It’s The White Working Class, Stupid

For anyone who thinks about a run for president in 2016, here’s a smart article on the White Working Class with the emphasis on working:

The key to Obama’s struggle with white working class voters is not ‘white,’ but ‘working.’

Working class white people don’t like President Obama much. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 27% approve of him. That’s 21 percentage points down since he took office in 2009.

A standard talking-point is that these voters don’t like Obama because they’re racist. But that assumes that the key word in “white working class” is “white.” In fact, the key word is “working.” After all, Obama isn’t any blacker than he was in 2009.

A few Democratic pundits seem to get this. Writing in Mother Jones, Kevin Drum observes: “So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn’t matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any. That’s because they’re closer to it. For them, the poor aren’t merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They’re the folks next door who don’t do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars. “

Given the availability of government benefits, most working-class people of any race could be on welfare if they chose. That they’re not drawing government checks means that they value work. As Slate’s Jamelle Bouie notes, government programs like Social Security and Medicare are differently received, because they aren’t seen as rewarding people for not working. When your neighbor gets welfare, it makes you feel like a sucker for going to work. Medicare, not so much.

Any candidate for president who wants to use income inequality and “fairness” as campaign issues better understand the white working class sense of unfairness and inequality when they work and others don’t while living high on the hog:

So if Democrats want to win back the white working class — and they kind of need to, if they want to win elections, because it’s an enormous demographic — maybe they need to start thinking about honoring and encouraging work, rather than talking about race or class. [snip]

And, as Joel Kotkin notes, many other Obama policies — promoting urban density, which creates fewer construction jobs; fighting oil and coal extraction, thus targeting industries that create high-paying blue collar jobs; and even opening up immigration, which drives down wages for the working class — all seem designed to punish people who work for a living, even as expanded benefits for the poor seem designed to reward people who draw government checks for a living.

That argument sounds a great deal like Reagan’s ‘welfare queens” argument because to a great extent it is. In March of 2009 we wrote that the “welfare queens” attack line would return because in large part it would be true. In 2009, two months into the Obama nightmare, we wrote:

After Bill Clinton Republicans could no longer attack Democrats as “tax and spend” wastrels. After Bill Clinton Republicans had to retire attacks on “welfare queens”. Bill Clinton enacted responsible fiscal policy and deprived Republicans of their most useful and effective epithets against Democrats.

Now Republicans are calling back to active service those ugly epithets because they describe the Obama economic “plans” with precision. [snip]

Bill Clinton understood that hard working Americans were generous and wanted to help the poor and the weak but they did not want to be taken for saps by the lazy or the rapacious.

Here we are years later and “welfare queens” as a potent political weapon is back. Indeed, the facts of economic inequality warfare waged against the white working class and the middle class buttress the perception of the unfairness as Gallup noted in a recent survey. Unfairness and inequality? Ask the white working class:

According to Gallup, thanks to Obamacare, Americans earning $30,000 to $75,000 a year are more likely to skip medical care because of cost than Americans earning under $30,000 a year.

Can the Democrats solve this problem? Sure. These are all policies that could be changed, though a lot of party constituencies would oppose it. And Democrats might choose a working-class-friendly nominee, too, if they can find one.

“If they can find one.” In 2008 Hillary Clinton attracted white working class votes. Because of Barack Obama it will be a struggle to win the trust of the white working class:

Can Clinton Win Back the White Working Class?

A measly 34 percent of this group backed House Democratic candidates in 2014, creating a gap that could sunder the party’s 2016 hopes.

Hillary Clinton’s support of deferred deportation of millions of undocumented workers might help the Democratic Party’s putative presidential nominee win over Latinos in 2016. But among the voters most responsible for the Democrats’ midterm wipeout this year, it could very well make things worse—and therein lies Clinton’s dilemma. [snip]

One of the central challenges facing a Clinton campaign will be managing to win back enough of those voters, especially in a working-class-heavy battleground like Iowa. But as her quick support of deferred deportations shows, she’ll have to do so while also motivating black, young, and Latino voters who formed the core of President Obama’s coalition in 2008 and 2012.

At times, the two imperatives will work against each other. [snip]

Once the backbone of the Democratic Party, working-class white voters have gradually shifted into the GOP’s camp since the 1970s in part because of the alienation they felt toward an increasingly urban, culturally cosmopolitan party. Democrats, meanwhile, have made up for the loss by winning over minorities and a greater share of the upscale white vote. [snip]

But in 2014, the bottom fell out, and it fell out in places where Democrats have performed relatively well with working-class white voters, even recently.

Our many discussions about the white working class, including our most recent one, have emphasized that a focus on the interests of the white working class force the party to not deviate from economic policy and jobs, jobs, jobs. “It’s the economy, stupid” works because that is what the white working class is interested in.

Deviate from the interests of the white working class and disaster follows.

That recent Gallup poll should be a red fire alarm for policy makers:

Gallup: Peak Number Of Americans Delaying Medical Care Over Costs

One in three Americans has put off seeking medical treatment in 2014 due to high costs, according to Gallup — the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.

Thirty-three percent of Americans have delayed medical treatment for themselves or their families because of the costs they’d have to pay, according to the survey. Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect.

The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.

The lowest-income section, some of whom can take part in Medicaid and who are more likely to qualify for significant premium and cost-sharing subsidies on an Obamacare exchange, are less likely to delay care this year. Now, 35 percent of those who earn under $30,000 a year are putting off seeking medical care, down from 43 percent last year.

It’s a remarkable shift: after Obamacare’s redistribution of wealth, the middle class is actually delaying medical care due to high costs at a higher rate than the poorest section of the country, which is highly subsidized by taxpayers.

The middle class is collateral damage in what amounts to an Obama Dimocratic Party war on the white working class:

The Obama damage is two-fold. First, his success relied on a coalition that likely will not survive, or at least survive at full strength, without Obama himself on the ticket. Secondly, Obama drove a significant portion of white voters away from the Democratic Party.

Put those two things together — smaller Obama coalition and more alienated whites — and the result could be huge trouble for whoever the Democratic presidential nominee is in 2016. [snip]

Some Democrats are confident the coalition will be back in 2016, when interest in a presidential race is far greater than during midterms. But will it return in the strength it showed in ’08 and ’12? Or will Democratic voting return to pre-Obama patterns? [snip]

It would be risky for Democrats to assume those voters will turn out at the same rate and vote in the same proportions for a Democratic candidate in 2016. Yes, it’s a lock that the Democrat will win the minority vote, but by the same margins? [snip]

Then there are white voters. Obama’s overall job approval rating among whites is a weak 32 percent, according to Gallup. Two-thirds of whites do not have a college degree, and the president’s approval rating among them is 27 percent.

The Democrats’ problem with those voters is perhaps symbolized by Obama but goes far beyond the president himself. “Given its sheer size, the working-class white population in the U.S. is of keen importance to politicians and strategists on both sides of the aisle,” Gallup wrote recently, noting “the complex set of attitudes and life positions which … have pushed this group further from the Democratic president over the past six years.”

If Democrats don’t find a way to connect with those “attitudes and life positions” of working-class whites in coming years, they’ll have a big problem.

In a recent speech, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., argued that his party made its middle-class problem worse by insisting on passing Obamacare, which imposed burdens on millions and focused its most generous benefits on a relatively small group of Americans at a time when most voters wanted their elected leaders to focus on jobs and the economy.

“To aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense,” Schumer said in a November 24 speech at the National Press Club. “So when Democrats focused on health care, the average middle class person thought, ‘the Democrats are not paying enough attention to me.'”

The white working class forced the party of FDR to focus on the economy. Bill Clinton understood. For Bill Clinton “It’s the economy, stupid.” For Obama it was everything but fiscal probity and a focus on the economy. Obama Dimocrats have no one but themselves to blame:

Democrats Paved the Way for Their Own Decline

They have subordinated their traditional focus on helping working-class Americans move up the economic ladder in favor of other priorities. [snip]

According to Gallup Editor Frank Newport, “President Barack Obama’s job-approval rating among white noncollege graduates is at 27 percent so far in 2014, 14 percentage points lower than among white college graduates. This is the largest yearly gap between these two groups since Obama took office. These data underscore the magnitude of the Democratic Party’s problem with working-class whites, among whom Obama lost in the 2012 presidential election, and among whom Democratic House candidates lost in the 2014 U.S. House voting by 30 points.”

There are many reasons for this decline in support for Democrats among certain groups. But an argument can be made that it is because Democrats have subordinated their traditional focus on helping lower- and working-class Americans move up the economic ladder in favor of other noble priorities, such as health care, the environment, and civil rights. Whether these were the right or wrong priorities is totally subjective, but they have come at a cost. Sen. Chuck Schumer recently committed the classic case of a political gaffe, once defined by Michael Kinsley as “when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” The Democratic Left went crazy when Schumer suggested that the early focus on health care reform in 2009 and 2010, when he says Democrats should have been concentrating on economic growth and job creation, had cost them greatly (something that I have written about for over five years).

Governing is about making choices and facing consequences. Implicitly, to focus on certain things is to de-emphasize other things. The modern Democratic Party was effectively born during President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, reacting and dealing with the Great Depression. While books have been filled with the multitude of things that Roosevelt and his New Dealers did, if you boiled it down to its essence, it was helping people get back on their feet after the great stock-market crash of 1929 and the deep depression that resulted.

A focus on the interests of the white working class keeps your head on straight. A laser like focus on the white working class’ interests’ leads to “It’s the economy, stupid.”

If you believe the #1 issue for a presidential candidate can be summed up with “It’s the economy, stupid.” Then “it’s the white working class, stupid” that should determine your policy choices.

Share

106 thoughts on “It’s The White Working Class, Stupid

  1. Democrat party win back the white working class?

    It won’t happen.

    The only way that could happen is if the party nominates Jim Webb.

    And that won’t happen either.

    The democrat party has chased off the white demographic.

    The democrat party is counter cultural to the white working class.

    The chances of this happening are zero.

    As far as I can see ahead . . .

    The democrat party will be the party of racial divide, welfare and no future.

    It is impossible.

  2. Even if the democrat party were to suddenly change gears and promote policies favoring the white working class–rather than the current policies that spell their demise, you would still have a trust deficit wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon. One of the things Obama has not received nearly enough credit for is making no one in the democrat party believable. He has destroyed the brand, and the bond of trust which WJC forged. And, yes there will come a point when the republican party become toxic again just as it did during the second Bush term. But when that happens, third parties will emerge.

    One reason the democrat party is gone is because of its undying commitment to multi culturalism. If you talk to the old line liberals who fought to achieve racial equality, you will find them apopletic about what has come of that. Their vision was of a color blind society. The current democrat party rejects that idea root and branch. It supports a program of equal outcomes, which means massive government sponored affirmative action, reverse discrimination and racial spoils. That will not change.

    The same holds true of big media. Rather than speaking for the nation as a whole, and instead of taking the facts as they find them, big media constructs narratives before the fact, and they sort through the evidence and report only those things which support that narrative, and they never dig any further than that. Even worse, big media is economically, socially, academically and religiously monolithic. The speak only for themselves and their cabal. That cabal has nothing in common with the country.

  3. And here is why the Republican Party run by RINOS provides no safe harbor for the white working class either.

    Two weeks ago, conservatives insisted that the amnesty action was a violation of the constitution and must be resisted.

    If not by a government shut down or impeachment

    Then by using their remaining powers, i.e. appropriations and advise and consent and legal action.

    Now, Boehner is reducing their level of opposition to the taking of a symbolic vote.

    Conservatives should boycott in protest of Boehner’s treachery.

    They must make the reason for this clear–we will not deceive the voters.

    Whereas this symbolic vote is an attempt to do exactly that.

    After we just got done winning an election on the promise that we would stop Obama.

    We will not be party to this betrayal.

    When that symbolic vote fails to pass, Boehner will be ridiculed and pilloried.

    At that point, stronger leadership would emerge.

    I believe that.

  4. I Told You So

    Erickson @ Red State

    The House Republicans will take a symbolic vote against President Obama’s Executive Amnesty.

    But they have no intention of stopping him. In fact, they will enable him and fund his plans.

    That’s the reality.

    Told you so.

    Call your congressman now and tell him you think this is a bunch of BS. Demand they stop the President, even if it means shutting down the government to do it.

    If we don’t stop him here, on this, we will not stop any of his executive overreaches from the environment to foreign policy to the IRS.

  5. Amen Admin!

    The majority of people working in our country are the white working class, and we are sick and tired of getting poorer and poorer while we pay for all the goodies non working people think they deserve.

    Helping our own people with health problems, homeless and on unemployment is one thing…helping the folks that scam the system or cross our borders illegally…they are breaking our backs.

  6. The Republicans sponsor policies that hurt the working class, but they pretend to support them.

    The Democrats sponsor policies that injure the working class, and they vilify them as well.

    The Democrat Party’s attack on white people is both structural and ad hominum.

    That is how they managed to galvanize black support.

    I marvel at a mind that alienates 62% of the electorate in order to win over 13% of the electorate.

    I can think of no better way to loses elections.

    And what is worse, to lose them to a party that does not deserve to win them.

  7. Lets see how Lanford and Cotton, fresh from election victories, and men of honor, react to Boehner’s little Pontious Pilates routine. Seriously though, the only pilates Boeher does is in social enviornments where the pressing the flesh means more than a mere handshake. RHIP, or, just maybe RIP if the conservatives hold true to their principles. Another thing to watch is whether another honorable man, Jeff Sessions, gets the chairmanship of the budget committee. That is important.

  8. Schumer was testing the waters, saying what everyone knows, to see who does what about it. He probably did it to make amends to the Clintons for his earlier treacheries. It would no doubt take an artful politician to make this work. One would have to sell the importance of the middle-class to various identity groups. Furthermore, it is more than overdue to promote the interests of half the population that has been shit upon by the Obola Dimocrats. Women’s rights are human rights and cross all boundaries.

  9. The majority of people working in our country are the white working class, and we are sick and tired of getting poorer and poorer while we pay for all the goodies non working people think they deserve.
    ———–
    The problem is, Shadow, we have no one to represent us. The democrats are the party of minorities, bureaucrats and trust fund babies. The republicans are the party of big business. Nobody represents the white working class. This is why I think a third party is necessary.

  10. So the scumball Republicans have caved on Immigration. What a load of C#@p. They have all the excuses, including the agency funding. Well the agency is MOSTLY funded through fees. They still need to stop what funding they can. Looks like good news for the Dems in 2016.

  11. If this is true—if, I say, if, then I am full of shit, but more to the point, so it Erickson. According to this hearsay account, Boehner IS proposing a short term spending initiative for DHS which would expire when they take office, so that they can exert funding leverage over the costs of amnesty going forward. Reid that feeble minded feeble tongued little man who will soon be a lame duck is calling this extremism, which is a bit ironic from someone who has blocked the legislative process for six years. As their first official act when they take over, the “extremists” should arrest that dottering fool, gag him and remove him from the Senate office building to a padded cell with his name on it. They can give Reid a history book and let him call the framers of the Constitution extremist too. Between him and that grinning mongoloid Pelosi, you have quite a pair. Giving them power is an open invitation to disaster. His current diatribe shows he knows he is screwed. Nobody with any sense listens to this feeble minded ignoramus any more. He is history.
    ——————

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/02/short-term-dhs-funding-strategy-would-punt-immigration-fight-to-2015/

  12. Lu4PUMA
    December 2, 2014 at 7:17 pm
    So the scumball Republicans have caved on Immigration. What a load of C#@p. They have all the excuses, including the agency funding. Well the agency is MOSTLY funded through fees. They still need to stop what funding they can. Looks like good news for the Dems in 2016.
    —————
    Au contrare, IF the article above is accurate. The fee thing will not work–we have a legal opinion on that.

    Here is the latest:

    Congress could use its power of the purse to halt President Obama’s executive action on immigration despite the president’s use of a fee-based agency to do most of the key work, the Capitol’s legal research team has concluded.

    In a letter last week to Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, the Congressional Research Service said federal courts have recognized broad congressional powers to stop the president by denying him funding for his proposed actions.

    Ads by Adblade

    12 Hottest Cosplay Girls Ever

    Shocking! The Government Does Not Want You To Know What We Discovered…

    30 Child Actors Who Tragically Died Young
    As Congress prepares for a two-week dash to finish its business and end its session, the annual spending bills and the response to Mr. Obama’s immigration moves are two of the chief issues lawmakers must solve. They also must pass the annual defense policy bill, decide whether to extend a series of expired tax breaks and find money to support the president’s commitment of thousands of U.S. troops to Iraq.

    SEE ALSO: Obamacare offers firms $3,000 incentive to hire illegals over native-born workers

    “Congress has to stand up to protect our prerogatives,” said Rep. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican who unseated a two-term Democratic senator in November’s elections and will ascend to the upper chamber next year. In an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Cotton said the employment picture alone should be enough to rally Congress to block the president’s executive action.

    “The president just lost an election, in no small measure because wages for working families are declining and unemployment is still too high in too many places, and the first big action he took after the election was to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get jobs, not for working families to get jobs,” Mr. Cotton said.

    He said lawmakers have to decide what leverage to use against the president on immigration. Suggestions, he said, include tying all of this year’s spending bills to a decision to block the deportation amnesty, tying only homeland security money to the deportation amnesty, and kicking the issue into next year, when Republicans will control both the House and Senate.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/30/obama-amnesty-could-be-thwarted-by-congress-budget/#ixzz3Kn62y0MT
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  13. In an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Cotton said the employment picture alone should be enough to rally Congress to block the president’s executive action.employment picture alone should be enough to rally Congress to block the president’s executive action.

    “The president just lost an election, in no small measure because wages for working families are declining and unemployment is still too high in too many places, and the first big action he took after the election was to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get jobs, not for working families to get jobs,” Mr. Cotton said.

    ————
    Good stuff. If they stick to their guns on this justification it could be a knock out blow against Obama.

    And, to be clear, if the fund everything from now up to the date they take power, then they have not shut down government. We know how this lying son of a bitch is with red lines: call his bluff, and make sure the public understands that he was the one who violated the constitution with respect to amnesty, and he is the one shutting down government to support that illegal action.

  14. In other words, THE REPUBLICANS are the ones fighting to protect the wages hours and working conditions of the white working class, and the democrats are the ones who are supporting illegals over legals in the labor markets. That is the simple message that needs the other party needs to drill down on, consistently. If they do that, then they can re define the democrat brand–which is what they should be doing now with ferocity. This is the issue to rip Obama with. Let him shut down government to elevate the rights of illegals over legal US citizens. It makes for a nice political epitaph.

  15. Hillary and Bill…remember who took you to the dance…

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

    the Dim Party in the era of O is the party of immigrants and insurance companies…and incompetence wrought with petulant arrogance…

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

    funny thing about the white working class, we don’t like dictators…we want a Congress, a President and a Judicial Branch…that’s what we learned when we were growing up and that’s what we want…

    we don’t want our country “fundamentally transformed”

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

    Admin…all those points you emphasize above…you have been saying, I have been saying…and many of us here have been saying for years and years…it was all predicable and a no brainer…

    the O era has been built on hype and lies…one big delusional fluffanutter…

    Hillary and Bill…wake up…come back to Earth…don’t get all aloof on us…or else…remember who took you to the dance…

  16. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-might-persuade-hillary-clinton-not-to-run-in-2016/

    What Might Persuade Hillary Clinton Not To Run In 2016

    Most speculation about the 2016 presidential election has taken at least one thing for granted: Hillary Clinton will run. But the Cook Political Report’s Charlie Cook recently threw some cold water on that assumption (or at least some lukewarm water); Cook estimated Clinton has only a 60 to 70 percent chance of running.

    I have no clue whether Cook’s estimate is right. But recent data illustrates why Clinton might balk at running: She no longer looks quite so invincible, and early indicators point toward a Republican-leaning political environment.

    We’re still a long way from the 2016 election, but Clinton needs to decide soon whether to run. The political landscape right now is more Republican-leaning than at a comparable point in the 2012 cycle (when President Obama, with a 46 percent approval rating, led a generic Republican 42 percent to 39 percent). Obama’s approval has dropped to 42 percent.

    In four polls conducted over the past month, YouGov asked more than 2,500 registered voters whether they would vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate for president in 2016. The Republican candidate led, on average, 39.2 percent to 36.7 percent. Again, these results are among registered, not likely, voters, so this lead has nothing to do with turnout.

    The current environment suggests Clinton would need to be stronger than a generic Democratic candidate to be considered the favorite. Instead, her standing has deteriorated. YouGov has been polling Clinton’s favorable ratings among adults over the past six years (adults overall tend to be more Democratic leaning than just registered voters).

    [snip]

    Clinton was quite popular during her days as secretary of state. But since leaving that nonpartisan post in 2013, her net favorable rating has been falling. The most recent YouGov poll put her at an all-time low.

    YouGov’s results have been echoed by other pollsters, including NBC/Wall Street Journal and Quinnipiac University. The most recent NBC survey found Clinton’s net favorable rating at +3 percentage points; Quinnipiac had it at +5 percentage points.

    Clinton’s edge against Republicans in a potential 2016 matchup has also taken a hit. She once led by double-digits in matchups against most Republicans. But recent live telephone polls in the key swing states of Iowa and New Hampshire have Clinton neck and neck with 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Nationally, Quinnipiac found Romney leading Clinton 45 percent to 44 percent among registered voters. At a comparable point in the 2012 cycle, Romney was down 7 percentage points to Obama. Clinton led New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 1 percentage point, and she holds leads of 4 to 9 percentage points on the other Republican candidates.

    Any lead Clinton does have is almost entirely attributable to being better known. In the Quinnipiac survey, 95 percent of respondents recognized her name. Only Romney, with 86 percent name recognition, comes close to being as well-known (and he’s the only candidate who leads Clinton). The rest of the GOP field has name recognition at 71 percent or below.

    Among the seven Republican candidates listed by Quinnipiac, the correlation between Clinton’s lead (or lack thereof) over each Republican and that Republican’s name recognition was 0.94. In other words, other Republicans should gain ground as they become better known. In fact, a simple regression between name recognition and a Republican’s standing against Clinton in the Quinnipiac poll suggests that she isn’t performing much better than a generic Democrat.

    None of this means that Clinton would lose if she ran. Polls at this point are not very predictive. Obama may become more popular. The Republicans could nominate an extreme candidate. Any number of other things could happen.

    Clinton, however, no longer looks like such a juggernaut. Not only are her numbers dropping, but she is running on par with a Democratic brand in its weakest shape in a decade.

  17. The Republicans could nominate an extreme candidate.
    ———–
    Meaning what?

    One who believes the people are sovereign, that checks and balances are a good thing, that inextinguishable debt is not, that isolationism is a short sighted strategy, that our borders should be secure etc.

    Is that what the writer means by extreme?

    I am afraid that what is extreme is in the eye of the beholder.

    And since it is a relative term it begs the question extreme compared to what?

    The agreed to narrative spoon fed to a docile credulous population by a corrupt big media?

    Maybe their criterion of what is extreme is itself extreme.

    We have been hearing that kind of crap from democrats since Goldwater.

    And his rebuttal was apt: extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

  18. For that feeble minded old man Reid, everything the other party does to oppose his imperious reign is extreme.

    Or racist.

    Of course when Reid says Obama is light skinned enough to be electable that is neither racist or extreme.

    Get out the vaudville hook for that wizened loon.

    Or better yet, who will rid me of that feeble minded old crustacean?

  19. With their current leadership (a bunch of wankers driving the bus), the GOP will squander their goodwill with the voters very quickly. Two years from now, the people may be so disgusted with both political parties that they will go for anyone who sounds like a Margaret Thatcher, someone who doesn’t tolerate wimps and fools who waste her time.

  20. O is going to be the ruination of Hillary if she does not make a clean break…he is paving the Jimmy Carter path to leave for her…he has already left the Dims in shambles

    the irony is the working people putting more trust in the repubs…another cycle…like when Reagan won over the Reagan Dems…and it took years until Bill came along and assured them he was on their side and the Dems weren’t all far left lunatics…

  21. This is why the democrat party is in trouble:

    1. All elections are national.

    It is simply not possible for parties to tailor their message to specific states. If the candidate has held a national office (like, for instance, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)11% of Arkansas), no matter what his personal beliefs may be he can either vote with his party and president or he can be pushed to the side. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)4% can’t run as a populist, small government candidate by touting her nearly lockstep support for Obama. This cuts both ways, of course, as Republicans found in 2006 when they tried to distance themselves from President Bush. But, being a conservative, I would contend that national party priorities is a much bigger drag on Democrats running at state level than it is on Republicans.

    If a Democrat, say in Cole’s Mississippi, did emerge from a Democrat primary in favor of free markets, free people, and a strong and confident America he’d still be swamped by the national party’s message of division, racial spoils, and weakness.

    The Democrat party is in-your-face counter-cultural in the South.

    Going back to the “bitter-clinger” quip by Obama in 2008, the contempt the Democrats show for cultural norms provides a strong headwind for any efforts. Cole himself notes this

    Cole, the Mississippi chairman, acknowledged that any new approach won’t close the party’s gap in the South on abortion, same-sex marriage and guns, and said Democrats intensify that cultural disconnect with “identity politics.”

    While the party’s positions on gay rights, minority voting access, women’s rights and immigration are not wrong, Cole said, “those people who don’t see themselves in those groups say, ‘What have the Democrats got for me?’”

    He seems to assume these positions can simply be messaged away but they can’t. They are real and the are tied to every Democrat’s tail like a string of tin cans.

    2. The Democrat party is that it has become the party of government largesse.

    Democrats are antagonistic to personal liberty in economics as much as they are opposed to it in the sphere of religious beliefs and even personal opinions. One needs look no further than Obama’s vapid “Life of Julia” narrative during the 2012 campaign to see what the Democrats desire. People dependent upon the government for education, food, housing, child care, health care, employment, retirement, and turned into bio-fuel on the way out. This kind of philosophy is foreign to most Americans and it certainly runs counter to being friendly to working families because the taxes used to pay for this cradle-to-grave care comes from family disposable income and with this largesse comes government control.

    3. The Democrat party hates America.

    The Democrats’s vision of America is something like the late Yugoslavia. A smorgasbord of races, ethnicities, languages, cultures, and religions that either hold each other at arms length or actively hate each other and do so as a matter of government policy. We know bi-lingual education results in kids who are bi-stupid, utterly unschooled in two languages and unable to function in an English dominant society. Bit Democrats persist in fighting cultural, or at least linguistic assimilation. Cole’s “stronger voting rights laws” are just a softer way of describing grievance mongering. The Democrats tried pitting men against women in the last election. The Democrats approach elections by trying to create interest groups and then set them against each other. Their policies and legislative agenda is based on creating an ever increasing series of rights for various affinity groups at the expense of non-group members and society.

    Not only does the hostility to the nation permeate the Democrats’s domestic agenda (see Obama’s immigration order) it is the driving force in our foreign policy.

    This is not the way a nation can operate and survive.

    And these are not the core values of a party that is serious about winning elections outside the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards.

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/11/30/southern-democrats-cant-win/

  22. I think the talking heads are all running out of spin as to if Hillary will run, be supported, help heal the party, bla, bla, bla.

    I am going to wait until there is more concrete evidence if she will run or not before I let my head spin in circles again. Six years of political drama that is no better than it was in 2008.

    A person can only take so much…and it changes from day to day depending on who says it or what poll is brought forward.

  23. Well, with the exception of the one article listed above everywhere else I look the talk is that Boehner will cave.

    If he does, there will be nothing the Republicans can do to rehabilitate themselves.

    I understand the pressure John is under from his donors.

    But that pressure is as nothing compared to what will happen if he caves.

    Because then he will have betrayed voters, and that stain will not wash off.

    No one except Erickson is demanding a government shut down.

    But there are plenty of things he can do, and needs to do, short of that, which will seal his fate.

    And that of his party.

    One way or the other.

  24. I also don’t think the GOP has the working white people’s vote nor do they have the voter’s ‘goodwill’.

    I think it was finally the only way the voters could try and stop Obola by tossing out every Dim they could, and everyone pretty much knows the GOP has taken their last Viagra.

    I think the American voter is disgusted with both parties and especially with the Hope and Change Liar In Chief.

    No goodwill
    No hope for a party doing the right thing
    Just two more years of a terrible economy, lies, broken promises and anger.

  25. The Dims have taken everything too far. At one time, the Democratic party was the champion of the poor and disenfranchised. They were right to provide financial and food assistance to people who could not work. It was also right that there was a means test for every form of public assistance. To qualify for assistance programs, applicants had to prove that their income was below a specific level and that the value of their financial assets including property, savings accounts, automobiles, etc., did not exceed a specific amount. This made sense. The assistance a person received was based on need.

    However, the true progressives want there to be no means testing, especially for people of color, who deserve to be repaid by the white majority, their oppressors. Under Obama, the progressives are closer to getting what they want than ever. Obamaphones for example, were there for the taking. I remember hearing some journalist say that she approached an Obamaphone distribution booth while talking on her IPhone – not once, but twice- both times she was given a free O phone.

    The Food Stamp Program is another entitlement which requires little means testing. Initially, income and resources have to be declared, but thereafter, to be re-certified, a phone call is all that’s required. Just report no increase in income, and the food stamps continue.

    In July, 2012, Obama effectively repealed part of Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform by taking out the work requirement, and substituting job training or education. Maybe this would not be a negative thing if it were actually intended to put people to work eventually, and if there were not already federal programs that pay for education and training, as well as provide a personal allowance .

    I’m familiar with one specific community college – and I’m sure this is the norm rather than the exception – where students enroll and register for classes, then they – the students, not the college – receive a check for tuition and books. The students then pay for their classes, don’t buy the books, wait a day or two, drop some or all of their classes while it’s still early enough to be allowed a partial or full refund. They pocket the refund money and wait till the next semester to do the same thing again.

    Obviously entitlement programs such as the Food Stamp Program, education and training assistance, welfare assistance and others are needed and well used in many cases. But there should be some verification of need, as well as guidelines that prevent abuse of the assistance.

    The Dims have forgotten that the best way to help American families is to create an economy in which they have jobs. At some point, common sense left the Dimocrat building. The compassion and desire to help which motivated the good and needed assistance programs morphed into some perverted sense of “social and economic justice”. The progressives who claim to support minorities do them the worst injustice of all by assuming that being born a person of color is a bad thing, and that those who were born white need to make it up to them. What an insult. How condescending these A-holes are.

  26. I understand the pressure John is under from his donors.
    —-
    Fu@k his donors!

    He works for the American public not his effin’ donors. Get him a box of kleenex…boo hoo boy is going to catch Hell if he plays the continued cave-in card.

  27. If you ever saw the movie The Producers, in the opening scene we find a phony, disreputable producer of Broadway musicals who survives by giving eighty year old ladies with blue hair one last thrill on their way to the cemetery, in exchange for a contribution to his next stage play.

    Watching that I could not help but think of Chuck Schumer who does the exact same thing.

  28. Get him a box of kleenex…boo hoo boy is going to catch Hell if he plays the continued cave-in card.

    ______________

    LMAO, Shadow.

    ______________

    S

    funny thing about the white working class, we don’t like dictators…we want a Congress, a President and a Judicial Branch…that’s what we learned when we were growing up and that’s what we want…

    we don’t want our country “fundamentally transformed”

    ______________

    Preach it, S. Spot-on.

    Admin, brilliant article!

  29. The Obama damage is two-fold. First, his success relied on a coalition that likely will not survive, or at least survive at full strength, without Obama himself on the ticket. Secondly, Obama drove a significant portion of white voters away from the Democratic Party.

    Put those two things together — smaller Obama coalition and more alienated whites — and the result could be huge trouble for whoever the Democratic presidential nominee is in 2016

    My biggest fear for Hillary and the one thing that I think would make her choose to bow out.. Great article admin. Spot on analysis. Its painful listening to the obots at work try to fluff preezy. The funny thing is listening to the fluffers right after our benefits meeting at which we learned that our premiums will be going up about 20% WITH higher deductibles!! Way to go preezy!!!

    Asshat.

    Hillary 2016

  30. Shadowfax
    December 3, 2014 at 12:01 am
    ————————
    No Shadow.

    He works for his donors.

    He told me he has an uncontested district and his constitutents “let him do whatever he wants”.

    I kid you not.

  31. Wbb, so that tells you Bonar will cave for the next 2 years. Guess his donors are actually working for the Dimocrats.

  32. Where’s Al Sharpton to speak out for these innocent people that were simply driving in their cars?

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fort-lauderdale/fl-lauderdale-report-of-car-jacking-20141202-story.html#

    snip

    The wide-ranging crime spree, which began in Fort Lauderdale, moved to Dania Beach and erupted violently in Hallandale Beach, left a man dead and a woman in critical condition. It snarled traffic from south to central Broward County on Interstate 95, with closed lanes and off-ramps, and caused at least five Fort Lauderdale schools to be put on lockdown.

    Tuesday’s violence began at about 8 a.m. when a Fort Lauderdale officer was flagged down in the 1500 block of West Sunrise Boulevard. According to authorities, Moore’s rampage played out like this:

    Moore, armed with a handgun, forced his way into a Suzuki driven by a woman who was taking her young son to school. Moore made the woman drive to I-95 and ordered her and her son to get out of the vehicle. Moore fled southbound in the Suzuki.

    Moore’s next stop would be in Dania Beach on southbound I-95 near Griffin Road. There he forced his way into a Chevrolet Silverado.

    By about 8:30 a.m., Moore was in Hallandale Beach, where he shot a man and a woman outside Riemer Insurance Group in the 200 block of East Hallandale Beach Boulevard.

    The victims were shot while sitting in a red Chevrolet compact car that was parked between two buildings. The windows and doors on the driver’s side were full of bullet holes. Glass and blood encircled the car.

    Moore dragged the wounded woman from the car and beat her before fleeing. The wounded man managed to run about half a block to the Hallandale Medical Center.

    Both shooting victims were taken to Memorial Regional Hospital. The man was later pronounced dead. The woman underwent surgery and was in critical condition.

    Once back on I-95, Moore tried but failed to carjack two other vehicles between Hallandale Beach Boulevard and Pembroke Road. He found success with his next attempt, a silver Mercedes-Benz at 8:50 a.m. at Pembroke Road.

    Moore crashed the Mercedes just before 9 a.m. on an on-ramp at northbound I-95 and Broward Boulevard. From there, he ran. Moore was last seen east of I-95 near Broward Boulevard.

    Authorities searched the vicinity all day for Moore. Pouring rain hampered the search as they scoured the area with police dogs and helicopters, Leverock said.

    “It’s obvious he’s desperate,” Leverock said. “This is a very, very dangerous person.”

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

    he is still on the lose…stuff like this goes on daily in Miami

    Charles Barkley got it right…but the Prez, Sharpton and Holder have their heads in the sand…
    .

  33. Shadowfax December 2, 2014 at 11:39 pm

    I think the talking heads are all running out of spin as to if Hillary will run, be supported, help heal the party, bla, bla, bla.

    You’re right, but in that case we can always turn our eyes backward for a spell:

    The Daily Beast (Ben Jacobs) has compiled a short list of Republicans who, in the good ole days, had a lot of nice things to say about Hillary Clinton: Dick Cheney [really!], Paul Ryan, Carly Fiorina, Orrin Hatch, John McCain (of course), Condoleezza Rice and Lindsey Graham (of all people).

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/01/remember-when-republicans-loved-hillary-clinton.html

    Encouraging words at a time when the GOP is revving up its attack machine again.

  34. Shadowfax December 2, 2014 at 11:56 pm

    I also don’t think the GOP has the working white people’s vote nor do they have the voter’s ‘goodwill’….

    No goodwill, 
No hope for a party doing the right thing.
Just two more years of a terrible economy, lies, broken promises and anger.

    Say it like it is, girl!

  35. FYI
    Tweetfest today between 4-6pm.
    NO to any #omnibus or #CR which don’t have riders to #DefundObamasAmnesty

  36. Guess his donors are actually working for the Dimocrats.
    ————-
    That is a non sequitur.

    The political parties work for their donors.

    Never, ever, ever, the reverse.

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    An honest politician is one who STAYS BOUGHT.

  37. And the donors?

    They work for their own interests.

    Which are either irrelevant to or adverse to the interests of the country.

  38. gonzotx

    December 3, 2014 at 4:51 am

    S
    December 3, 2014 at 3:35 am
    ********************************************************************************

    gonzotx, that is true…

    but let me add this disgusting violence would be colorblind…just as freaking bad if the person is white, asian, hispanic…I don’t care…

    my point is…why aren’t Sharpton, the Prez, etc looking at the whole picture…all they want to do is blame everyone else and never look at the whats and the whys
    and to hear them speak…all these young “boys” are angels and are just being killed by the police…

    I do believe the police need better training…as during the Clinton Presidency, the emphasis was on community policing and the people and police were more familiar with each other as opposed to this new ‘militarization’ of the police

    but now, with Sharpton and the Prez and his meetings they are creating a bigger divide…more of an ‘us against them’ attitude…more hate, less understanding…

    Sharpton, Prez, etc should be taking more time to speak to these young people and get to the root problem…not incite more lawlessness…and in fact, by excusing this behavior Sharpton, Prez and Holder, etc are passively encouraging more of this behavor…the race baiting gives reason to justify or excuse the actual bad actions and the kids end up thinking they are the victims so what do they care if they go out and kill or rob someone else…if Al Sharpton and his gang do not blame or hold them responsible for bad actions, then they have the ‘right’ to go out and just hurt someone else…there is always an excuse to just glide over it…and now turn the discussion as Rangel did into “reparations” due

    it is sick

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

    I just want to add one more thing…you almost get the feeling that Sharpton, Prez, H…they want us to hate each other…and guess what, we don’t…on a everyday basis, in everyday interactions people do get along and most of us do not make all these divides and sterotypes…we just live but now if you listen to Sharpton, Rangel, Holder etc we are supposed to look at each other with suspect and take a side…

    very destructive

  39. ahh…the repentant Dims are really coming out of woodwork these days as their ‘eyes wide open and writing on the wall’ is bursting out before them…

    why didn’t the Dims take the time…and work with the opposition…before they passed this disaster (nevermind…we know why)

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/225812-harkin-dems-better-off-without-obamacare

    ObamaCare author Tom Harkin: Health law is ‘really complicated’

    Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the coauthors of the Affordable Care Act, now thinks Democrats may have been better off not passing it at all and holding out for a better bill.

    The Iowa Democrat who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, laments the complexity of legislation the Senate passed five years ago.

    He wonders in hindsight whether the law was made overly complicated to satisfy the political concerns of a few Democratic centrists who have since left Congress.
    “We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly and we didn’t do it,” Harkin told The Hill. “So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.
    (me – thanks Tom…after millions of people lost their doctors and insurance and now cannot afford to even go to a doctor because of the Dims and insurance companies)

    “What we did is we muddle through and we got a system that is complex, convoluted, needs probably some corrections and still rewards the insurance companies extensively,” he added.

    Harkin said the sweeping healthcare reform bill included important reforms such as preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and keeping young adults on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26.

    He also lauded the law’s focus on preventing disease by encouraging healthy habits, something he contributed to by drafting the Healthier Lifestyles and Prevention America Act, which informed ObamaCare.

    But he believes the nation might have been better off if Democrats didn’t bow to political pressure and settle for a policy solution he views as inferior to government-provided health insurance.

    “All that’s good. All the prevention stuff is good but it’s just really complicated. It doesn’t have to be that complicated,” he said of the Affordable Care Act.

    Harkin, who is retiring at the end of this Congress, says in retrospect the Democratic-controlled Senate and House should have enacted a single-payer healthcare system or a public option to give the uninsured access to government-run health plans that compete with private insurance companies.

    “We had the votes in ’09. We had a huge majority in the House, we had 60 votes in the Senate,” he said.

    He believes Congress should have enacted “single-payer right from the get go or at least put a public option would have simplified a lot.”

    “We had the votes to do that and we blew it,” he said.

    Many liberals at the time expressed deep disappointment that the huge Democratic majorities in the Senate and House failed to pass a public option. It was the first time since 1978 that Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

    Harkin’s comments come on the heels of a speech delivered by Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Democratic leader, last week questioning the wisdom of focusing on healthcare reform in 2009 and the start of 2010.

    Schumer argued that Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-targeted economic programs in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse.

    “Unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them,” he said. “We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — healthcare reform.”

    Schumer acknowledged problems in the healthcare system, including the plight of millions of uninsured people, needed to be addressed but argued that’s not what voters who elected President Obama in a landslide wanted at the time.

    His criticism was more targeted at the political timing of the law instead of its substance, which he believes has helped reduce healthcare costs significantly.

    Harkin, however, believes Obama and Democratic leaders could have enacted better policy had they stood up to three centrists who balked at the public option: Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), a Democrat turned independent, Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

    He argues they could have been persuaded to vote for the legislation if Obama had put more effort into lobbying them.

    “The House passed public option. We had the votes in the Senate for cloture,” he said

    “There were only three Democrats that held out and we could have had those three,” he added. “[Sen.] Mark Pryor [D-Ark.] so we could have had Lincoln. We could have had all three of them if the president would have been just willing to do some political things but he wouldn’t do it.

    Harkin and other liberals are now faced with the bitter irony that the centrists tried to placate five years ago by crafting a labyrinthine market-based reform are now all out of the Senate.

    “So as a result we’ve got this complicated thing out there called the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

    He believes Congress should have moved legislation in the first hundred days after Obama’s inauguration, which drew over a million people to the National Mall on a frigid January day.

    “There’s this old saying, ‘If you have the votes, vote. If you don’t, talk.’ We had the votes but we talked,” he said.

    Then-Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) held listening sessions with Republican senators for months but ultimately failed to pick up a single GOP vote on the floor.

    Harkin acknowledged, however, that knowing what’s right is always much easier in hindsight.

    “I can Monday-morning quarterback with the best of them,” he quipped.

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

    bla, bla, bla…sure Harkin, you are out of there with your campaign warchest…five years too late

  40. Well, I guess I do not have to eat crow after all.

    My initial instinct was correct. Boehner was speaking through that numbnutz Corker who claims that the message of the 2014 was not to stop Obama but to achieve bi partisanship so Congress can forget about serving the American People and serve its donors, thereby perpetuating their lock on power–and fucking the working class like a house cat.

    (Note: Boehner’s donors want an unlimited supply of cheap labor. But Amazon has gone to the next logical step and is replacing hourly workers at Amazon with robots. Thousands of them. Wowee! Even cheaper!!! No unions, no coffee breaks, no grievances, no sick days, no peaks and valleys in productivity. Question: then what the fuck will we do with all these illegals? Echo answereth not. Well Jeff now owns WashPo so he can cover his tracks. But if you value the opinion of Steven Hawkins–the quadrapalegic genius, he says that artificial intelligence will make the human race extinct, because we cannot evolve as quickly. And perhaps that is what Justice Holmes was alluding to in that haunting speech in 1912 about walking down Pennslyvania Avenue past Sherman’s statue with the evening sky ablaze seeing the row of glass bulbs clustered like evil eggs, and realizing that man may be like the grub that prepares a chamber for the winged thing that it will never see but is to be, therefore, man may have cosmic destinies he does not understand. But sure as hell Obama does, because Obama is not a raving sociopath–he is a fucking god. Just ask the New York big media cabal who is using him to line their own pockets, and feeding the rest of us shit.)

    Forgive the diversion but I could not resist. Particularly the plug for the sociopath in chief.

    Here is where it gets a little archane. It appears that Boehner does not want to use the entire spending bill as leverage to stop Obama on amnesty. He is afraid of a government shut down. Instead, he wants to pass a spending bill for the next 12 months, except for the part that funds DHS on amnesty. That part would expire early next year when the Republicans take control of the Senate. This would defer the entire immigration debate until next year, when congress could deal with all aspects of the problem in an orderly way. The problem is, there would be no leverage to stop amnesty, and the party would be punished.

  41. admin
    December 2, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    2016 is going to be a very bad year for all Democrats even Hillary. Laundrieu is a perfect example of a once popular and well liked Democrat getting wiped out this year by the taint and her cooperation with Obama. Democrats put Obama in charge. Then they put into place his policies which are in fact their policies. They cannot run from him. Schumer tried to start the faux-splaining of “mistakes were made” but with a true heart. Blech. Now the retiring Harkin is trying to walk it back and whine it was a bad idea after all to ram Obamacare through in such a monstrous, harmful and horrible bill. And he was in charge of it in the Senate subordinate only to Reid! They know now they have made one of the costliest mistakes in political history by placing Obama in the job. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/225812-harkin-dems-better-off-without-obamacare#.

  42. Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the coauthors of the Affordable Care Act, now thinks Democrats may have been better off not passing it at all and holding out for a better bill.
    —————

    It was a most unsatisfactory trial
    They gave me ninety-nine years on the hard rock pile
    Ninety and nine on the hard rock ground
    All I ever did was shoot a deputy down

    Ninety and nine
    (It could have been life)
    On the hard rock pile
    (They might-a hung me)
    And all he ever did was shoot a deputy down
    (THIS WHOLE THING HAS SURE BEEN A LESSON TO ME)
    (Bang, you’re dead)

    Read more: Kingston Trio – Bad Man’s Blunder Lyrics | MetroLyrics

  43. As for Boehner caving he has to do the kabuki for his donors from big business. If he doesn’t he won’t get anymore money from them. But in the end he has to do what his conference wants or he won’t have the votes and gets voted out of his Speakership. The best whip of the House is in the Senate-Ted Cruz and he is driving Boehner crazy. Boehner can’t control him or touch him because they are in different houses, different constituencies in the party, and different money bases. It is fascinating to watch.

  44. wbboei
    December 3, 2014 at 11:53 am

    It took a while but it is finally sinking in just what they have done to themselves since 2008. The harm to the country is secondary of course. The magnitude of the errors is astonishing. I give a couple of points to Schumer and Harkin for broaching the subject. But both have just scratched the surface.

  45. It took a while but it is finally sinking in just what they have done to themselves since 2008. The harm to the country is secondary of course. The magnitude of the errors is astonishing. I give a couple of points to Schumer and Harkin for broaching the subject. But both have just scratched the surface.
    ————
    Well . . . yes.

    There are two schools of thought on this:

    1. first school: we should never despair when wisdom comes late because too often it never comes at all

    2. second school: there is a tipping point in all affairs, and once it has been exceeded the culmination of a build-up of small changes that effects a big change.

    The irony here is that Obama wanted to see America decline as a world power, and he has succeeded. But the rot he has engendered goes much deeper than is commonly understood and recognized. Our nation is in mortal danger, but big media goes on about its business blithely protecting Obama, keeping us in the dark and feeding us shit, like we were all just mushrooms.

  46. ObamaCare author Tom Harkin: Health law is ‘really complicated’

    Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the coauthors of the Affordable Care Act, now thinks Democrats may have been better off not passing it at all and holding out for a better bill.

    ______________

    Harkin’s acknowledgement that the Dims should have waited, and not passed Ocare just serves as a reminder of the gigantic rush the Dims were in to shove the law down our throats. The Republicans could not be given time to read the bill, as they requested. There was no time to give the public the opportunity to consider the impact of the bill. The house was on fire. Obama was late, late, for a very important date. He and Pelosi were busting hell wide open to get it passed pronto.

    When the Dims wax thoughtful and acknowledge that Ocare might have been a mistake, they need to be reminded of the breakneck speed with which they forced the bill through, bullying everyone who tried to slow the process down.

  47. If the Dim party is stupid enough to think voters have cut down their party at the knees…they are still wearing rose colored glasses.

    They have blinders to the rotten economy, foreclosures, no jobs, AMNESTY by the Fraud……the list goes on.

  48. Sorry, forgot to add that voters haven’t only cut their party down at the knees because of ObolaCare…

  49. freespirit

    December 3, 2014 at 12:47 pm

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

    freespirit, exactly…and they did it in the dark of the night by twisting the rules

  50. It isn’t rape when Democrats do it
    By: streiff (Diary) | December 3rd, 2014 at 01:00 PM | 5

    RESIZE: AAA
    Share on Facebook 10 56 SHARES

    Yesterday a former senior Democrat staffer (he worked for Joe Lieberman and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)4% in the Senate and Herb Kohl, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)11%, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)13% in the House) plead guilty in DC Superior Court to third-degree sexual abuse, two misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse and one count of misdemeanor threats. You might think justice was done, but you would be wrong. What did this senior Congressional staffer do?

    Prosecutors say that on July 22, 2010, Williams invited a female congressional colleague to his Capitol Hill apartment and promised to introduce her to Senate employees. At the house, prosecutors said, Williams spiked a drink with Ambien. The woman, according to court documents, fell into a “deep sleep,” at which point Williams raped her.

    A month later, prosecutors said, Williams invited another woman to his home and gave her alcoholic beverages. They said he had sexual contact with her when she was too intoxicated to give her consent.

    Williams had been indicted on 10 counts, but prosecutors agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors said they would seek a suspended prison term and five years of supervised probation. Williams also would have to register as a sex offender for 10 years.

    For two rapes Williams, with powerful patrons inside DC’s Democrat establishment gets a suspended sentence. What usually happens when a man uses Ambien to rape a woman?

    This is not probation

    Paul David Messersmith agreed to the 21-year term as part of a plea deal reached in July that spared him the possibility of life in prison if convicted by a jury of rape using an intoxicating substance. Instead, he pleaded no contest to rape and forcible penetration and admitted administering a controlled substance to the victim.

    Police arrested Messersmith after the 18-year-old girl told her mother, and then police, that on Dec. 11, 2013, she found a piece of pill in some ice cream he gave her after a driving lesson and was told the chunk was likely “an additive.” The girl said she grew woozy and laid on the couch with slurred speech when Messersmith pulled off her pajama bottoms and touched her. She said after waking up from a blackout, he carried her to a bedroom and raped her.

    The police discovered the drug Messersmith allegedly used was Zolpidem, better known as Ambien.

    And this is not probation:

    Jacob Christensen appeared in 1st District Court Monday afternoon. He showed little emotion as Judge Kevin Allen sentenced him to serve five-years-to-life in the Utah State Prison.

    State attorney Spencer Walsh said in that report, Christensen admitted to “fingering the victim,” after she had taken the sleep aid Ambien and was unconscious.
    Allen told Christensen it didn’t matter whether it was his finger or something else, it was rape because she couldn’t consent.

    This is a great example of the “different spanks for different ranks” mentality that grips the DC criminal justice system when it comes to dealing with the politically connected… by which I mean Democrats. A connected Democrat is indicted on a series of charges that would bring a normal human a very long prison sentence and it gets bargained down to being sent to his room with no dinner. At least two… and I say “at least” because history shows that people who exhibit this casual attachment to date rape drugs usually operate for a while before they are caught… women were raped and the rapist walks. While Rolling Stone is chasing a gang rape that may or may not have happened and the Washington Post has assigned one of its foreign affairs correspondents to read the college newspaper columns of Elizabeth Lauten this atrocity has happened right in front of them and they couldn’t care less.

  51. Down Black Panther Memory Lane, Again

    By Christian Adams (former deputy attorney general department of justice, civil rights division)

    The New Black Panthers can’t stay out of the news, mostly because the Obama administration continues to behave so strangely when they come calling. The latest example is the oddly thin indictment on federal gun charges against two members of the anti-Semitic and anti-white hate group, when so much more seemed possible. Let’s recap.

    Local St. Louis media reported that St. Louis police were investigating two New Black Panthers who sought to assassinate law enforcement officials in Ferguson as well as the local district attorney. The reports also indicated that they sought to use explosive devices against the St. Louis Gateway Arch. After this story, I opined here that the charges should be federal domestic terrorism charges, not state-level charges.

    And voila! We have a thin two-page indictment against them on basic illegal gun purchasing charges. As Bill Gertz’s piece points out:

    The soft treatment for activities that normally would have brought federal terrorism charges appears to be part of efforts by Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department to “go soft” on the racist group, according to former Justice official J. Christian Adams.

    That’s odd. But what is odder still is how it seems a local St. Louis police investigation has been smothered, overtaken, and downplayed. When Gertz called the local police for comment, they referred him to the U.S. attorney in St. Louis. Normally, local officials don’t punt to the feds on a local investigation.

    Then, when Gertz called the U.S. attorney, he was told he had to call the Office of Public Affairs in Washington. These are the professional, politicized press flunkies for Holder. When Gertz asked if more charges would be issued, he got no answers.

    Remember, when the same Justice Department indicted Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the indictment ran dozens and dozens of pages. The facts were laid bare. But McDonnell is a Republican, and the New Black Panthers, shall we say, are not.

    Why did Washington absorb what started as a state case, and then downplay it?

    One of the favorite narratives of spokesmen for the Obama administration who work at places like Slate and Mother Jones is that the New Black Panthers are about a dozen nuts who shouldn’t be taken seriously. If they are clowns, then concern about the anti-white hate group is also clownish. The Left finds it inconvenient to their racial narrative to have black racists around. The smaller the number, the better. That’s why the New Black Panthers are portrayed as a couple of clowns by the left.

    But back in 2007, the New Black Panthers weren’t considered to be a couple of clowns to organizers of the commemoration of the Bloody Sunday Edmund Pettus Bridge crossing.

    Each March in Selma, Alabama, top “civil rights” figures are invited to attend the crossing. Even former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor attended. In 2007, Senator Obama kicked off his campaign in Selma — at least the important part of his campaign. As I wrote in my book Injustice:

    But as of March 2007, Obama had not rallied wide black support. So he went to Selma, Alabama, a city with deep meaning in civil rights lore thanks to the iconic Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights marches of 1965. Obama’s goal was to launch himself to the black community as a credible, winning, and most important, authentically black candidate — and he sought to do that by grafting his budding campaign onto the classic civil rights storyline. Fittingly, he timed his visit to coincide with Bloody Sunday jubilee weekend, the annual commemoration of the 1965 marches culminating in the event’s re-enactment on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

    Obama would share the podium and march with the head of the New Black Panther Party — Malik Zulu Shabazz:

    work oval selma malik and obama
    Bloody Sunday Weekend Event, 2007

    I described the Selma events in Injustice:

    The speakers were all people one would expect to hear at this kind of high-profile event, with one exception: New Black Panther Party chief Malik Zulu Shabazz, a future defendant in a DOJ voter intimidation lawsuit. He was flanked at the podium by several Panthers in full Panther battle regalia — black fatigues, beret, insignia, and boots. One of them was Panther “Field Marshal” Najee Muhammad, who is seen in a Panther video called “Training Day” in which he encourages blacks in DeKalb County, Georgia, to don ski masks, lie in wait behind shrubs, and kill police officers with AK-47s. Following that exhortation he mocks the hypothetical victims’ grieving widows. When the speeches ended, the crowd began the memorial walk to Edmund Pettus Bridge. For the duration of that one-mile trek, video reveals that the uniformed New Black Panther members shadowed close behind Obama, who showed no aversion to their presence.

    I’ve never said that the Justice Department delivers special treatment to the New Black Panthers because of a relationship between Senator Barack Obama and the New Black Panthers. But I did raise several questions which have never been answered. Perhaps someone can ask them now, especially given the latest queer handling of criminal actions by Panthers.

    Raised fists of New Black Panthers Marching Behind Obama
    Raised fists of New Black Panthers Marching Behind Obama

    In the end, nobody knows what Obama thought about the Panthers’ demonstration of support for him, because the media never asked him about it. Again, from my book:

    Obama did not publicly acknowledge the Panthers’ tributes, but he also made no effort to shoo them away. Malik Zulu Shabazz told a reporter he spoke with Obama that day in Selma, though he did not provide details about the conversation.

    It is possible Obama found the Panthers deeply embarrassing. Perhaps in his conversation with Shabazz he told the Panther leader to stay away from him, but Shabazz marched right behind him anyway. Or perhaps Obama was indifferent to the Panthers, viewing them as a weird sideshow and not fully understanding exactly who these people were.

    But we cannot dismiss the disturbing possibility that the Panthers’ presence in Selma and on the podium outside Brown Chapel, as well as their positioning behind Obama during the march, was collaborative and deliberate.

    It is plausible that the Obama campaign acquiesced to the overtures of people like Malik Zulu Shabazz. The images of Obama and the Panthers together were useful to Obama, providing signs of his racial “authenticity” for important voting segments. And after all, it’s clear that some elements in the Obama campaign sympathized with the Panthers; in March 2008, the official Obama campaign website posted the Panthers’ endorsement of Obama, then quickly removed it when it drew negative attention.

  52. hmmmmmmmmm

    Me thinks some Hillary supporters are starting to build a little circle of “new way to run health care” … out with ObamaCare and in with a new idea from Hillary.

    I just read article that she’ll not make any decisions for a while as well

    Sounds like she is reading here

  53. TED CRUZ TO HOUSE REPUBLICANS: BOX DEMOCRATS IN, STOP EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is backing up several other conservative senators in publicly calling on all House Republicans to band together to block funding for President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty. He advocates using a strategy that will hurt the Democrats politically—rather than House Speaker John Boehner’s plan, which funds Obama’s amnesty
    .
    “This November’s election was a referendum on executive amnesty, and the American people overwhelmingly oppose President Obama’s illegal amnesty,” Cruz said in a release on Wednesday. He also said:

    Republicans in Congress should use every tool at our disposal—our constitutional checks and balances—to stop President Obama’s amnesty. The Senate should use its constitutional authority to halt confirmations for non-national security positions, until the President stops this illegal amnesty. And both Houses should use the power of the purse, which the Framers understood to be the most potent tool Congress has to rein in an out-of-control Executive.

    Cruz went on to specifically back a detailed plan from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), which Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)—the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee—and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) have both backed. Lee’s plan is to have the House Republicans block funding for Obama’s amnesty now, and then force Reid to either shut down the government or take up the House bill blocking the funding for Obama’s amnesty and try to pull that language out.

    If Reid does have the votes to strip the language under Lee’s plan, the new Republican-controlled Congress can block the funding for Obama’s amnesty in early 2015. If Reid doesn’t have the votes, Obama can either veto the bill—as he has threatened to do—or sign it into law.

    If Obama vetoes the bill, he will have, by himself, shut down the government in contravention of what several Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted for right before Christmas—something that would be a political disaster for a President still reeling from his party’s horrendous showing in the 2014 midterm elections.

    “We should pass a short-term continuing resolution that includes language defunding the implementation of the President’s executive action on amnesty,” Cruz said in his statement.

    Cruz argued the reason why all Republicans in the House should pursue this strategy, instead of Boehner’s efforts to work alongside Nancy Pelosi and outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—who has endorsed Boehner’s strategy—is because the Democrats cannot legitimately defend Obama’s executive amnesty. Boehner does not have the votes to pass his plan to fund Obama’s amnesty, and he may have to turn to Pelosi for help from her Democratic conference.

    “Nearly a dozen Senate Democrats have publicly expressed concerns about President Obama’s executive amnesty,” Cruz said. “Support for the President’s lawlessness decreases by the day, and House Republicans should provide Senate Democrats the opportunity to show voters whether or not they have heard the message the voters sent in the 2014 elections.”

    Cruz’s office provided a list of statements from 11 Senate Democrats expressing opposition to Obama’s executive amnesty. Instead of funding it and allowing the Democrats off the hook like Boehner wants to do, the plan from Lee would offer Republicans several opportunities to politically beat up the Democrats—and there’s no threat of a government shutdown, unless the President or Reid decide to do so.

    “We are all frustrated with our broken immigration system, but the way forward is not unilateral action by the President,” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said. Landrieu is expected to lose to Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) in the December 6 runoff election in Louisiana.

    “I wish he wouldn’t do it,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) added.

    Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said most people in her state are “uncomfortable” with Obama’s actions.“I have to be honest: how this is coming about makes me uncomfortable, I think it probably makes most Missourians uncomfortable,” McCaskill said.
    “I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job, but the President shouldn’t make such significant policy changes on his own,” Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) said.

    “I don’t like government by executive order,” Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), who just lost his election to Senator-elect Tom Cotton, added. “I just don’t, generally, so I’d have to look and see specifically what he’s proposing and what he’s talking about. … Overall, I don’t approve of that approach.”

    “A big issue like immigration, the best way to get a comprehensive solution is to take this through the legislative process,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said.

    “I think this is a congressional issue and I encourage Speaker [John] Boehner [R-OH] in the House to bring up a bill, to vote on a bill for immigration reform so that we can then put it into conference,” Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), who just lost her re-election bid to North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis, said. “And I do support congressional action over executive action.”

    “I’m disappointed the President decided to use executive action at this time on this issue, as it could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the new Senate before it has even started,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) said of Obama’s action.
    “I have concerns about executive action,” Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) added.

    “And I also frankly am concerned about the constitutional separation of powers,” Sen. Angus King (I-ME), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said. “The Framers knew what they were doing, and it doesn’t say if the president gets frustrated and Congress doesn’t act, he gets to do, you know, what he thinks is important for the country.”

    “I would prefer that Congress act, yes,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MN) said when he was asked if he supports Obama’s actions.
    It is unclear whether those Democrats will actually vote in line with what they have said; actually voting to block Obama’s amnesty would be the logical next step for all 11 of those Democrats. But with the Democrats as weak as they are on this issue, it’s unclear why Boehner wants to help them by pushing a plan that even Reid can support—all while abandoning many conservative Republicans. As Sessions said in his statement on Wednesday, the pure political gains are massive for Republicans if they fight the Democrats here. Never mind the fact that policy-wise the right thing to do is block Obama’s amnesty funds.

    “Polling shows voters believe that Americans should get preference for available jobs by almost a 10-1 margin,” Sessions said. “Republicans should not be timid or apologetic, but mount a bold defense of struggling Americans. Billions of dollars and countless hours have been spent advocating immigration policies that help everyone but the actual citizens of this country. Who will be their voice, if not us?

  54. Boehner is a lover not a fighter.

    Figuratively and literally.

    The question is who does he fear most.

    Or, in the venacular:

    Who does he intend to cheat: his donors or his constituents?

    Time will tell.

  55. John has got the weakest people in the world behind him in leadership–Kevin McCarthy and Kathy McMorris Rogers. Both come from districts that rely heavily on agriculture. Both were chosen because they are rubber stamps for him. Pressure on John will have to come from the outside. If he makes his unholy deal with the opposition over the objections of conservatives, they will run a red hot poker up his ass. I hope he understands this.

  56. For his sake, as well as ours. I have seen him so drunk in a Washington restaurant that he could barely stand up. But I have never seen him with a red hot poker up his ass, which would make it impossible for him to stand up.

  57. Dear John (Boehner):

    “In whatever area in life one may meet the challenges of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient – they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this each man must look into his own soul.”

    Profiles in Courage

    Theodore White, ghost writing for JFK

  58. Two top headlines at FoxNews:

    No indictment for NYPD cop in chokehold death of Eric Garner, source says (NYC incident, long stoked by media there)

    Texas leads lawsuit by 17 states against Obama immigration actions
    17 STATES FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OVER PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON IMMIGRATION

  59. From the article S linked to:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/opinion/is-obamacare-destroying-the-democratic-party.html?_r=1

    Is Obamacare Destroying the Democratic Party?

    Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has forced a debate over fundamental party priorities out into the open. Should Democrats focus primarily on the problems of the poor or should they first address the economic struggles of the working and middle classes? [snip]

    Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform. The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed. But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make; Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs; not for changes in their health care. This makes sense considering that 85 percent of all Americans got their health care from either the government – Medicare or Medicaid – or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it didn’t really affect them. [snip]

    There were also adverse political and policy consequences to the emphasis on enactment of Obamacare:

    Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s health care crisis.

    Schumer’s remarks set off an explosion. [snip]

    A United Technologies/National Journal Congressional connection poll of 1,013 adults in mid-November 2013 found that by a 25-point margin, 59-34, respondents said that the health care law (which includes a major expansion of Medicaid to cover anyone up to 133 percent of the poverty line, and subsidies for the purchase of private insurance for those between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line) would make things better for the poor. But respondents also said, by a 16-point margin, 49-33, that the law would make things worse for “people like you and your family.” White respondents were even more critical, with 58 percent saying that Obamacare would make things worse for people like you and your family, and 63 percent saying it would make things worse “for the middle class.” [snip]

    The loss of white supporters of House Democratic candidates can be seen in the data. In 1992, white voters split 50-50 between Democratic and Republican House candidates; in 1994, after the Hillarycare debacle, they voted Republican 58-42. By 2010 and 2014, whites voted for Republican House candidates by a 24-point margin, 62-38. The defection of seniors is most striking when comparing exit poll data from 2006 and 2010. In 2006, seniors of all races voted 52-48 for Democratic House candidates; in 2010, they voted 58-42 for Republican House candidates.

    The only way for Democratic Party leaders to stop the hemorrhaging, in Schumer’s view, is to take on the task of using the government to intervene in the private sector, pushing to raise wages and revive job opportunities for working men and women. [snip]

    Standing in the way of activist intervention is the fact that “the American public is so cynical about government that a Democratic, pro-government message would not be immediately successful.” To restore credibility, Schumer argued, the “first step is to convince voters that we are on their side, and not in the grips of special interests.” He specifically suggested the prosecution of bankers for “what seems, on its face, blatant fraud” and tax reform designed to ensure that C.E.O.s paid higher rates “than their secretaries.” In effect, he said, “an element of populism, even for those of us who don’t consider ourselves populists, is necessary to open the door before we can rally people to the view that a strong government program must be implemented.”

    The ability of the Democratic Party to convince middle-class voters that it is on their side is by no means guaranteed. In mid-November, 2008, just after Obama first won election, 55 percent of voters had a favorable view of the Democratic Party. In the immediate aftermath of the recent election, according to Gallup, the favorability rating of the Democratic Party had fallen to a record low of 36 percent.

    During a September pre-election panel discussion on the continuing political repercussions of the Affordable Care Act, Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Report, put his finger on the health care problem facing Democrats when he pointed out that the public perception of the party has been indelibly imprinted by Obamacare.

    The Affordable Care Act has “framed where the Democratic Party is,” Cook said. “If I would sum up my assessment, it was huge, it did play a central role in framing everything.” By 2014, health care reform “lost a little bit of its oomph, but it still is more important in setting things up than any other issue was over the last six years.” [snip]

    A Brookings Institution analysis of the winners and losers from Obamacare found that the program redistributes costs to the top 80 percent of the income distribution in order to provide benefits to the bottom 20 percent. [snip]

    Insofar as Democrats try to reduce hostility to Obamacare, they face two problems. The first is a Republican Party unwilling to support any legislation making the A.C.A. more palatable. The other is the danger that tinkering with any of the provisions that have provoked the strongest opposition could eviscerate the legislation. Among the provisions that have stirred opposition are the requirement that most Americans get coverage, the tax on medical devices and the excise tax on expensive, high-quality private health coverage. Removing existing provisions would require replacing lost funding with new revenue sources, which could provoke anger from multiple constituencies.

    As if Democrats do not already have enough trouble, data released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows that many, if not most, of the seven million people who purchased insurance through the A.C.A. will either have to pay higher premiums or higher deductibles, or submit themselves to the complex process of switching plans.

    Democrats have a lot going for them in presidential years. Nonetheless, at the moment you’d have to say that they have their work cut out for them.

    Even though midterm elections favor Republicans, the 2014 results show middle- and working-class dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party rising to dangerous levels, which threatens the party’s growing demographic advantages.

    Perhaps most notably, Republican House candidates in 2014 won 37 percent of the Hispanic vote, their highest percentage since Republicans rejected immigration reform in 2005, and a slight majority, 51-49, of Asian-American voters, who had been moving decisively in the Democrats’ favor. Asian-Americans and Hispanics are crucial to future Democratic presidential victories.

    In combination with the growing Republican allegiance of whites, these trends raise the possibility that the Democratic plan for victory by demographics could implode, which would make the case for a full scale re-evaluation of its strategies and policies glaringly obvious.

    Whatever you think of Senator Schumer, you begin to understand why he spoke out as forcefully as he did.

    Our crystal ball saw it all in 2008/2009. As to Schumer and what he is up to, thus far we have not read any analysis which really understands what Schumer is up to and what is going on. We’ll take up the slack and post our analysis of the Schumer statement soon as well as what he is really up to.

  60. Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them.
    ——————
    Obama?

    Help the middle class????

    You have got to be shitting me!

    Jesus Christ, wake up!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Soros is Obama’s god father.

    2. Soros claims the middle class is too rich, consumes too much of the world’s resources and needs to be restrained.

    3. Ergo: Obama has no intention of helping the middle class. He deplores their very existence. The only value he sees in them is as a cow to be milked, a sheep to be fleeced.

    It is pure sophistry for anyone anywhere any time to suggest, much less proclaim, that the welfare of the middle class was EVER a factor in Obama’s plans.

    He is manifestly, in everything he does, everything he does, the sworn enemy of white people and the enemy of he middle class.

    And THAT is the star the democratic party has hitched its wagon too.

    And ditto big media.

    I guess it took an election to bring certain party elders to their senses.

    Nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged.

    The funniest part of it is this.

    At the same moment that party elders are getting cold feet on their messiah

    The messiah is busy planning his next train wreck for the party and the country.

    I guess ya can’t keep a bad man down.

  61. jbstonesfan
    December 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm
    I am having lots of trouble connecting on my ipad to the site…is it just me???
    ———–
    I am not having that problem, so it must be your connection jb

  62. IMHO

    Obola wanted to pass ObamaCare at any expense

    while the Dim’s had a Supermajority,

    just so he could toot his own horn

    over Hillary’s ‘failure’

    to get Universal Health Care passed

    when Bill was President.

  63. Our crystal ball saw it all in 2008/2009. As to Schumer and what he is up to, thus far we have not read any analysis which really understands what Schumer is up to and what is going on. We’ll take up the slack and post our analysis of the Schumer statement soon as well as what he is really up to.
    —————-
    I look forward to that Admin.

    In the meantime, I will share a little story with you which helps explain why I am so fond of Schumer.

    Ten years ago, I was having dinner at Orsi’s restaurant, a mid range Italian restaurant at 38th just off Park Avenue. Dark place, red noghahide upholstery, waiters in tuxedos who had not taken a bath in a few days, and I–I went there for the garlic. It was closer to where I was staying than little Italy, etc. Across the room from me was a long table and a large contingent of elderly women were having dinner–maybe they were sorority sisters from the tipacano and tyler too era. Not all of them had hearing aids, so you did not have to eavesdrop to hear what they were saying. They were marveling at Chuck Schumer and one of them proclaimed in a very loud stage whisper Oh isn’t he wonderful. Then, perfectly on cue, in walked the mench himself Chuck Schumer with two aids, grinning from head to toe. The reaction was unbelievable, giggles, screams, it was like a bunch of bobby soxers when Sinatra walked on stage. The aids/body guards or whatever they were sat down in the background, Chuck bid the ladies to sit down which they did, and he went around the table greeting each of them personally. And they–this is the comical part, each of them grabbed his cheek and pulled and shook it, while he giggled. This reminded me so much of the Pillsbury dough boy and I had seen nothing like it before or since. Maybe it is some kind of a secret ritual I don’t know. But it happened, I saw it with my own two eyes, before I started drinking. I find Chuck completely repulsive but those ladies did not.

  64. Shadowfax
    December 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm
    ————
    The truth is Obama had almost nothing to do with the passage of Obamacare.

    But he gladly took credit for it.

    And the New York Times called it “the greatest civil rights victory since 1964”

    Which is not what they are saying now

    But when it counted, that is what they said

    I believe the real godfather of this health care push was by and on behalf of

    That little clock maker bing bong bing bong

    I wind em by night and I mend up by day

    Teddy Kennedy

  65. We’re winning the argument and having an impact even if it’s at the cost of beating up on Hillary with regularity until she learns:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-113285.html?hp=t2_r

    The would-be 2016 presidential candidates are increasingly seeing the benefits to waiting longer before declaring their intentions — including the dominant person in the race, Hillary Clinton, who shows few signs of making a decision before next year.

    Despite a commanding lead among Democrats and the widespread expectation that she’ll run, Clinton is still uncertain about whether to launch a second run for president, according to several people familiar with her thinking in recent weeks.

    While some advisers suggested she should form an exploratory committee this year to send a signal to donors, her allies who argued otherwise have won the debate — with no committee expected until well after Jan. 1, the sources said.

    “She should take her time,” said one adviser who believes that the high-profile Clinton would only give license to her critics by becoming a declared candidate too early.

    Last time, Clinton felt pushed into the race earlier than she’d wanted to be by Barack Obama’s January 2007 announcement of an exploratory committee. Now she appears comfortable moving at a slower pace.

    The article is written by Hillary Hater Maggie Haberman who is allied with Barack Obama henchmen to force Hillary into the race early in order to protect Obama and be Obama’s shield. When Haberman writes that “some advisers” advise Hillary to declare soon she does not mention that those “advisers”are Obama frat boys like Tommy Vietor.

    As to why Hillary should take as long as possible to announce, it is not because of Republican attacks on her. Obama henchmen want Hillary to announce this year to take the heat off Obama and weaken her for Warren.

  66. Pundits are worthless.

    Take this Seane Treade as an example.

    He gets all tangled up in his underware about predictive modelling to the 2016.

    He claims the economy may have something to do with it, which is brilliant.

    He also claims that it will be a close election, which is speculative at best given current events.

    He does his hat tips to left wing colleaguges which are a waste of space and a useless lien on my time.

    It is pure moosh.

    He gets credit for being one of the founders of RCP.

    Is so then his instincts are better suited to the foundary than to punditry.

    And then you have got Cost who sees everything through the eyes of history.

    Just as chartists see the stock market etc.

    Yea, its a crap shoot.

    But anyone who thinks a party which has spent eight years vilifying white people and burying the middle class is well positioned to make it a close election has little grasp of human nature.

    Bear in mind too, Treade and Cost were predicting a close election in 2014.

    I think both of them have a beltway mindset which does not understand the country.

  67. As to why Hillary should take as long as possible to announce, it is not because of Republican attacks on her. Obama henchmen want Hillary to announce this year to take the heat off Obama and weaken her for Warren.
    ———-
    Precisely. Keep kicking the can down the road. And make them sweat. Haberman is a dolt and a dullard.

  68. It did Hillary no good to announce early in the 2008 primary. She announced in January 2008 and by late February Kennedy and others decided that Obama would be the nominee. The minute she announced she becomes a fixed target for those inside and outside the party to train their sites on. And she will be under intense pressure from that moment on to run interference for Obama, which will weaken her in the general election. She should wait until the battle royal between congress and Obama over amnesty and Obamacare play themselves out so she is not dragged into those conflagrations as well. He needs to be a visibly wounded puppy before she makes it official. We are not there yet.

  69. For her to win, she cannot be the successor to Obama. She must be the solution to Obama for those democrats whose minds are fixated on the imminent prospect of being hanged. Wait until Obama becomes the most hated man in America, as Earnest and Julio Gallo would say, we will make no wine until its time. When his political blood runs red in the streets is when the party will be desperate for a solution not a successor, and then she will have the free hand she needs to put forth an agenda which repudiates his agenda, and pre empts the agenda Republicans will put forth.

  70. In the corporate world, enlightened hr executives make a clear distinction between managers–who run the operation as directed, vs leaders who provide vision, motivation and a mutually beneficial path forward. When I look at the sociopath in chief, dirty and nanny, I see failed leaders and inept managers who govern through fear and intimidation. These kind of people destroy an organization, which is what the country really is, only on a grander scale.

  71. I was glad to see Charles Barkley tell Sharpton I made it on my own and the last thing I need is a race baiting lippy lying lard ass like you coming in her and creating trouble. What terrible role models Sharpton, Jackson, Ben Jealous and their ilk make for children. What an ugly and demeaning and divisive vision they present for the future. A racist around every corner is like a red under every bed, these Joe McCarthy’s of the hard left. They would have been washed up years ago, but for a decision by the big media cabal to present them as legitimate spokesmen for the black community, pursuant to big media’s own desire to feel superior and to excoriate the white middle class, and all it stands for.

  72. As to why Hillary should take as long as possible to announce, it is not because of Republican attacks on her. Obama henchmen want Hillary to announce this year to take the heat off Obama and weaken her for Warren.

    —-
    I agree Admin, and to add one more thing that was said before, Hillary should wait until the party that stabbed her in the back, is crawling on bloody effin’ knees, begging her to save their corrupt party. It should be long after people like Warren have bitten their nails into bloody stumps, worrying, ‘Will she, or won’t she?”

    I can wait until the cows come home, and I hope Hillary will too. If she doesn’t want to run…she should still wait, just to give them the third finger salute!

  73. Shadowfax
    December 3, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    Hillary should wait until the party that stabbed her in the back, is crawling on bloody effin’ knees, begging her to save their corrupt party. It should be long after people like Warren have bitten their nails into bloody stumps, worrying, ‘Will she, or won’t she?”

    I can wait until the cows come home, and I hope Hillary will too. If she doesn’t want to run…she should still wait, just to give them the third finger salute!

    Couldn’t agree with you more Shadow. Especially seeing that preezy’s henchpeople are already trying to muddy the waters.

    Asshats.

    Hillary 2016

    Obama’s attorney general pick wants to throw the book at convicted Hillary Clinton bundler

    Read article at http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-attorney-general-pick-wants-to-throw-the-book-at-convicted-hillary-clinton-bundler-234614909.html

  74. TROUBLE IN PARADISE.

    1. CRIME: House Intelligence Committee headed by Republican Chairman MIKE ROGERS (R-Mi) issues a report exonerating the Obama Administration response on Benghazi. That report is deeply flawed however in the following respects:

    a. Key witnesses claim they were never interviewed

    b. Major pieces of information were never considered

    c. Conclusions reached have been roundly criticized

    d. Lindsey Graham, an expert called the Rogers report garbage.

    e. Select committee headed by Trey Gowdy has been especially critical of Rogers work product

    f. Which lends credence to the view that this report is a cover-up

    f. And Rogers stinks of corruption. Here’s why:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/04/gop-lawmakers-benghazi-survivors-fume-over-house-report/

    2. MOTIVE:

    a. Chairman Mike Rogers is a former FBI Agent.

    b. His WIFE Kristi Clemens Rogers was CEO of Aegis LLC a security firm

    c. Aegis was under contract with the State Department to provide security to the Benghazi facility.

    d. Four Americans were killed by terrorist as a result of security failures at the Benghazi facility.

    e. Ergo, Rogers has a personal motive to use his public position of trust to white wash Benghazi

    http://politibrew.com/politics/51-is-this-why-mike-rogers-is-leaving-office

    3. CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT:

    a. Rogers is RESIGNING abruptly from Congress to take a job—-get this, on talk radio.

    b. His wife has resigned from her position as well.

    c. Comment: if you think this is a coincidence, then you must also believe in the tooth fairy

  75. TheRock, the Hillary bundler gets attention. What about this real close Obama supporter and regular golf buddy?:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/03/justice-department-to-treat-obamas-close-friend-as-a-hostile-witness-in-fraud-case/

    Dr. Eric Whitaker, a former director of the Illinois Department of Public Health under Gov. Rod Blagojevich, first began to establish a relationship with President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama when he worked with the first lady at the University of Chicago Medical Center. They became close, and the future first family could be regularly seen spending leisure time with Whitaker.

    Writing in Chicago Magazine in 2013, Carol Felsenthal observed in a clever column that President Barack Obama’s close friend and golf partner “hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing.” She noted that this line appeared in virtually every account of the many underhanded affairs with which Whitaker had been closely, but not directly, associated.

    Felsenthal observed that a 2011 Chicago Sun-Times investigation revealed that “a range of ‘faith-based initiatives’ and health-outreach programs that were overseen by Dr. Eric Whitaker” were scandalized when they were drained of funds which had been reserved for the needy. [snip]

    While Michelle Obama was still working at the University of Chicago Medical Center, the convicted fraudster Quinshaunta Golden, Whitaker’s former chief of staff at the Illinois Department of Public Health, also came to work at that hospital. Federal investigators soon discovered that Golden was involved in a kickback scheme that siphoned $433,000 out of public funds and from which Golden had benefited. “It allegedly kept flowing until October 2008,” The Chicago Tribune reported. “By that time, Golden and Whitaker had left state government to work together at the University of Chicago Medical Center.”

    “There was no indication in the indictment that Whitaker knew of the wrongdoing,” The Tribune report added.

    Now, despite having joined Obama on the golf course and courtside on multiple occasions, Obama’s Justice Department is seeking to treat Whitaker as a “hostile witness” due to his refusal to cooperate in the ongoing trial of Leon Dingle Jr., a Chicago businessman accused of stealing $3 million in taxpayer-funded state grants.

    The Chicago Sun-Times reported:

    Federal prosecutors filed the hostile-witness motion Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, where Dingle is on trial. They cited three instances in which they said state grant money awarded to Dingle ended up benefiting Whitaker, who hasn’t been charged with any crime.

    The motion comes after Whitaker backed off a deal he struck in 2012 to cooperate with authorities investigating fraud involving grants from the Illinois Department of Public Health, which he headed under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

    He stopped cooperating after being asked about his relationship with Quinshaunta R. Golden, who was his chief of staff at the state agency and oversaw the awarding of millions of dollars in state grants and contracts to Dingle, according to prosecutors. Prosecutors had questioned Whitaker about whether he’d had a “sexual relationship” with Golden, a lawyer for Dingle revealed at an Oct. 1 pretrial hearing.

    In their 13-page motion, prosecutors said Whitaker is “a witness clearly hostile to the government” not only for refusing to cooperate, but also because of his ties to Dingle.

    Whitaker and Golden oversaw the awarding of about $4 million in state grants to Dingle between 2003 and September 2007. Dingle got another $7 million under Whitaker’s successor, Dr. Damon Arnold,” The Sun-Times report continued.

    For never having done anything wrong, Eric Whitaker sure knows a lot of criminals and fraudsters. It seems he had no compunction about associating with these individuals closely while he was also spending a lot of time with the President of the United States. Chicago politics was always rather unsavory, but this is a mess. And it could get messier.

    We wrote back in 2007 that many if not most of the Obama scandals were related to the medical profession. Michelle, Jarrett, Barack associated and profited from sleazy medical operations. They still do.

  76. TheRock
    December 4, 2014 at 12:28 am
    ————
    Rock, you noticed who the author of that article is—Michael Isikoff.

    As you will recall, he was a ‘so called’ investigative reporter.

    He had the Lewinsky story, but the company he worked for a the time killed it.

    Therefore Drudge got the scoop.

    Isikoff is a prog. He is affiliated with David Corn, a jurnolister.

    You see him here doing what progs do, trying to get Obama’s attorney general approved, and suggesting to Republicans that this may be a way to get at Hillary.

    Isikoff is a total scumbag.

  77. “In January 2007, Isikoff married Washington, DC political gossip columnist Mary Ann Akers, who currently writes “The Sleuth” for washingtonpost.com.”

    Birds of a feather.

  78. Not much time given to get word out. Published today. Vote today? Maybe next Thursday?
    WH: Bill to roll back immigration order unfair
    12/4/14.
    The White House on Wednesday blasted a bill offered by Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) that would roll back the president’s executive action on immigration, calling the bill “unfair” and “bad policy.”
    Press secretary Josh Earnest said the legislation would “exacerbate flaws in our broken immigration system” and distract “limited enforcement resources” from targeting criminals for deportation.
    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he would allow a vote on the bill Thursday, which bars the president from exempting “categories of persons unlawfully present in the United States” from deportation.snip
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/225965-white-house-bill-to-roll-back-immigration-order-unfair

  79. jbstonesfan
    December 3, 2014 at 4:14 pm
    I am having lots of trouble connecting on my ipad to the site…is it just me???

    You are not the only one having trouble. Since I downloaded the latest update on the iPad, I can’t download this site on Safari at all. However, I can download it with difficulty on google. The problem is that google does not have all the options that the apple program, Safari, has. I was wondering if the problem is that the site has just become huge with so may multiple links, etc. If that is the reason, then perhaps the site can be simplified somewhat so that all of the data does not have to be downloaded every time you open.

  80. On a minor, insignificant and infinitesimal scale, I feel like Thucydides must have felt as he documented the demise of his civilization, and life as he had known it. The American People have become de-senitized to the breakdown of our culture and our government, that with the groaning sound signalling the imminent collapse of another girder, hardly elicits a response. I shall not scruple to say that today’s elites are men and women without honor who have abandoned reality for the world of illusion, pursue a course of materialism uber alles, and see themselves as selfie citizens of the world, beholden to no nation. Through fecklessness, avarice and the oops factor, they have burned through the peace dividend and have forfeited their supremacy as leader of the world, and, as John Quincy Adams so aptly put it: a nation to be reckoned with. Zombie nation is what we have. And that will produce ripple effects across the lives of most people. It is only a matter of time.
    —————-

    China, like America, needs energy. But Beijing unlike Washington, can unabashedly defend its interests. And it has not hesitated to show its flag for oil. The Business Insider reports that Beijing is sending hundreds of soldiers to Africa “to shield its oil industry”, citing Column Lynch at Foreign Policy. (snip)

    These are things the West can never do. Its elites are obsessed with white guilt which suffuses everything. Recently McClatchy reported that “President Barack Obama will welcome the 566 leaders of federally recognized tribes to Washington Wednesday. Or, as he’s referred to by the tribal leaders, Barack Black Eagle Obama.”

    In the aftermath of the 2014 elections American politics appears to have split in two. Chief Black Eagle, having been beaten everywhere else, is busy fighting the color wars. There’s the Green War. He has suddenly become very concerned with regulating ozone. There’s the Black War in Ferguson Missouri. There’s the Brown War as exemplified by the amnesty of illegal aliens. There’s even the Red War as he accepts delegations from the former stronghold of Sitting Bull.

    The other part of the body politic sees civilians doing what government used to do. The oil industry has crippled Russia and possibly Saudi Arabia. Reuters reports that Exxon, not the State Department, is the principle prop of Kurdistan. It’s crazy. The bugle has sounded for the settlers to ride to the rescue of the cavalry. And there they go.

    This divided America has become like a zombie power. It’s disembodied head is still giving speeches on social justice at a Teleprompter, while its decapitated body is overpowering energy rivals, preparing to mine the asteroids and conjuring up one astounding technological innovation after the other. Even the Department of Defense is still defending themselves reflexively like a boxer who has forgotten how to give up. Eli Lake and Josh Rogin write that Ashton Carter, the man widely expected to be nominated to replace Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, is in many ways a policy hawk.

    He has been a public advocate for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a step opposed by the more dovish side of the arms-control community. When Carter was an academic, before the Obama presidency, he took a hard line on Iran, arguing that the U.S. should use diplomacy and other kinds of coercion to end the country’s enrichment of nuclear fuel. He even advocated for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s missiles. During his tenure as deputy secretary of defense, from 2011 to 2013, he was one of the strongest opponents in government of the mandatory defense budget cuts known as sequestration.

    In the process the zombie has been sending mixed signals to onlookers. Everything is out of reckoning. Spengler writes that China never imagined a Washington acting contrary to its own self interests — working against itself and winning somehow anyway. Beijng must now be studying the dictum of Otto von Bismarck who reputedly said, “there is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America.” (snip)

    China is still looking for a rational explanation to insanity. But history teaches that events arise as much from miscalculation as planning. Nothing goes according to plan. The Japanese took the Nanshin-ron to Pearl Harbor so many years ago, not because they knew what they were doing but because they rolled the dice and lost. Leaders repeat mistakes not so much because of what they remember, nor even because of what they forget, but simply due to the oops factor.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/12/03/da-doo-ron-ron/#more-40695

    A friend once told me that the continued survival of the human race in the face of its fecklessness can only be explained by two possibilities: divine providence or the oversight of Space Aliens. Of course he was joking, but sometimes I wonder. Was he?

  81. These are things the West can never do. Its elites are obsessed with white guilt which suffuses everything.
    ——–
    So what do they do about it?

    Do they atone for it personally?

    Not a chance.

    They need to feel superior.

    And the caviar must keep flowing.

    So they put the burden on police officers, teachers, and average citizens.

    This is why I believe the curse of this nation lies not in racism, but in the elites who have ascended to power in this generation.

    They are the corrupt ones.

  82. The contempt I feel for the elites was not an original premise. It was a matter of deductive logic, seeing what happened under Bush and even more so today under this jack ass. The contortions they went through, the things they were able to get away with call to mind that passage by Yeats–

    The best lack all conviction
    The worst are full of passionate intensity

    It is frustrating to watch a bunch of self interested traitors blow a good poker hand and then force the rest of us to cover their improvident bet, and their gambling addiction.

  83. The only answer I can see to playing the race card whenever a black assailent is killed by a white police officer is to station only black officers in black neighborhoods. As there is no evidence of racial paranoia in white neighborhoods, the same exclusionary principle would not be required there.

Comments are closed.