

  28. She must hold the progs at arms length if she hopes to win the general election. She needs Carvalle to manage her campaign.

    _________

    Amen, wbb!

    VH, I loved your analysis. Cracked me up.

  29. Anyone who suggests Hillary Clinton should stick by Ebola Obama is no friend to Hillary Clinton 2016. Hillary should not be a human shield for Barack Obama as so many Barack Obama supporters advocate.

    I don’t think anyone, even the remaining Dims, is suggesting HRC should “stick by” Obola.

    The issue is rather the persistent suggestion that HRC should “stick it to” Obola, or make a concerted effort to distance herself from him.

    I know she won’t do this, for several reasons I won’t bother to repeat for fear of boring everyone.

    Suffice it to recall Schoen’s remarks on Fox News: The Clinton brand is different and distinct from Obama and everyone knows this. So HRC does not have to take any deliberate steps in this direction. What she needs to do is to develop a new and comprehensive vision of America’s greatness and establish her vision of leadership at home and abroad. That’s a tall order, but I know she can do it.

    Besides, Obola’s ratings may rise again. That depends on the actions or inaction of the Republican Congress. Let’s not forget that, while Obola’s ratings are low, the ratings of Congress are abysmal — below that of cockroaches — and Republicans are going to have a hard time indeed convincing the public they can play the governance game fairly and to everyone’s benefit.

    And even if they do, Obola will get some credit for any progress they make. So his ratings may rise again; and if they do, it would be bad for HRC to attack him. She’s not going to do it anyway.

    As for the possibility of her providing a human shield for Obola, I don’t think it’s going to happen; but, as one among us likes to say, we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?

  30. wbboei November 10, 2014 at 1:05 am

    The post-election reactions differ. You say, “they are all in a state of denial,” but that is not enough. From all the different reactions, one will win out and I have no doubt that it is the dumbest reactions — from DWS and Brazile — that will be the winners.

    “By mid-summer Obama will be perceived as a lame duck…” — and how is he perceived now? — I mean, this guy’s been a lame duck since 2010… how long does it take the public to catch on? Or are you talking about the media?

    “… and an obstacle to the political process” — I think you’re wrong about that. It has been Congress that has blocked the political process the most, and the public is aware of that. “By mid-summer,” it will be no different, which returns to my hypothesis above, that Obama’s ratings may rise again. “Increasingly a pariah”? Not necessarily.

    I agree that she will have to hold the progressives at arm’s length, but not ignore them entirely. In any event, Carville would be a good campaign manager but she might find better: Her inner circle is stuffed now with competent, loyal staff.

    “Let us therefore hope that the Hillary that emerges is the one we saw in 2008 rather than the one we have seen more recently who is pro Obama.” — It will be neither. 2008 is over and so is Obama. A new HRC will emerge and she will be different next year from what she is now. Have confidence in that!

  31. Lu said
    In 2008 Hillary could have won honestly against the Repugs. But now?
    ______________________

    I agree fully Lu.
    And the question makes my heart ache for what we could have had.

  32. The New Yorker has an in-depth article about three possible challengers to HRC: O’Malley, Jim Webb and Bernie Sanders (who is not a Democrat)

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/inevitability-trap

    Warren is overlooked, but the article is not about the political potential of the three candidates (all of whom have said they’re thinking of running) but of the different issues where they could make a dent in HRC’s armor and thereby color the primary race.

  33. One of the things I have found so odd about the Obama worship is the guy always looked skinny, frail, weak, and unhealthy to me. What is god-like about that?
    ————–
    In the counter culture, the lippy 90 pound weakling is king.

    You saw it yourself a few months back.

    Hail Pajama Boy!

    Nerds of the world unite!

    Man your computers!!

    Let no one kick sand in their faces!!!

  34. Rubio
    Jeb
    Perry
    Christie
    Walker
    Jindal
    Rand Paul
    Ted Cruz
    Ben Carlson
    Kasich
    Paul Ryan

    The bottom line on all these candidates is that HRC beats them nationally, which could be ascribed to name recognition, but also in their HOME STATES.

  35. The Second Stage
    By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | November 10th, 2014 at 09:15 AM | 5

    RESIZE: AAA
    Share on Facebook 17 43 SHARES

    From denial, wherein Democrats swept out of office have decided to keep the same party leaders in the same position, we are moving on to anger.

    We have liberal writers positing Pelican Brief scenarios of dead Supreme Court Justices causing 4-4 preservations of Obamacare to others claiming the GOP wants to kill people.

    Along the way, all the liberal tributes to the fall of the Berlin Wall are writing Reagan and Thatcher out of the history of the events. Because they weren’t there the day the wall fell, they could not have had anything to do with it.

    The Democrats and Republicans, interestingly, have a bit of the same problem.

    Back in 2006, the GOP got swept out of office, and it has now been swept back into power. But the faces of its leadership have not changed. Boehner and McConnell are still there.

    The Democrats now have decided to keep its faces the same too. Pelosi, Reid, and all of Obama’s advisors will be the same.

    There is one startling difference though. The GOP, since 2006, has engaged in a House cleaning due to its base. It has been challenged, people more connected to the ideals of limited government have come into power, and in 2014 we are going to see a more conservative House of Representatives with Cruz, Paul, Lee, Rubio, etc. still in the Senate.

    The Democrats have seen the right of their party destroyed, the left of their party emboldened, and the heart of their party re-inforced. All that the public rejected on Tuesday is now the bedrock of the Democratic Party.

    A party that won everything in 2008 and then doubled down on anger is never going to get to the final stage of grief and accept what happened. I hope the GOP and the conservative movement can break out of the anger that has so consumed so many of them. The American people are going to need one party with a smile and it looks like they won’t get that from the Democrats.

    For the last six days, all the public has gotten from the Democrats is an honest view of what the Democrats really belief, i.e. they hold the masses in contempt, believe government is the answer, and if the public does not like that the public is a collaborator with the enemy.

    Conservatives, be happy again. America needs someone on their side and the best the Democrats have is wishing death on Supreme Court Justices and accusing Republicans of killing everyone else.

  36. foxyladi14
    November 10, 2014 at 10:14 am
    08 Was Hilliary’s time and I will always feel that she won but was robbed of her victry and I weep.

    __________

    She was robbed, foxy. And many of us are still as angry and outraged as we were in 2008.

  37. Liberal Racism: Hispanics Are Next

    Roughly ninety-five percent of racism in America today now either emanates from liberals or is generated by them. The Democratic Party relies on racism because, without the perception of serious ongoing racism in our culture, the identity politics on which the party depends would disintegrate. As presently constituted, they wouldn’t win another national or statewide election. This makes the Democratic Party by necessity a virtual racism-manufacturing machine.

    The Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are not anomalies. They are the motor that drives the car. Barack Obama could in no way be a post-racial president as promised, even if he wanted to be (doubtful). He wouldn’t have had a party anymore.

    Do I exaggerate? Actually it’s worse. Because economic policies such as tax preferences for disadvantaged neighborhoods a la Jack Kemp that could have benefited black people are anathema to Obama and liberals, African Americans have little chance of improving their condition. No original ideas are instituted. It’s always the same old, same old from the days of Lyndon Johnson. Result: seventy percent of black children born out of wedlock and all the other horrifying statistics that are only a key stroke or two away for anyone with a computer — numbers on food stamps , unemployed, black-on-black crime, etc. Objectively, Barack Obama has been the worst president for black people since the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, possibly earlier. Also, he and his attorney general — acting like smug, semi-literate undergraduates who just finished reading Howard Zinn and though it was a revelation — have consistently encouraged racial division for the last six years, while pretending they are improving it. It’s a noxious masquerade that is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    If you raise this with Democrats/liberals/progressives, most of them will not listen or even discuss the subject because to do so calls to question their whole worldview. They live in a bubble bath of self-congratulatory moral narcissism that does not allow them to look at the results of their “ideas” or their conception of themselves as “good people.” They don’t want to know about anything that does not conform. I have experienced this personally, mentioning names of prominent black conservative thinkers like Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele, some of the greatest political minds of our time, and getting blank stares. They have not heard of them, let alone read a book by them. And I’m talking about supposed intellectuals, graduates of Ivy League universities (I know – that doesn’t mean that much, but still…), not your average Joe whose never heard of Joe (Biden). Extraordinary willful ignorance.

    And now come the Latinos. After they have decimated black culture, our progressive friends are going after the Hispanics. I say “going after” because the obvious unspoken goal of Obama’s executive amnesty plan is the creation of a yet greater class of dependent voters. It’s actually quite insulting to Latinos in the long term, just as it was to African Americans. One of the most effective ways to ruin someone’s life is to make him or her dependent. Dependency on the state is not all that different from dependency on drugs or alcohol. Sooner or later it dominates who you are and will most likely ruin your life. You will never be free, unless you are that rare strong individual who is able to overcome it. That is what is being done by the Democratic Party in the name of executive amnesty.

    What an atrocious, immoral thing to do. We should all be equal under the law in this republic. The idea that the chief executive of our country would want to give special privileges to Latinos above and beyond the wishes of their future fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is highly socially damaging. It drives us apart — and apparently deliberately. Latinos know that too and a surprising percentage seem to have seen that in last week’s election, not voting, as predicted, for the Democrats. They don’t want “brown skin privilege” any more than I want “white skin privilege” or Al Sharpton should have “black skin privilege.”

    This positive turn of events should give us courage to call out Democratic Party for its racism. It’s our civic duty.

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/11/09/liberal-racism-hispanics-are-next/

  38. Howard Dean claims that the Republican campaigns were devoid of substance, simply stating “We’re not Obama,” but the Democrats’ campaigns were even less convincing as they said, “We’re not really Obama either.”

    Dean thus confirms Willie Brown’s analysis: Democrats should have said they voted for Obama, and why, and then get on to a debate about the issues.

  39. Obama, the global collossous who straddled the world and thundered his triumph of the will manifesto from the Brandenburg gate, to the Styrofoam Greek columns of Denver to the land of the Pharaohs was, is, and will always be a joke to the discerning reader and a perfect example of the delusions of our ruling class.

    Today, through Sharyl and others we are getting the inside story of how big media corrupted the election process and stole the elections for him, (thus rendering both him and them illegitimate). The Obama I see today is the one Shakespeare decribed:

    A poor player who struts and frets his hour on the stage
    And then is heard no more
    A tale told by an idiot
    Full of sound and fury
    And signifying NOTHING.

    The epitome of WEAKNESS.
    Distrusted by our allies
    Bitch slapped into submission
    By our enemies

    Obama is a grievance whore.
    Perhaps he should file a grievance before the world court
    Alleging racial discrimination
    And requesting an order that his enemies be ordered to surrender their net worth to his OFA fund and presidential library.

    The World Sees Obama As A Weak Leader

    This is where his domestic weakness really bites. Little headway has been made in the Pacific talks because Congress has refused to give Mr Obama fast-track negotiating authority. That was with the Democrats in charge. Republicans will assume control of the US Senate in January. Mr Obama’s strategy is to strike a deal and only then ask Congress for fast-track authority. Until now it was always the other way round. Meanwhile, Congress has granted fast track for only five of the 20 years since Bill Clinton negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is optimistic to think Mr Obama will have a better chance of persuading Republicans to write him a blank cheque after last week’s defeat. The Tea Party’s goal, after all, is to close down his “imperial presidency”
    .
    The Chinese leader (Xi) has shown the US president little respect since their first summit in California last year
    Tweet this quote. The rest of the world, and China in particular, sees Mr Obama in the opposite light – as a weak leader in the autumn of his presidency. China-watchers say Mr Xi’s ebullience since he took power has been spurred by the view that Mr Obama has only a limited window in office.

    After that, Hillary Clinton, or a Republican, will take over.

    Either would be tougher on the world stage than Mr Obama. Even if that is wrong, Mr Xi has shown Mr Obama little respect since their first summit in California last year. Mr Obama warned his Chinese counterpart to stop the cyber attacks on the Pentagon and other targets. China’s cyber-incursions increased. Earlier this year, the White House indicted five Chinese nationals for cyber-espionage, including a senior military officer. None are likely to be brought to trial. It was the kind of empty gesture Beijing has come to expect of Mr Obama.

  40. Some of the articles posted here and other sites are from and/or about progressives who have said Hillary should connect herself to Obama – more for his benefit than hers. Obviously none of us believe that, nor do other true Hill supporters.

    I think Hillary can and must differentiate herself and her policies from Obama and his. She may agree with the premise of some of his policies and initiatives, but disagree with the construction of the policy and/or the manner in which O enacted it. We know that there have been differences of opinion between the two on a number of issues. She doesn’t have to attack him in order to point out those differences. Even if she approved completely of every law and initiative he has pushed through or ordered (which she doesn’t), no one with a reasonable degree of sanity would think that his general functioning as president and the functioning of his administration, as a whole has been beneficial to the country. He has increased divisiveness within the country. He has been disrespectful to Dim and Republican senators and representatives, alike. He has diminished the respect of the office of president, by behaving like a rock star or a spoiled prince – never as a servant of the people. He has deliberately done great damage to our relationship with Israel – a longterm ally of this country. He has made the US appear weak in the ME, Russia, etc. – and on and on.

    Obviously, Hillary can find many points on which to differentiate herself from O, but she especially, needs to remain in (some would say move to) in the center – not moving too far to either the left or right. Americans are anxious and fearful now – not solely because of a potential threat to safety and security, although those are definitely important concerns for most people. I think Americans are more anxious because they don’t recognize their country anymore. Obama has attempted to change it so rapidly and radically that people have been thrown into the unfamiliar. Little is more frightening than the unknown. When that sense of familiarity and balance is disturbed, we seek nothing more than equilibrium. It’s human nature.

    That, I think, is where Hillary has an advantage. She is a well known quantity. She has run for this office and stated her views and proposals – which were certainly to the right of O’s. And, 18 million people apparently liked them. Even people who dislike her (many of whom couldn’t even tell you why – they just know they’re supposed to because Hannity or some other dumb ass says they should – will take comfort in her candidacy because she is familiar. Her husband has been in the WH, with her right at his side (often a step or two ahead) and the country prospered and remained safe. Nothing too bad happened, and the Monica thing gave people lots to talk about.

    jesweezy, I think if you were in this country for any length of time, you would recognize that people are less concerned with ideology and party at this moment – not everyone, but many regular Americans. They are more concerned about the fact that they feel displaced within their own country, nothing feels familiar. That’s why the voters swept Repubs into office.

  41. the “stupid” American taxpayer and voter is now waking up to the manipulation and exploitation wrought upon them by O and the Dims and they are fighting back by rejecting O and what he has left of the dimocratic party…

    result: the “supid” people do not trust O or the Dims…and for good reason – they sound tired, out of touch and whiny – Koch Bros and mammograms, really!

    (btw…http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/fire-valerie-jarrett-112659.html wierd, very wierd ‘platonic’ menage a trios going on)

    here is the respect the O Dim Party has for the American voter:
    Are you listening Supreme Court???

    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obamacare-tax-credits-Congress-Supreme-Court/2014/11/10/id/606325/

    Obamacare Depended on ‘Stupidity’ of Voters, Its Architect Says

    Monday, 10 Nov 2014 08:34 AM

    By Melissa Clyne

    Obamacare would have never become law if the American electorate were smarter, MIT economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said during a recent panel discussion on the law, The Daily Caller reports.

    “Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because ‘the stupidity of the American voter’ would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it,” according to the Caller.

    Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and is widely recognized as the law’s architect.

    But as challenges to the law have surfaced, the administration has sought to distance itself from Gruber, who acknowledged during the panel discussion that the legislation was purposely written in a confusing way to make sure that he Congressional Budget Office did not score the individual mandate as a tax, a part of the law the Supreme Court upheld on the assertion that it was, in fact, a tax.

    “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that,” Gruber said.

    “In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.

    “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really, critical to get the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not,” he said.

    The National Review reported in July that Gruber was paid nearly $400,000 (me – to rip us off)

    to consult with the administration, and that in 2012 he told an audience at a technical management support organization that tax credits were only available in states that set up their own exchanges.

    In August, Breitbart News reported that the White House and ranking Congressional Democrats began distancing themselves from Gruber, after a federal appeals court ruled that people who bought their insurance from healthcare exchanges administered by the federal government in 34 states were not eligible for billions of dollars in tax subsidies.

    They began to say that Gruber was not a member of Congress and that “there is no evidence that anyone in Congress relied on him or his analysis.” (me – oh, paid $400,000 for nothing?)

    Writer Scot Vorse points out a bevy of examples showing that “Gruber’s analysis was marketed as expert, independent analysis that Congress should and did rely on,” including Gruber’s own words to a panel in 2010 that “I helped write the federal bill,” and that he was a paid consultant hired by the administration to help develop the bill’s technical details.

    In 2012, Gruber was captured on video saying that, after the election, he worked with the transition team to “help put the numbers together for the administration.

    “And then, essentially, most of 2009 I was really on loan from the administration to Congress, particularly the Senate Finance Committee, to help them put the numbers together on what became the finance committee bill, which really became Obamacare.”

    The Supreme Court this month agreed to hear a legal challenge to the law regarding subsidies for Americans who bought their insurance through the federal exchange. Some three dozen states opted not to set up exchanges, instead offering their residents subsidized insurance through the federal exchange at healthcare.gov.

    “As every day passes, more information surfaces making it abundantly clear that the intent of Obamacare was to create strong incentives for governors to set up exchanges in their own states,” Vorse wrote.

    “Gruber is very clear about this, and Congress relied on Gruber. When this strategy failed, the White House and HHS tried to change their position. Unfortunately for them, too much public information exists showing their original intent.

    “If federal exchange subsidies are prohibited, Obamacare is over.”

  42. Obama calls on FCC to keep Internet ‘free and open’

    The president says that all Internet service providers should “protect Net neutrality” and agree to not block or throttle Internet traffic.

    In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to maintain Net neutrality and ensure that Internet service providers (ISPs) are not allowed “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.”

    “That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality,” President Obama said in the statement.

    The FCC is working on a new set of rules for Internet oversight in the US. Those rules were expected to be made available later this year, though reports now claim they may be delayed until early 2015.

    The agency earlier this year saw a vigorous response from the public to its call for comments on its Open Internet proposals, with the FCC’s servers sometimes stumbling and crashing under the overwhelming input. The comment window closed in September.

    Net neutrality, which is the principle that ISPs and governments treat all Web traffic the same, has long been a debate around the US with no clear victory for either side. Consumers and many Internet companies argue that the Internet should remain open and that all traffic should be treated equally. Opponents have argued for a toll road of sorts that would provide better service to companies that pay to support their high traffic volumes. That has created widespread concern that ISPs could throttle service in some instance, intentionally slowing down some content streams and speeding up others.

    Earlier this year, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler came under fire after an early proposal for his rules on Internet access were made available. While Wheeler has said that he fully supports the open Internet, the proposal could allow for paid prioritization of Internet traffic.

    “I will say it again, there is nothing in the proposal that authorizes fast lanes on the Internet,” the chairman said earlier this year. “It simply asks questions, such as should there be a ban on paid prioritization. But there is nothing in the rule that authorizes it.”

    At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. That section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act “in the public interest.” Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic.

    Obama was clear on his commitment to Title II, saying that broadband should be reclassified under the act “while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.”

    “This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies,” Obama said.

    More to come…

    http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/

  43. …or as Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives said:

    “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy”

  44. Purposeful deception: the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI

    The Supreme Court will take judicial notice of the lies of Jonathan Gruber (who has filed briefs with the courts which now have to be seen as the lies they are).

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/10/video-obamacare-architect-brags-about-lack-of-transparency-in-law/

    This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber tells the audience with a smile. “If CBO scores the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” The CBO did a lot more than just decide whether or not to score the mandate as a tax, though. Democrats insisted that CBO’s initial scoring showed that the bill was deficit-neutral in its first ten years, thanks to transparently self-serving dodges like trawling revenue before making outlays a few years later. How much else did Democrats lie to get that initially positive scoring? How much else are Democrats still hiding about the ACA and the HHS implementation of it?

  45. freespirit November 10, 2014 at 11:58 am

    …. people are less concerned with ideology and party at this moment – not everyone, but many regular Americans. They are more concerned about the fact that they feel displaced within their own country, nothing feels familiar. That’s why the voters swept Repubs into office.

    Interesting take — that the country isn’t looking for change any more so that being part of the DC scene for so long is actually an advantage for HRC. She represents “comfort”. I’ll mull that over a bit.

    But I still think she doesn’t have to make a major effort to distinguish herself from Obama, because everybody already sees the difference. The Republicans will certainly try to equate her with Obama, but that will backfire on them.

    Anyway, I am dead certain she’s not going to travel that route, definitely not for political expediency. Once again: She does not define herself negatively with respect to anyone. She’s not an adolescent.

  46. What will Obama et ux do when they ring down the curtain on his theater of the absurd production.

    There’s just no telling.

    One possibility is that Hollywood will do 51 block buster movies on the big media beloved Messiah and his glorious imperious splediferous presidency.

    It would start with a trilogy worthy of Wagner:

    1. Getting Even with Whitey–starring George Clooney, Al Sharpton, director Spike Lee

    2. Blaming America For Everything–starring Robert de Niro, Jessee Jackson, director Oliver Stone

    3. Son of the Prophet (Spelled profit)–starring Matt Damon, the Ayatolla, Bo Bergdall, director Larry Flynt

    Messiah Obama would be on hand to make long boring speeches and to pass out the Oscars.

    One of those Oscars would be to his beloved wife Michelle, for the movie she hopes to make in the fulsomeness of time.

  47. admin
    November 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    ——-

    Goober really is the poster-boy for the Obama Administration. Screw over and lie to get what you want and to Hell with integrity and the American public.

    Why aren’t there laws that put people like this in jail?

    Our jails are filled with people that never committed a crime on this level.

  48. If I had to take a wild guess as to who in the Obama administration was hacking into Sharyl’s computer then it would have to be a political operative in a key national security position who could access those capabilities and had a prior record of using security information for political purposes. At the top of that list of suspects would have to be Tom O’Donolin.

  49. The normally dead between the ears Brian Williams gets this twinkle in his eye when he speaks of O’Donolin and calls him the big Irishman. Whether that is a Freudian slip or just a stupid comment is hard to say. With Ly’n Brian you can never be sure.

  50. OMG! S, Obama and his peeps really think the world of Americans, don’t they. His campaign slogan should have been “fool ’em and fuck ’em”
    _______________

    Jes, I just won’t the woman elected. i think the advice she has been given here is spot on.

    If in saying “she’s not and adolescent”, you’re implying that those of us who believe she should distance us from O are, I think that’s pretty disrespectful. But – hey – this is America. People can say wtf ever they want. If that was your intent, I think it was a pretty adolescent remark.

  51. admin
    November 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    ————-
    It does make you wonder just how far Roberts will go to condone fraud.

    He found this was a tax, but as the clip makes clear the position of the administration was exactly the opposite.

    If Roberts holds that the federal subsidies to states what did not establish exchanges are invalid, then that does not make up for what his earlier surrender, because it still leaves Obamacare in place, and the RINO who wants money from the pharmaceutical companies will find a way to fund it. I am 100% certain that McConnell will not kill Obamacare. I know him.

  52. Shadowfax
    November 10, 2014 at 12:00 pm
    Obama calls on FCC to keep Internet ‘free and open’
    The president says that all Internet service providers should “protect Net neutrality” and agree to not block or throttle Internet traffic.

    So ValJar, Mooch and some billionaires have figured out a way to make money on it like the carbon tax? Let me guess. There will be a board in Chicago. A small licensing fee like that for the BBC for households. A cut for various “philanthropic” purposes such a secret bank accounts. Hey, right to work is killing the union money so gotta find a new revenue stream.

  53. admin
    November 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    Purposeful deception: the video.

    Gruber really is the idiot child AND the gift that keeps on giving. He is so gloriously proud of himself. When does the RICO investigation start?

  54. Looking around the net today, there are a number of articles performing hitjobs on ValJar……looks like she may be the sacrificial lamb for last weeks election……

  55. But I still think she doesn’t have to make a major effort to distinguish herself from Obama, because everybody already sees the difference. The Republicans will certainly try to equate her with Obama, but that will backfire on them.
    ————————
    There are two big quantum leaps in that logic.

    1. that the public sees a clear difference between Hillary and Obama with respect to policy.

    2. that the public will punish the republicans for showing that the Hillary of 2014 is not the Hillary of 2008

    There is no hard evidence to support either of those assumptions.

    On the other hand, there is clear cogent and convincing proof that the public does not support Obama’s policies.

    That is why we had hoped that she would separate herself from Obama, but I am skeptical that will happen.

  56. Like lemmings……

    Sen. Tim Scott, the only black Republican member of the Senate, only got 10% of the black vote last Tuesday.

  57. Shadowfax November 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Goober really is the poster-boy for the Obama Administration. Screw over and lie to get what you want and to Hell with integrity and the American public.

    Why aren’t there laws that put people like this in jail?

    You can’t jail someone just for saying what comes into his head. The right to irresponsible speech is one of our most cherished values, guaranteed by government and big media alike, and lies are included in irresponsible speech.

  58. wbboei November 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    There are two big quantum leaps in logic:

    1. that the public sees a clear difference between Hillary and Obama with respect to policy.

    2. that the public will punish the republicans for showing that the Hillary of 2014 is not the Hillary of 2008.

    Concerning no. 1, there is not a big difference between the two with respect to policy. I keep repeating and explaining that the difference is elsewhere and the public knows it: I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to see.

    Concerning no. 2, if the Republicans show that Hillary has changed since 2008, I have no problem with that and neither will the public because she is indeed different now — a much better politician and potential president.

  59. jeswezey
    November 10, 2014 at 1:59 pm
    You can’t jail someone just for saying what comes into his head. The right to irresponsible speech is one of our most cherished values, guaranteed by government and big media alike, and lies are included in irresponsible speech.

    You actually can. If it meshes up with an illegal conspiracy to defraud. Please remember that he was Obama’s expert. He was also going around selling his insights to paying crowds on how to navigate the horrendous bureaucracy of Obamacare. He was paid a consulting fee of something like $750 thou by the American taxpayer to come up with what is basically a fraud against the American taxpayer. If he was the janitor it would be irresponsible speech. He isn’t. I am not a lawyer but I would like to see his contract of which I read very well. He is in trouble now. Big trouble.

  60. She is certainly different from 2008 in one important way: Shes’ been an Obama toadie, apologist, and cheerleader for six years.

  61. wbboei

    November 10, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    admin
    November 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    ————-
    It does make you wonder just how far Roberts will go to condone fraud.

    He found this was a tax, but as the clip makes clear the position of the administration was exactly the opposite.

    If Roberts holds that the federal subsidies to states what did not establish exchanges are invalid, then that does not make up for what his earlier surrender, because it still leaves Obamacare in place, and the RINO who wants money from the pharmaceutical companies will find a way to fund it. I am 100% certain that McConnell will not kill Obamacare. I know him.
    *******************************************************************

    wbboei…this is a concern I have had from the beginning…yes the repubs have all wailed against Ocare…why? maybe because the dims were getting the moola donations…but what is to stop big pharma/insurance companies from ‘giving/bribing’ to the repubs now…

    when there is this monumental amount of money at stake…sadly they are all on the take…gimme, gimme, gimme…

    …however, the repubs have to worry about their base…because they are counting on the big talking repubs to stop Ocare…

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

    also I liked your comment above to JB re: Hillary…that is my perspective at the moment…a sea change can occur between now and the launch of the national election campaign of one and all…hillary should not make unnecessary errors, lay low…go on her listening tour…and work on her ‘Plan for America’…and make sure her campaign is prepared, up to date, technically savvy and has purged any questionable characters and O rethreads…(and as i mentioned before, even though it might not be as big a threat as in 2008…Hillary has to have a primary strategy, particularly to avoid bad press headlines, she needs to come out of the primaries looking strong, not beat up etc)

  62. jeswezey
    November 10, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    —–
    I wasn’t talking about freedom of speech. I was talking about what the a-hole said on the video. The wording of the bill was intentional to not be taken as a tax and if they had been clear, transparent in the bill with the correct writing, ‘the stupid’ public would find out about it.

    The wording of the bill was intentionally dishonest.

    You need to see the video.

  63. Mormaer
    November 10, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    I agree.

    As far as the ‘net neutrality’ goes, I agree that anything Obola touches isn’t something to take by face value. The internet providers are not free now, and the ‘hope’ is to not charge by the amount of gigs used, or make faster bandwidth for those that pay more.

    Government regulation is normally a bad thing these days, they can tax whatever and do it without regulation.

    Don’t trust Obama is the wise.

    The internet does need to be protected…but not sure of the fine details from this fool.

    If you want to keep your internet, you can. Yea, we’ve heard it before.

  64. The Obama Whisperer……It would seem the attack on Jarret has started….it would also seem Warren is not the darling of Obama, they don’t actually like her

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120170/valerie-jarrett-obama-whisperer

    Even at this late date in the Obama presidency, there is no surer way to elicit paranoid whispers or armchair psychoanalysis from Democrats than to mention the name Valerie Jarrett. Party operatives, administration officials—they are shocked by her sheer longevity and marvel at her influence. When I asked a longtime source who left the Obama White House years ago for his impressions of Jarrett, he confessed that he was too fearful to speak with me, even off the record.

    This is not as irrational as it sounds. Obama has said he consults Jarrett on every major decision, something current and former aides corroborate. “Her role since she has been at the White House is one of the broadest and most expansive roles that I think has ever existed in the West Wing,” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s former communications director. Broader, even, than the role of running the West Wing. This summer, the call to send Attorney General Eric Holder on a risky visit to Ferguson, Missouri, was made by exactly three people: Holder himself, the president, and Jarrett, who were vacationing together on Martha’s Vineyard. When I asked Holder if Denis McDonough, the chief of staff, was part of the conversation, he thought for a moment and said, “He was not there.” (Holder hastened to add that “someone had spoken to him.”)

    Jarrett holds a key vote on Cabinet picks (she opposed Larry Summers at Treasury and was among the first Obama aides to come around on Hillary Clinton at State) and has an outsize say on ambassadorships and judgeships. She helps determine who gets invited to the First Lady’s Box for the State of the Union, who attends state dinners and bill-signing ceremonies, and who sits where at any of the above. She has placed friends and former employees in important positions across the administration—“you can be my person over there,” is a common refrain.

    ……………….

    VJ is hated, has many enemies and many want her downfall……well then get on with it. Shiv her.

  65. Concerning no. 1, there is not a big difference between the two with respect to policy. I keep repeating and explaining that the difference is elsewhere and the public knows it: I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to see.
    —————–
    If 70% of the public thinks that the country is on the wrong track, and if Obama boasts that his policies are on the ballot and then loses the Senate by an unprecedented margin, and the statehouses by a similar one, might that not suggest to you that it is unwise for Hillary or any other politician who hopes to get elected to pledge undying fealty to those policies? But if she insists on doing so, then she must differentiate the goal from the means by which the goal is implemented. For example, although I like Sebelius personally, I would have to say that if Obamacare had been implemented successfully, and if it had reduced cost for the average family and allowed them to keep their plan, then the public reaction would probably be different. And if the Administration had come clean on these various scandals rather than covering them up, the public may have been more forgiving. And if the Administration had made a point of listening to the concerns of the American People rather than ignoring there would have been a reservoir of good will. In sum: if things were different they wouldn’t be the same. That is where the opportunity lies, but Hillary must be as willing to criticize Obama as she was willing to criticize herself for the failure of Hillarycare in 1994. But as long as she refuses to do so, she cannot win the general election.

  66. VJ reminds me of Lev Baria, who was the life of every party, only the guests never lived to tell about it. In the middle of the night, a black limo with Lev inside would prowl the streets of Moscow in search of amore. When he found someone who he tickeled his fancy, the car would stop and that down hearted frail would be abducted, raped and murdered. All for a good cause–a hero of the Soviet Union. But in due course, Lev, like Val got a little too cocky. And . . Oh, why spoil a happy ending.
    —————
    Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria (Georgian: ლავრენტი პავლეს ძე ბერია, Lavrenti Pavles dze Beria; Russian: Лавре́нтий Па́влович Бе́рия; 29 March 1899 – 23 December 1953) was a Soviet politician, Marshal of the Soviet Union and state security administrator, chief of the Soviet security and secret police apparatus (NKVD) under Joseph Stalin during World War II, and Deputy Premier in the postwar years (1946–53).

    Beria was the longest-lived and most influential of Stalin’s secret police chiefs, wielding his most substantial influence during and after World War II. He simultaneously administered vast sections of the Soviet state and served as de facto Marshal of the Soviet Union in command of the NKVD field units responsible for anti-partisan operations on the Eastern Front during World War II, as well as for acting as barrier troops and the apprehension of thousands of “turncoats, deserters, cowards and suspected malingerers.” Beria administered the vast expansion of the Gulag labor camps and was primarily responsible for overseeing the secret defense institutions known as sharashkas, critical to the war effort. He also played the decisive role in coordinating the Soviet partisans, developing an impressive intelligence and sabotage network behind German lines. He attended the Yalta Conference with Stalin, who introduced him to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt as “our Himmler”.[1] After the war, he organized the communist takeover of the state institutions of Central and Eastern Europe. Beria’s uncompromising ruthlessness in his duties and skill at producing results culminated in his success in overseeing the Soviet atomic bomb project. Stalin gave it absolute priority and the project was completed in under five years in no small part due to Soviet espionage against the West organized by Beria’s NKVD.

    Beria was promoted to First Deputy Premier, where he carried out a campaign of liberalization. He was briefly a part of the ruling “troika” with Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov. Beria’s overconfidence in his position after Stalin’s death led him to misjudge other Politburo members. During the coup d’état led by Nikita Khrushchev and assisted by the military forces of Marshal Georgy Zhukov, Beria was arrested on charges of treason during a meeting in which the full Politburo condemned him. The compliance of the NKVD was ensured by Zhukov’s troops, and after interrogation Beria was taken to the basement of the Lubyanka and shot by General Pavel Batitsky.[2]

  67. Just for the record, Hillary has come out several times and said ObamaCare needs to be fixed. If she plans to run and win, she needs to not only be more specific, but talk about what isn’t working and how she can ‘fix’ these problems or toss out the baby with the bathwater.

    Hillary is smart enough to know if ObamaCare is thrown in the dumper, her vision of having ‘Universal HealthCare’ is probably doomed. This might be why she hopes it can be ‘fixed’.

    ObamaCare is nothing like the structure that Hillary wanted for healthcare.

  68. I don’t see her going unless she makes volunatarily makes that decision. She may want to start making her $$$$$$$$ now instead of waiting until the end of O’s term. He seems to trust only a few inner circle people. and I think Val and Michelle are the two (2) most powerful women in his life.

  69. I don’t know, it seems the Dem hierarchy are out for VJ’s blood…….briefing against her like never before…I think they feel she needs to go and fast.

  70. “Oh dear oh dear oh dear! How will we cover THIS up?” —-Steve Capus (NBC/MSNBC/CBS)

    A group of sheriffs is looking to mobilize their peers around the country to gather in Washington, D.C. to call on Congress and the Obama administration to secure the border.

    According to a letter from Bristol County, Massachusetts Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, obtained by National Review, Hodgson is looking to convene fellow sheriffs at the Capitol on Dec. 10 to “encourage immediate action” to secure the border “once and for all.”

    “Never before in our nation’s history has it been so important for the American sheriffs to stand united and speak with one voice to secure our nation’s borders,” Hodgson writes in his missive. “No longer can we sit idle while the inaction of our Federal Government marginalizes our ability to preserve public safety, enforce our laws, and protect the Constitutional rights of all who legitimately reside and work in our communities.”

    According to Hodgson, he and several other sheriffs are working to get at least 200 sheriffs to join in the journey to D.C. for a meeting and press conference with lawmakers.

    “Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator David Vitter and other members of Congress have agreed to join us at the Capitol to demand immediate action to secure our borders as the first step in achieving legitimate immigration reform in the future,” he wrote. “Several sheriffs have agreed to work in a spirit of cooperation to assist in recruiting at least 200 sheriffs to travel to Washington, D.C. for this historic meeting and press conference with members of Congress.”

    Despite massive Democratic midterm loses, Obama has remained adamant that he will move forward to take executive action on immigration before the end of the year. Republicans have been considering using the power of the purse to prevent such actions, and the sheriffs’ planned meeting is set to occur two days before government funding runs out.

  71. I don’t see her going unless she makes volunatarily makes that decision. She may want to start making her $$$$$$$$ now instead of waiting until the end of O’s term. He seems to trust only a few inner circle people. and I think Val and Michelle are the two (2) most powerful women in his life.
    —————————
    Yes, and their power is directly proportional to his weakness. This is not a marriage of equals. As noted above, his weakness is known throughout the world. They are his buffer against reality. Without him the would be nothing. Jar head is in the same position as Brutus– the time and the tide in the affairs of men screams get out like Holder did. If she leaves now, while Obama still has power she can hope to retain a “smideon” of it, and escape public rebuke. Also these scandal investigations are likely to implicate her. If she waits while his credibility and power go down the drain, she too will end up under the bus.

  72. moononpluto
    November 10, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    ———-
    What I hear them saying to Val is bitch begone.

    That may be a tactless way to say it, but that is what it boils down to.

    If they cannot blame Obama for their ghastly fate, they can blame her.

    To me, she is the logical scapegoat.

  73. Yeah and that is not the only article circulating today about VJ…..looks damn coordinated to me……

    They smell blood and they are going after her.

  74. Here again……..and we know Obama does not value loyalty, if it saves his ass, he’ll burn her at the stake and light it himself.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/10/knives-out-valerie-jarrett-close-adviser-who-gets-obama

    The knives are out for Valerie Jarrett, the close adviser who ‘gets’ Obama

    Top White House aide assailed by ‘legion of detractors’ faces old maxim: somebody’s got to take the blame other than the president

    In an incisive profile of Valerie Jarrett published shortly after President Barack Obama took office, the New York Times correspondent Robert Draper recognized Jarrett as a common White House specimen: “The One Who Gets the Boss”. In George W Bush’s White House it was Karen Hughes. Bill Clinton had Bruce Lindsey and George HW Bush had Jim Baker – the list goes on.

    The downside of being closest to the president is that when the knives come out, it’s hard not to get cut. Last week Obama made history for losing the most House seats in midterm elections since Truman. This week, a bumper crop of anonymous sources has emerged to talk about how the president is being hurt not only by his own bad decisions, but by the terrible advice of his closest advisers. At the top of the list is The One Who Gets Obama: Valerie Jarrett.

    Most of what’s being said about Jarrett we’ve heard before. We knew she was called Keeper of the Essence and Night Stalker (for her unusual late-night access to the White House); we knew the president ended meetings with one-on-one conversations with her; we knew staffers were “scared to death” of her; we knew about her “We’re not making new friends” rule; we knew policy experts looked down on her and complained she took up a chair at meetings with the president.

    The attacks on Jarrett have been renewed and sharpened, however, with The Obama Whisperer, a piece by Noam Scheiber of the New Republic that captures an unusual number of gripes – anonymously reported, of course – about the Obamas’ vacation companion and closest confidant. (Jarrett’s official title is senior adviser to the president and assistant to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs.)

    Scheiber describes a “legion of detractors” spawned by the fact of Jarrett’s influence on Obama. In talking with Scheiber, some of these detractors are apparently speaking to a reporter in detail for the first time. “It’s pretty toxic,” one unnamed former administration official says. “She went to whatever meeting she wanted to go to – basically all of them – and then would go and whisper to the president. Or at least everyone believed she did … People don’t trust the process. They think she’s a spy.”

    Others criticize Jarrett for keeping the president in a bubble. “While aboard Air Force One at the end of the 2012 campaign,” Scheiber writes, “Jarrett turned to Obama and told him, ‘Mr. President, I don’t understand how you’re not getting eighty-five percent of the vote.’ The other Obama aides in the cabin looked around in disbelief before concluding that she’d been earnest.”

    The piece emerges alongside an even more direct attack on Jarrett, Fire Valerie Jarrett, by Carol Felsenthal, the veteran observer of insider Chicago politics, writing in Politico. Felsenthal argues that the Obama presidency is in need of a bailout, with a clear first step. “This is, after all, a time-honored practice for an administration in trouble,” Felsenthal writes. “Somebody’s got to take the blame other than president, who’s not going to resign himself.”

    These gripes come out as the White House struggles to see a way to a successful conclusion to Obama’s presidency. Events have conspired to place great pressure on Jarrett and the rest of the Obama team, whatever the internecine issues. The president’s popularity is near all-time lows, his landmark healthcare law faces new threats from the courts and Congress and the public has lost confidence in his leadership abroad.

    There’s no reason to believe that the answer to Obama’s woes circulating outside the bubble – Fire Valerie Jarrett – has registered at all on the inside. Additionally consider the fact that Obama is not the firing type, and the old rule would seem to apply: If you’re going to badmouth Valerie Jarrett, don’t do it with your name attached.

  75. The Republican Majority Must Play Offense or They’ll Lose
    by JOHN HAYWARD 10 Nov 2014, 7:26 AM PDT 12 POST A COMMENT

    Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds has an excellent list of suggestions at USA Today for an early salvo of bills the Republicans could fire off when the new Congress comes into session. As he puts it, there are three kinds of bills they can pass: “those Obama will want to sign; those he won’t want to sign but will have to; and those he’ll veto, but where a veto is unpopular.” His six suggestions cover all three categories, including some wonderfully outside-the-box ideas that will make the entire Democrat Party squirm and sweat when the President is obliged to knock them down. I especially like ideas Number 5 and 6. As Insty himself would say, read the whole thing.

    It should be obvious to everyone from Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down that the GOP Congress is doomed unless it plays offense. If they let themselves get pushed around by the media, share power with the defeated Democrats, and spend the next two years cutting deals with Obama, they’ll be wiped out in a 2016 Democrat wave that looks an awful lot like the 2014 wave that swept Republicans into power. There is absolutely zero appetite in America for an “opposition party” that delivers hated Obama policies with a slight discount.

    The Republicans also cannot be content with merely opposing Obama in the passive sense, i.e. knocking down whatever he sends their way. They have a golden opportunity to do something they could never do while friendly Democrat media was complicit with Majority Leader Harry Reid’s quiet murder of legislation: they can take the initiative. As Reynolds suggests, a great deal of political capital can be drained away from Obama (and his increasingly marginalized, nervous Party) by dropping bills he has to veto on his desk. Obama’s strategy has always involved amassing political capital without actually spending it – Harry Reid protected him from having to use that veto pen. The vulnerability created by the loss of the Senate’s Crypt Keeper is enormous. And since the American people just handed Obama the most stunning repudiation any President has received in the modern age, they clearly expect Republicans to take aggressive action. It has to be done carefully… but there’s no reason it can’t be both vigorous and careful.

    In the spirit of Reynolds’ suggestions, I would add a security-only immigration bill to the list. It’s something the American people clearly want, and they seem to understand that we’ll never get real improvements to border security and immigration law enforcement from any deal that lets Democrats have their amnesty goodies today, with vague promises of securing the border somewhere in the “out years.” We’ve been down that road before, and it didn’t work; that’s why we have an illegal immigrant crisis today. It’s just common sense to take measures that will ensure the problem doesn’t get any worse before discussing concessions to the illegal aliens who are already here – even many people who remain sympathetic to the “dreamers” understand that argument. Obama will be strongly tempted to veto a security-only bill, and Republicans can clobber him with that veto for years to come, stressing to the electorate that border security is an issue Democrats won’t even pretend to address unless they get paid off with other concessions first. “Vote for us and we’ll do our duty” would make for a nice 2016 campaign theme.
    Update: I think Obama understands the danger of Republicans taking the initiative and pushing him on defense over the immigration issue; that’s why he reportedly got snippy with Vice President Joe Biden when Biden tried to engage Republicans under the old-fashioned Senate deal-making customs during their Friday lunch meeting with congressional leaders.

    Biden wanted to know how long it would take for them to put together an immigration bill, and Obama “gave him a look that ended that line of discussion.” Obama really wants to burn the Constitution down and divide America with those amnesty executive orders, in part because he knows he can’t afford to let the Republican Congress take the initiative on this issue.

  76. When am i ever going to hear the end of this family.

    Just in: President Obama will present Ethel Kennedy with the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.

  77. Scott Walker on beating Hillary Clinton in 2016:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUoo5xMyLt0

    It’s interesting to me that the Repubs have clearly decided that it is too their advantage to present the inevitability of a Clinotn candidacy.

    Preibus was asked Friday whether he wanted to run against Hillary:

    I SURE AS HECK HOPE WE’RE RUNNING AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON.

    EVER SEEN FROM THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BRIGHTEST STAR. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE RACES ACROSS THE BOARD THAT SHE WAS PLAYING IN, SHE DIDN’T FARE VERY WELL. AND IF YOUR JOB WAS TO UNIFY THE PARTY, AND TO RAISE A TON OF MONEY AND TO GET A TON OF VOLUNTEERS ON THE GROUND, I PROMISE YOU, YOU WOULD WANT NO OTHER OPPONENT THAN HILLARY CLINTON TO RUN AGAINST.

    Definitely a talking point we’ll hear early and often, if only to get the base fired up and ready to go.

  78. We all knew and expect Gov Walker to turn douchebag, he is in 2016 mode now, he is now an opponent for Hillary, she is fair game for him.

    We all knew that was going to happen.

  79. BTW, another interesting comment from Priebus on this threat of executive amnesty. They think he’s bluffing again:

    THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT WE CAN’T BELIEVE ANYTHING THE PRESIDENT SAYS ON IMMIGRATION. YOU ARE HEARING FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT — I GUESS WE JUST DON’T BUY IT. I THINK IT GOES IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER AT THIS POINT.

  80. moononpluto
    November 10, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    We all knew and expect Gov Walker to turn douchebag,

    —–

    Yea, something about Walker has given me the creeps from day one.

    What about Sweaters and Huckleberry? Where would a primary be without these preachers?

    I only have two Repubs I can stand at this point, Trey and ComboverBoy, and they won’t run.

  81. Shadowfax,

    Yes, Scott Walker is less obviously creepy than Rick Scott, but there is something very dark and creepy about both of them. I think it is a lack of communication between the left and right sides of their brains that makes the things they do, alright to them.

    Think toilet paper.

  82. I’m not sure Hucklebee wants to walk away from his weekend FOX News gig. If he leaves to run for office, FOX will lock the door behind him. Not sure we’ll be so lucky with Santorum, but I don’t think the money guys are going to write checks for him. The Republicans are not interested in candidates going off message to preach family yalyooos in the 2016 cycle. We’ll see much more discipline.

  83. This Dem candidate’s win is credited in part to the fact that she called BS on Obama, Nano, and Harry:

    TOM IN PAINE

    POLITICS, CURRENT EVENTS AND THE FAILURES OF THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA.

    MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2014

    Gwen Graham’s victory in Florida is proof of what Democrats could have done to win.

    In a night when Democrats took a real beating across the country especially in the senate where Democratic incumbents lost 6 seats and will probably lose a 7th after the Louisiana runoff, and lost more seats in the House, a beating that was entirely predictable for anyone watching the inept approach and campaigns by Democratic candidates who refused to be honest about the failures of Democratic leadership by Obama, Pelosi and Reid, Gwen Graham, a Democrat running against a 2 term Republican incumbent in Florida’s 2nd district, a Republican district that went for Romney in 2014, beat him in a night that was an otherwise disaster for most Democratic candidates.

    And she did it by doing what Democrats all over the country should have and could have and still won — by being brutally honest about the Obama presidency and failures of leadership of Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid. And not being afraid to say so.

    In one debate, Graham refused to endorse Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leader and now, after winning, giving Obama a lesson on how to make a statement and actually stick to it, she has come out saying she will not vote for Pelosi as minority leader. A recognituon of Pelosi’s failures and the real need for Democrats to clean house.

    In a year when Republican challengers beat Democratic incumbents across the country, in big enough numbers to gain seats in the House and take control of the senate, Graham was a Democratic challenger who beat a 2 term Republican incumbent in a Republican district.

    If Grahams’ victory over a Republican incumbent on a night when Republicans crushed Democrats doesn’t make clear what Democrats should have done to win and will have to do to win in 2016, then they are too inept to deserve to be in the majority. And if Hillary Clinton has presidential aspirations for 2016 she needs to stop doing what she did in Iowa last month and stop talking about “Obama’s leadership”.

    Graham won because she did something too many Democratic candidates refused to do, and what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and their surrogates at MoveOn, People For the American Way, Daily Kos and others refused to do — she told the truth about Obama, Pelosi and Reid while at the same time affirming Democratic polices and beliefs, the same beliefs betrayed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid repeatedly which is what brought down the Democrats in 2010 and has again in 2014.

    Graham stood up for Democratic party ideals, policies and convictions while standing up against Obama, Pelosi and Reid showing she is someone who will think for herself, now and in the future.

    (snip)

    tominpaineblogspot.com

  84. Oh the courage some Dims are demonstrating – now that the country has shouted it’s disapproval of their leader and them.

    _____________

    Dem: Obama doesn’t have power to deploy more troops

    By Sarah Ferris – 11/09/14 09:24 AM EST

    Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is calling President Obama’s plan to send 1,500 more troops into Iraq a “temporary Band-Aid” and said it should have been considered by Congress.

    “I do not think president has the ability under current authority to authorize 1,500 troops without Congress acting,” Murphy said in an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    He pointed to the hundreds of thousands of troops who unsuccessfully tried to build up the government in the war-torn country over the last decade and questioned the impact of just 1,500 troops.

    “I want to make sure this is a realistic mission,” he added.

    He said, unless the Iraqis pledge that political compromise is in the future, then the U.S. ground forces are “just a temporary solution.

    (snip)
    http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/223448-murphy-obama-doesnt-have-power-to-deploy-more-troops

  85. One of the people who is thinking about running for President on the Democratic ticket in 2016 is James Webb. Webb is a Naval Academy graduate, a highly decorated Marine officer (navy cross, one down from the medal of honor), a member of the Reagan cabinet and a man’s man. If he made it to the general election, the Reagan democrats would swarm to him. But he will never get there, unless you believe that Pajama Boy would vote for him in the primary. Yes, pajama boy is Obama’s version of an alpha male. He looks like a thumb sucker to me. And of course the single women would hate Webb because he would remind them of their fathers. It is a pipe dream. He would make a fine vice president for Hillary, but I do not think that is in the cards either. Too bad.

  86. Link is to an interesting article at The Federalist which identifies a few factors that impact electoral outcome over time, including changing demographics – which often don’t change quite in the way expected. The article counters the Left’s argument that eventually their ideology will prevail because right is on their side, and because the old people will die out, the white people will be outnumbered, and the young people will “get it” and vote for liberal policies (yeah, that young demographic can definitely be counted on – as we have seen in the elections following 2008.). Hispanic voters will join the young folk in their coalition of the liberal, as well, in presumably. Donna Brazille counted on all of these groups, too. Donna was wrong.

    This author asserts that by 2030, there will be twice as many old voters as Hispanic (I’m not sure where he puts the old Hispanics).

    ____________

    Last line of the article:

    “But, finally, remember the most important thing: Just because you’ve chosen a self-satisfying term to describe your ideology and it happens to contain the word “progress” in it, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ideas are more enlightened or destined to move forward.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/10/democrats-history-is-on-our-side-history-good-luck-with-that/

  87. foxyladi14
    November 10, 2014 at 10:09 am

    Lu said
    In 2008 Hillary could have won honestly against the Repugs. But now?
    ______________________

    I agree fully Lu.
    And the question makes my heart ache for what we could have had.
    ———————————————————————-
    Foxy,

    I have come full round to believe that this is what is meant to be. Had Hillary won in 2008 and brought the country prosperity and freedom and the totalitarian Obamathugs then taken over the party, where would the future of the country go? The hogged their place in line and did themselves in. It is at a terrible cost, but maybe better in the long run.

    We have been reminded of lessons of the past. Will the American voter wise up?

    Hillary 2016!

  88. I actually heard Bill O’Reilly on Fox referring to President Clinton, the female one. Like it is a given. I do not hear them attacking her. Of course, I do not watch the more obnoxious ones. But they are all attacking Ofuctard, mercilessly 24/7. They better watch their ratings. More people are aware of the kinds of shit they pulled in 2008 that brought us Obola.

  89. Lu4PUMA
    November 10, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    ——–
    Yes, something in his eyes sends goosebumps down my spine. If I saw that guy in a dark alley, I would run like Hell. There is something evil there.

    TP, yes…I remember. Just hope the major flush will be done and Hillary will sweep in like Mrs. Clean in her white pantsuit.

  90. wbboei
    November 10, 2014 at 8:51 pm
    One of the people who is thinking about running for President on the Democratic ticket in 2016 is James Webb.

    ——-
    If we are talking of someone with a military background, I vote for McCrystal. He isn’t handsome like Scott Brown but I like this about McCrystal…” “I trust people that prove to me their character”, he also stood by Hillary.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/216125-mcchrystal-wades-into-midterm-races

  91. Somehow, I just don’t think Jim Webb or a retired General from the Iraq war are going to play well with the 2014 Democratic base. 🙂

  92. S November 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    … I am 100% certain that McConnell will not kill Obamacare. I know him.

    Yes, you know him: He promised to do it, so you know he won’t because he is fundamentally dishonest. It was just a campaign boast and he’s already forgotten it.

    But besides his dishonesty, there are other reasons for him not to repeal Obamacare, the most important of which is that only a small portion of the public wants repeal: About half the population, which is complaining about the PPACA, want changes or improvements. And a quarter of the population is content with the PPACA as it stands.

    If McConnell, Rove & Co. want the Republicans to gain popularity nationwide, they will have to improve Obamacare the way the general population wants, and that includes funding it properly.

    Alternatively, they could repeal it and then put across a new healthcare plan of their own. They would have to do that quickly, though, and hand-in-hand with Obama’s Democrats. This is the harder route to follow, and both Obama and the Democrats will gain some approval for the effort if it succeeds with their help.

    All in all, McConnell’s caucus is in a very tough spot on this issue, and the issue is urgent and will not go away. It spells a lot of trouble for the Republicans in the coming two years.

  93. Me: You can’t jail someone just for saying whatever comes into his head…. Right to irresponsible speech.

    Shadowfax November 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    I was talking about what the a-hole said on the video.

    Mormaer November 10, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    You actually can if it meshes up with an illegal conspiracy to defraud.

    I insist: what he said is covered by the right to irresponsible speech, whether the speech was paid for or not, whether he was right or wrong.

    In some countries, an injured party has a right to file a complaint and sue for being misled by a person’s spoken words, whether the speaker is a private individual or public servant. This does not hold in the United States.

  94. Shadowfax November 10, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    Hillary has come out several times and said ObamaCare needs to be fixed. If she plans to run and win, she needs to not only be more specific, but talk about what isn’t working and how she can ‘fix’ these problems or toss out the baby with the bathwater.

    Hillary is smart enough to know if ObamaCare is thrown in the dumper, her vision of having ‘Universal HealthCare’ is probably doomed. This might be why she hopes it can be ‘fixed’.

    ObamaCare is nothing like the structure that Hillary wanted for healthcare.

    You are right in everything you say here. We can see that you watch Hillary more closely than most of us.

    She does need to be more specific and to get involved in the correction or reconstruction of the PPACA, which will happen as I say to S @ 2:55 am: The Republicans are going to be in a very tough spot on the healthcare issue, and it would be to Hillary’s advantage to get involved and help both the Democrats and Republicans come to an agreement on what to do.

    My assumption is that she will not have to be an elected member of Congress, or President, to do this. It can be part of her listening tour, making public statements about this or that aspect of the healthcare issue. If she does this, it’s all upside for her.

  95. Shadowfax November 10, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    McCrystal: “I trust people that prove to me their character”, he also stood by Hillary.

    Trusting people with character and standing by Hillary are two sides of the same coin, a truism that obviates the need for saying both in the same sentence.

  96. “But, finally, remember the most important thing: Just because you’ve chosen a self-satisfying term to describe your ideology and it happens to contain the word “progress” in it, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ideas are more enlightened or destined to move forward.”

    Hear, hear!

  97. The party that solves this problem wins the country for at least the next four generations. Note – not just talk about solving the problem, not just the ‘messaging.’ The Republicans have the opportunity right now to do exactly this. The best part for them is they don’t even have to pass any legislation. If they come together with sound policies and pass them in the House and Senate and send the bills up to uncle fluffy, either outcome bodes well for them. If bumbles signs the legislation into law and average Americans get that feeling of financial stability back, they become the heroes of the next generation and would sweep aside the Dems as deaf to the needs of the citizens of this country. This one hurts Hillary beyond compare. If bumbles vetoes the bills and the country remains in the doldrums, they can say sweep aside the Dems as ‘obstructionists to change for the better.’ And what demographic is most represented in this group? The white working class. Oh and minorities. And Women. And Hispanics. And gays. And conservatives. And moderates. And liberals. Did I forget anybody? Them too.

    Great job preezy!!!

    Asshat.

    Economic inequality in the US reaches levels not seen since Great Depression
    Wealth inequality in the US is reaching its most extreme point since just before the start of the Great Depression in 1929, according to a new economic analysis. Even the 1 percent are lagging behind the 0.01 percent.

    From article….{Excerpt mine}

    It’s 2014, but when it comes to wealth inequality in the United States, it’s starting to look a lot like 1929.

    In the late 1920s, the top 10 percent of Americans possessed 84 percent of the country’s wealth. Since then, wealth inequality in America has followed a U-shaped trajectory, declining through the Great Depression until the mid-1980s, then steadily increasing since then. Now, the richest Americans have a share of the country’s wealth almost big enough to rival those in the late 1920s, according to a new study.

    The study, from Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, uses a greater variety of sources to paint its picture of wealth inequality in the US than other recent analyses.

    According to an analysis of data sourced through 2012 – including detailed data on personal income taxes and property tax – Professors Saez and Zucman found that the richest 0.1 percent of Americans have as much of the country’s wealth as the poorest 90 percent. Both groups control roughly 22 percent of total wealth, but while the average wealth of the bottom 90 percent is $84,000, the top 0.1 percent were comprised of 160,700 families with net assets above $20 million, according to their study.

    ……….

    Real income for the top 1 percent of Americans grew 3.4 percent a year from 1986 to 2012, while those for the bottom 90 percent grew 0.7 percent, according to The Economist. And according to the Saez-Zucman study, the top 0.1 percent wealth share is about as large as the top 1 percent income share in 2012.

    “By that metric, wealth is ten times more concentrated than income today,” the authors write in their study.

    In an interview, Zucman says he was surprised that income inequality had not improved in the US since the Great Recession in 2008, triggered in part by the mortgage crisis that still weighs heavily on the middle class.

    “I expected that things would slow down,” he says, referring to rising income inequality.

    Instead, the average wealth of the bottom 90 percent of Americans has not changed since 1986, around the same time the average wealth of the richest Americans started to increase.

    “That is almost 30 years of zero growth in the bottom 90 recent of the distribution,” Zucman says. “That is very extreme and very surprising, and unique to the United States.”

    read more at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/1110/Economic-inequality-in-the-US-reaches-levels-not-seen-since-Great-Depression

    And me being me – I LOVE MY POPE!!!!!!!!! He’s pissing off the establishment and they can’t do anything about it! HA!! I’ll see change in my lifetime! 😀

    US Catholic bishops try to calm anxiety over pope
    Read more at http://news.yahoo.com/us-catholic-bishops-try-calm-anxiety-over-pope-191857990.html

    Hillary 2016

  98. wbboei November 10, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    James Webb: He would make a fine vice president for Hillary, but I do not think that is in the cards….

    Jim Webb is described in The New Yorker article I linked to upthread. Believe it or not, one of his reasons for running is that HRC is too hawkish for his tastes.

  99. wbboei November 10, 2014 at 4:58 pm
    … Val and Michelle are the two (2) most powerful women in his life.

    … and their power is directly proportional to his weakness.

    (I think you mean “inversely proportional”… just sayin’…’);

  100. TheRock November 11, 2014 at 3:30 am

    I LOVE MY POPE!!!!!!!!! He’s pissing off the establishment and they can’t do anything about it! HA!! I’ll see change in my lifetime!

    Indeed, it looks like Francis is making some headway on the very important point of how the church operates and what its prime concerns are. I vote in favor too! But still, I’ll never be a Catholic any more than a Muslim. The orthodox opinions deeply displeases me.

  101. TheRock November 11, 2014 at 3:30 am

    The party that solves this problem [wealth distribution] wins the country for at least the next four generations. Note – not just talk about solving the problem, not just the ‘messaging.’ The Republicans have the opportunity right now to do exactly this.

    The Republicans are going to solve this? Yeah, good luck with that.

  102. Surprise: For the first time in six years, we hear something about Dubya, who is coming out with his second post-presidential book:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-georgewbush-idUSKCN0IU1KC20141110

    Given that Dubya left office with approval ratings in the low 30s, the Republicans firmly closed the closet on that skeleton in 2008, 2010, 2012 and even 2014.

    Now his ratings are above 50% and he’s rolling out the possibility of Jeb’s running. Apparently the Republicans are listening.

  103. jeswezey
    November 11, 2014 at 5:22 am
    The Republicans are going to solve this? Yeah, good luck with that.

    It is too soon to tell. The Republican party makeup is changing. The old crooks running it are being moderated by newer members and voters. While not liberals (or certainly not progressives) they definitely have a populist bent. When Obama-ites threw Hillary voters out of the party in 2008, told they were not needed or wanted and were being supplanted by the sit-com coalition of opposing interests (example: blacks do not want 30 million green cards issued to low wage illegal workers but billionaires contributors do). They assumed they would be compliant or marginalized and not become politically active or even vote for anyone but progressive Democrats. It is obvious that white males and married women have flipped to voting Republican as a block since 2008. The Democratic party changed from the 1990’s to 2008. The Republican party is changing too although it is with fits and starts. Populism (neither is left nor right but versions of it are) is about income OPPORTUNITY and stability rather than redistribution. So far Republicans are picking up on that difference and Democrats are resisting it.

  104. jeswezey
    November 11, 2014 at 3:10 am
    I insist: what he said is covered by the right to irresponsible speech, whether the speech was paid for or not, whether he was right or wrong.

    Why doesn’t your legal theory work for the mafia? Why do they go to prison if they are just goofing and shooting off their mouths in wiretaps? Professor Gruber was explaining a criminal conspiracy. Insulting the marks that paid his stupid ass against their will. Gleefully. Like a punk. While elected officials may be protected by laws they pass to protect themselves, bureaucrats and flunkies are not. It is common fraud. Elected officials just get thrown out of office like in the elections since Obamacare was lied through Congress. Will he be prosecuted? Probably not since he was doing what his masters told him to do. But his career is over because he is a liar, cheat, thief and a moron.

  105. “Correct the Record” is fighting back on the meme that HRC was the loser in the 2014 elections, or that she was somehow responsible for the losses. From Time online:

    “Somebody should ask Hillary Democrats why they got wiped out tonight. Clearly, Hillary is yesterday’s news,” Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and rumored 2016 presidential hopeful, said in an email to Breitbart News — just one of the many times he linked the Democratic drubbing to the party’s likeliest 2016 presidential candidate.

    Added another 2016 potential GOP candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, “I think in many ways [Clinton] was the big loser on Tuesday because she embodies everything that is wrong with Washington,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. Even journalists piled on. “The loser from last night in the a 2016 context: Hillary Clinton,” said Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin.

    Not so fast, says pro-Clinton group Correct the Record. The group, linked to Democratic Super PAC American Bridge, compiled polling data that shows Clinton delivered discernible bumps in female support to most of the candidates for whom she appeared or stumped, according to an analysis obtained exclusively by TIME.

    Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Colorado’s Mark Udall both saw three percentage point bumps amongst women after Clinton appeared with them in the final weeks of campaigning, according to an analysis of polls before and after Clinton’s visit by the group.

    Though both Hagan and Udall lost, Clinton gave incumbent Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper in Colorado a turbo charge: his lead amongst women nearly tripled from a 4.8% advantage a to 12% lead after Hillary’s visit, and Hickenlooper eked out a win.

    In New Hampshire and Illinois, incumbent Democratic Govs. Maggie Hassan and Pat Quinn both saw eight percentage point boosts, though it wasn’t enough to save Quinn. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton and Michigan Senate candidate Gary Peters saw their support amongst women go up five percentage points apiece after Clinton’s visits.

  106. admin November 11, 2014 at 6:36 am

    … don’t forget Gruber also lied in his amicus briefs to various courts.

    Doesn’r matter because, as Mormaer points out:

    Will he be prosecuted? Probably not since he was doing what his masters told him to do.

    In any event, words are just vibrations in the breeze under our current (and forever) interpretation of “free speech”.

    As for the Mafia wiretaps, it is important to realize that they were not public statements meant for the ears of a gullible public. They were private conversations and as such were meant only for the ears of the interlocutor. And still, in court, they were open to interpretation: they laughed? Of course, because they were just joking: They didn’t mean what they said!

  107. Mormaer November 11, 2014 at 6:11 am

    OK, too soon to tell about changes in the Republican party. You obviously know more about it than I do.

    I doubt, though, that the party of FDR & HRC, if it is ever resuscitated, will let the Republicans take charge on the issue of wealth distribution.

    Maybe it will be a point of future concordance between the parties?

  108. Under the title “Iraq still the Achilles heel of HRC”, an Atlantic article focusing on Howard Dean’s historic refusal of Dubya’s pre-emption doctrine and his current support for HRC ends with the statement:

    The Democratic Party may be able to unite behind Clinton. But it can’t do so without many prominent Democrats looking like opportunistic hypocrites with no convictions.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/howard-dean-pledges-his-support-to-an-iraq-war-hawk/382550/

  109. Lincoln Mitchell in the New York Observer opines that “It doesn’t matter whether the midterm elections were good or bad for Hillary Clinton”, ending with:

    Many of those weighing in on how the big Republican win on Tuesday affects Ms. Clinton’s chances focus on the nominating process, or whether Ms. Clinton is the strongest candidate the Democrats could select. These conversations are occasionally interesting, but rarely pertinent. The question of whether or not the Democrats nominate Ms. Clinton is not likely to be determined through anything as radical as a competitive primary where members of the party can vote for their nominee.

    Regardless of what happened last week, the central reality of the Democratic nomination remains that it is Ms. Clinton’s for the asking. Unless something dramatic occurs, the question of whether or not Ms. Clinton will be the nominee will be decided by the former Secretary of State and a relatively small handful of friends and advisors, not by voters or party leaders. It is now late enough in the process, and her advantage is big enough, that if Ms. Clinton runs she will be the nominee, probably without serious opposition. The question of whether or not Ms. Clinton will, or should run, is still an important one, but that independently of that, the question of whether or not she should be the nominee is just chatter.

    http://observer.com/2014/11/it-doesnt-matter-whether-the-midterm-elections-were-good-or-bad-for-hillary-clinton/

  110. Shadowfax
    November 10, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    wbboei
    November 10, 2014 at 8:51 pm
    One of the people who is thinking about running for President on the Democratic ticket in 2016 is James Webb.
    _________________
    I like him if H.R.C. does not run. 🙂

  111. Populism (neither is left nor right but versions of it are) is about income OPPORTUNITY and stability rather than redistribution. So far Republicans are picking up on that difference and Democrats are resisting it.
    ———–
    I do not see the Democrat Party ever returning to populism. At least not in my lifetime. Populism has its roots in the yeoman class of Roman times, and the rural areas of this nation where the work ethic prevails, and cultural if not racial solidarity prevails. The Democrat Party has written off that constituency altogether, and has made them the target of false charges of racism which they use to unite the multi ethnic population, and welfare state economics which create a have and have not society which is the harbinger and imprimatur of national decline. Populism is about sharing power. Welfarism is show me the money and mau mau ing the flack catchers, as Tom Wolf so aptly put it. The end game of what the Democrat Party stands for today is the urban wasteland of Detroit. The corrupt political structure, the flight of business, the ethnic ghetto where drugs, delusion and the imperial culture of the slum are all in evidence. Mo-town. The king of the Democrat Party is Al Sharpton.

  112. wbboei November 11, 2014 at 10:10 am

    The king of the Democrat Party is Al Sharpton.

    Wow, what a dreary world we are headed toward: Sharpton vs Karl Rove!

  113. Lu4PUMA November 11, 2014 at 10:14 am

    Obola assumes the role of Obozo…

    You said it! To be fair, I bought a navy blue silk shirt that looks like that when I was in Vietnam. But I’m not the potus!

  114. The strategy of the democrat party is crystal clear, and it is not irrational.

    Suppose you ran a trucking business. Suppose further that you had a choice of making 1000 stops to pick up 1000 shipments, i.e. 1 shipment per stop or making one stop to pick up 1000 shipments. If you adopt the first option, your productivity will be low and you will consume significant resources–man hours, fuel, vehicle wear, etc. If you adopt the second, your productivity will be high, you will enjoy significant economies of scale and you can absorb those costs, thereby maximizing your profit margin. Therein lies the competitive strategy of the democrats focusing on the cities. In addition, they do not have to worry about sharing power with those who live in the city. All they are interested in is what is in it for me. That being the case, the political platform is simple: bribe them with their own money, or better yet other people’s money, scare them with the bogey man and threaten to save them. The Republican Party is too noble to do something like that . . . except for . . . ah, er . . . Mississippi. Trust me they will do the same thing wherever they can get away with it.

  115. foxyladi14
    November 11, 2014 at 10:40 am
    My Hubby served and today is his Birthday.
    ———————————————
    Two memorable events on the same day foxy. Glad you are home to celebrate each in the best possible way.

  116. …As for the Mafia wiretaps, it is important to realize that they were not public statements meant for the ears of a gullible public. They were private conversations and as such were meant only for the ears of the interlocutor…

    Gruber was talking to fellow health economists. Get it? He was talking to his fellow scammers and fixers who were also disgusted with him. Just like made guys talking to fellow made guys in La Cosa Nostra. It was an insiders conversation that was recorded and PROUDLY put on the the Wharton (premier graduate business school) website. The contempt, fraud, complete lack of ethics is abominable. This is what US public policy and legal community has become.

Comments are closed.