What Does Hillary Think About #Tsarnaev Verdict? Or, Shut Up #Hillary2016

Killer Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death today. The great B.B. King died today. This week there was a train derailment in Pennsylvania. Next week something will happen. The next month something else will happen. The month after that there will likely be more Obama disasters because you can always bet that incompetent and treacherous boob Barack Obama will always boob it up. The month after that there will be more Obama disasters and more news. About all these events Hillary should shut her mouth.

Every kook on the left wants Hillary to open her mouth and opine on what they want her to opine. Every smart Republican, every smart conservative wants Hillary to open her mouth and opine on anything. As the old proverb has it, the tongue is the enemy of the neck.

We strongly advised Hillary not to announce until July at the earliest. Our advice was not taken. So we won’t whine when we hear attacks against Hillary. In one real sense she deserves the attacks because her early announcement was strategically and tactically stupid.

To her credit though Hillary attenuated her foolish early announcement by mostly keeping her mouth shut, avoiding Big Media interviews, and otherwise conducting a “listening tour” in which she pretends to listen to voters and shakes her head up and down in acknowledgement of the noise emitted by the participants in these listening tour events. If anything we think Hillary should nod her head more and move her jaw less.

Every time Hillary keeps her mouth shut in this her too early campaign an angel gets his/her wings. It’s like the bell that rings in that Christmas movie with Clarence the angel.

Every time Hillary keeps her mouth shut in this her too early campaign the hearts of her political opponents, on the left and the right, break a little bit.

On the left Hillary’s closed mouth elicits Monica Lewinsky jokes. The left kooks can’t help it. The kook left sees their Cambridge Cherokee, Lie-a-watha, Fauxcahontas, Wig-Wam Warren, afraid thus far to declare herself as the next Mess-iah. Without Warren the left has nothing left. There is only beanie Sanders. Soon Baltimore O’Malley will enter the lists but, well… he’s just another B.O. The left has the freedom of, to quote Janis, nothing left to lose. The last hero of the kooks has proved to be a treacherous boob who has destroyed the party from top to bottom.

For those on the right, Republicans and conservatives, the tactic of trying to get Hillary to slit her own throat has some costs. Actually, there are considerable costs.

Republicans and conservatives have a big, varied, field of candidates who will run for president. There might be two dozen presidential candidates on the Republican side. There are so many Republican candidates for president that once all of them declare officially it will be a problem for any of them to get attention.

Republican candidates for president will hold their first debate in August. Who will be invited to participate in this and later debates? Will all of them be invited? Will there be a limited number invited to participate?

All Republican candidates have a right to be heard and to participate in at least the initial debates. But there are so many candidates that Big Media will be tempted to winnow the field without benefit of the voters.

So think about this: there are tons of Republican candidates for president but Big Media outlets and Republican/conservative websites are too busy mocking Hillary (so badly they mock themselves) they do GOP candidates a disservice. Every time Megyn Kelly amps up the volume on Hillary in order to beat Bill O’Reilly to the first interview with Hillary and/or get attention/ratings for herself, Megyn hurts Republican candidates who want to get some attention.

We here at public service conscious Big Pink are making the supreme effort of giving every candidate their due on the day they announce. Our Amazonian resolve to examine every announcee will be tested when Rick Santorum, our Lady of the Sweaters, announces but we will make the effort. It’s more than Republican/conservative websites are doing, eh?

One of the Republican/conservative websites we enjoy reading is run by a jammie wearing fool. Lately, their devotion is to goad Hillary into talk. Every day they so kindly advise Hillary to speak up “for her own good” of course:

‘Hide Hillary’ Strategy Backfiring as Reclusive Granny Clinton Trailing in Six Battleground States

Perhaps poll numbers that are sagging more than her face will eventually smoke out Grandma Clinton and force her to actually face the media one of these months. But it’s a GOP poll, so she’ll just shrug it off like she did the dead in Benghazi. [snip]

Meanwhile, her favorables have plummeted in a new Fox poll. [snip]

Team Grandma should be alarmed by the drop among independents, so maybe it’s time for some more staged events where the fading Clinton can pretend she’s listening to voters. GOP candidates are enjoying poking the bumbling Clinton over her evasiveness. [snip]

Watch for some orchestrated media appearances once her minions digest the bad news. Problem is she may not be able to recover.

Gee fellas, thanks for the advice. We don’t think you’d make good courthouse lawyers but your kindhearted attempts to rescue Hillary2016 from oblivion is appreciated.

At Republican/conservative HotAir the advice comes via the Washington Post and the Hillary Haters who wrote that 2008 campaign recap “game change” book which argued Obama was the Mess-iah and Hillary was never to be heard from again. How did that “game change” analysis turn out? So now these Big Media losers are back with more bad suggestions.



Gee, the Hillary Haters at the Washington Post and Bloomberg news who so loved Obama in 2008 now can’t get enough of Hillary. H&H want Hillary to hang herself with her own tongue. For them that would be a game changer for Warren for sure.

So what should Jesus Hillary do? Should she follow the advice of the right and the left and opine on issues of the day? Or should Hillary, after not taking our advice, listen to good ol’ Big Pink and keep her mouth shut? We’ll quote from the Republican/conservative Weekly Standard:

Why Are Hillary Clinton’s Numbers So Good?

Quick: When was the last time Hillary Clinton had a “good” week? I don’t remember either.

The last big media stories about Clinton have been:

1.) She runs a shady foundation that burns a lot of money and doesn’t do much real-world good.

2.) She had exchanges that looked like pay-for-play while acting as secretary of state.

3.) Because of these problems, she’s been ducking the media like crazy.

4.) And don’t forget there’s that private email server that she shouldn’t have been running that would have totally exonerated her about everything if she hadn’t nuked it.

As Jack Reacher would say, not good.

And yet, in the face of what has been three solid months of bad news, Clinton’s poll numbers aren’t bad. Not bad at all.

Among Iowa Democrats, for instance, she’s in basically the same place she was in late February: 60 percent support today compared to 61 percent back then. Nationally, things aren’t quite as good. A New York Times poll last week showed her favorability numbers holding reasonably steady_35 favorable/36 unfavorable, compared to 37/26 in March.

What interests me most is what’s going on underneath the top-line numbers. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked respondents several questions about Clinton’s character. The number most people paid attention to was “honest and straightforward”-where only 25 percent of respondents said they believed she was honest (versus 50 percent who said she wasn’t).

That sounds pretty grim and Nixonian. But here’s the thing: A couple questions before that, people were asked if Clinton was “effective” at “getting things done”-here the split was 44-34 in her favor. Is she “easygoing and likable”? People said yes by a margin of 41-37. The craziest response: Does she “have high moral standards that set the proper moral tone for the country?” Forty-three percent say yes versus only 39 percent who say no.

Think about that for a minute. By a margin of -25 points, people say they don’t trust Hillary Clinton, but by a margin of +4 points they say she has “high moral standards.”

Jonathan Last is a smart Republican/conservative who understands a bit of history. Anyone remember 1992? Bill Clinton was accused of just about everything except incest. Bill at a crucial moment in the campaign had a woman come forth to talk about sex with Bill all the while a clown from the Howard Stern show pickled the proceedings with inquiries as to whether the mostly unknown candidate Bill Clinton wore a condom while copulating with said piano bar singer even as charges of being a Soviet spy, a draft dodger, a pot smoker, a cocaine cowboy with an airport at Mena, a lesbian wife, undeclared black children with odd drug addled women and, and, and, um, Bill Clinton won. Yeah, he also lost crucial primaries and didn’t even participate in Iowa caucuses but Bill won.

Jonathan Last unhappily gets the problem Republicans have with Hillary:

There are only two possible conclusions from this: Either (1) Voters are idiots. Or (2) As a political commodity, Hillary Clinton’s appeal is based on something other than trustworthiness.

Whichever the case, the big lesson from the last few months is that it will be very difficult for a Republican to beat Hillary Clinton by getting voters to turn against her. The Clinton cake is so thoroughly baked that there’s no new evidence that’s going to make people decide that suddenly, after 20 years, the scales have fallen from their eyes and they realize she’s something other than what they think she is. 

Instead, the Republican nominee is going to have to make a positive case for something better. It won’t be enough to try to disqualify Clinton. He or she is going to have to offer a more attractive alternative vision.

(And whatever you do, don’t think too hard about the fact that one out of every four Americans still thinks Clinton is “honest” and “straightforward.” It’s just too depressing.)

Republicans/conservatives have somehow forgotten this is the primary season. This is the time to sort through the menu of candidates and issues and come up with a direction they wish to take as a party. Fixations on Hillary and “prep the landscape” tactics only distract from the decisions they have to make.

As to Hillary, there are tough questions she will have to answer. We thought the time for her to make the tough statements and to separate herself from Barack Obama were back in 2013. But that’s blood under the bridge. For now Hillary should keep her mouth shut.

The time for Hillary to answer legitimate questions such as why there was no preparation for 9/11 anniversary attacks such as occurred in Benghazi will come. What did Hillary do at the State Department that merits elevation to the White House? (we’ll answer that one at the right time too) will also require a substantive response. What does she really think about boob Obama and his treacherous policies that so endanger the world? All those questions will have to be answered – but not now. Let the attention addicts in Iowa and New Hampshire stew.

For Hillary the time to watch and listen is now. For Hillary the time to keep her mouth shut tight is now.



Share

243 thoughts on “What Does Hillary Think About #Tsarnaev Verdict? Or, Shut Up #Hillary2016

  1. Actually, I don’t think that Hillary’s numbers are “that good”. A poll this week showed her in a virtual dead heat in head to head matchups with three or four different Republicans. Given the massive difference in name recognition and familiarity between Clinton and any of the Republicans at this stage, that’s not “good numbers”.

    I don’t even know that “good numbers” means in a Democratic primary where she is running unopposed at this point.

    In reality, trying to make any sense of poll numbers is a challenge for the Clinton camp.

    On the Republican side, poll numbers right now aren’t worth the toilet paper they are printed on. I don’t know how the talking heads can even keep a straight face while reporting them.

    I’m probably one of two or three voters in the country who has actually watched most of the Republican candidates deliver a stump speech.

    —————

    Hillary should have said that she wasn’t running. And, then gotten in late when Dems were looking around desperately after seeing a thin, unimpressive, unelectable field of nobodies. She could have ridden in like a hero on a white horse this fall after Dems watched O’Malley and the Socialist battle it out for a while.

  2. Always good advice there, Admin. She should have waited until the summer to announce her candidacy if not during the fall.

  3. Once again, Admin’s wisdom shines though the clouds of raining bullShit, puts it in perspective and tosses in a dash of great humor.

    Outstanding Admin, once again. (I say this so often let’s hope it doesn’t go to your head.) 😉

    “The time for Hillary to answer legitimate questions such as why there was no preparation for 9/11 anniversary attacks such as occurred in Benghazi will come. What did Hillary do at the State Department that merits elevation to the White House? (we’ll answer that one at the right time too) will also require a substantive response. What does she really think about boob Obama and his treacherous policies that so endanger the world? All those questions will have to be answered – but not now. Let the attention addicts in Iowa and New Hampshire stew.”

  4. Just flipping channels and saw Marco Rubio on O’Really. Just got in on the last part of the interview but in the very few minutes I listened, he must have said old, tired ideas about Hillary and the Democrats and also that we could not afford to have drama in the WH at this time in history. O’Really, encouraged him to go after Hilary with a vengeance during the campaign…in other words get down in the gutter and attack even demanding legal action. Rubio presented problems of the country at this time…but I did not hear off solutions. Rubio reminds me so much of Barack Obama in 2007. Remember the No Drama Obama mime.

    Dr. Ben Carson is on now.

  5. Ah, such memories…”Silence is Golden” and “The Sound of Silence”. Thanks, Shadow and thanks, Administrator not only for the songs but the wise, wise ideas and advice. It’s always a thrill to come to HILLARY IS 44 and see that a new article is up.

  6. I think Clinton is headed back to Iowa and New Hampshire for more “round table discussions” next week. And her first big rally sometime later his month — South Carolina if I recall.

    She’s in a odd spot. The longer she keeps out of the news, the better. But, having announced, the Dems and the media are hounding her about hiding.

  7. Every Friday when Admin posts some music, I end up on youtube for hours, one song leads to another (by the right side menu of more songs…) and it’s gotten to be a Big Pink tradition for me it seams. Thanks Admin for the start of each magic carpet ride.

    Don’t ask me how but I have now ended up listening to Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music

  8. Republicans/conservatives have somehow forgotten this is the primary season. This is the time to sort through the menu of candidates and issues and come up with a direction they wish to take as a party. Fixations on Hillary and “prep the landscape” tactics only distract from the decisions they have to make.

    Actually, the biggest single impression from a few days of watching stump speeches was how young and forward looking the Republican field is. Their attacks were a shift from the traditional anti-big government theme. The variation is that government is corrupt, bought and paid for by special interests, attacking our constitutional liberties, strangling the economy, and failing middle class Americans.

  9. The shift is that they were no longer talking of big government being bad because it’s wasteful and inefficient. Instead, big government is bad because it’s corrupt, abusive, and repressive. When you have examples like the IRS targeting political enemies and the NSA spying on our phone conversations, it’s a pitch with some potential traction.

  10. I do the same, Shadow. One music video leads to another, and usually, I end up watching videos of Jimmy Fallon’s lip sync battles – which always crack me up.

  11. HWC you write, “Actually, the biggest single impression from a few days of watching stump speeches was how young and forward looking the Republican field is.”

    The “stump speeches” you immersed yourself in is not the coverage we saw nor the coverage the nation saw this past week. The biggest Republican story of the week was the multiple day hole Jeb Bush excavated. Your description of the “shift from the traditional anti-big government theme” this week from GOOPers is almost entirely without evidence in the public discourse other than for those busy ignoring the big news stories of the day. While you might be right that the “shift” is what Republicans need to do it is not what played out on the airwaves nor on the internet. Certainly you cite no evidence of that “shift” being the big story of the week.

    We think our description of the week is entirely apt and reflects the reality of what the news was and continues to be. The paragraph you quote from our article is exactly on target and reflects this past week’s news events well. From from the story being the “shift” you indulged in, what we saw was Republicans/conservatives embroiled in refighting the Iraq War.

    The big story this past week on the Republican side was without doubt the Jeb Bush on the Iraq War story. The Republican candidates all were forced to respond to Jeb Bush’s fumble on what should have been an easy question to answer. The other GOPers gave better answers than Jeb Bush but really did not find any direction to present to voters.

    As the paragraph you quoted from us states, “This is the time to sort through the menu of candidates and issues and come up with a direction they wish to take as a party.” On this basis the Republican candidates had a horrible week.

    Why a horrible week? Because none of the Republican candidates have attempted a convincing argument on foreign policy to take to the voters (let alone domestic policy). All they said was “knowing what we know now I would have not invaded Iraq.” This begs the question. What would you have done? Do you believe as Rubio does (something we will discuss later because we think Rubio made a mess of himself in his foreign policy speech)? Under what circumstances would you utilize American military force? Would you “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel as Hillary once declared? Would you have sent troops to Rwanda as Bill Clinton did not do and which he himself described as his biggest failure? Will Russian intervention in the Baltic States trigger Article 5 of the NATO Charter?

    The above are all questions on foreign policy that Republicans need to thrash out in their primaries. The winner of the primaries will not only be the candidate that wins but most importantly will set the direction for the GOP. These policy questions and the candidate that convinces the public he/she best answers them is what the GOP needs to be concerned about now.

    At some point Hillary will also have to answer these questions but she does not have to if and until she has a challenger that can force her to answer questions. Until such time Hillary should keep her mouth shut.

    Once the Republican nominee is chosen Hillary and that Republican will have to fight it out in the public arena and convince the public they deserve to live in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Until then Hillary should keep her mouth shut.

    One of the reasons we cited for Hillary announcing much later is that Hillary should have waited until the Republican field was matured so she could structure her campaign organization to maximize her advantage against whomever the Republicans select. In short, Hillary has a tactical advantage in that she has no primary opposition at this point.

    Republicans do not have the same tactical advantage but they do have an opportunity to battle over their differences, have all out war over their differences, have victors and losers in that battle, then finally unite to fight for whichever candidate and views are triumphant.

    Every Republican candidate for president has several flaws. Some additionally have certain strengths. A very few have powerful assets to marshal in their quest for the presidency. But if all we hear about is emails and the repulsive George Stephanoupolous, and deliriums about the Clinton foundation the GOP candidates will not be able to let their light shine, whatever that may be.

  12. Oooh Admin,

    You have angered our troll talking about the Kooks and we are being troll turd bombed. Shadow, don’t go for it. The posts speak for themselves and tell you who they are.

  13. What we really need, so far as immigration reform, is an end to this kind of exploitation. It is causing child exploitation. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-15/birth-tourism-how-1000s-pregnant-chinese-women-visit-us-give-birth-get-passport

    I am sure this has gone on forever, but it is now being organized on a grand scale. You know, it is more than just being protectionist. It is that these people need to fix their own countries instead of coming here to exploit ours.

    Yes, Hillary keep your mouth shut and listen. Get 2016 organized so you can get us back to a party of the people who can do something about the massive exploitation of this country. Let’s watch that TPP vote, take names and get election revenge.
    http://www.citizen.org/trade/article_redirect.cfm?ID=7170

  14. hwc
    May 16, 2015 at 1:35 am
    Republicans/conservatives have somehow forgotten this is the primary season. This is the time to sort through the menu of candidates and issues and come up with a direction they wish to take as a party. Fixations on Hillary and “prep the landscape” tactics only distract from the decisions they have to make.

    Actually, the biggest single impression from a few days of watching stump speeches was how young and forward looking the Republican field is. Their attacks were a shift from the traditional anti-big government theme. The variation is that government is corrupt, bought and paid for by special interests, attacking our constitutional liberties, strangling the economy, and failing middle class Americans.
    ———–
    No sale.

    Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power attracts corrupt people.

    To big NOT TO FAIL.

    Do you really believe that constitutional liberties, economic stagnation and the survival of the middle class can be saved by more government?

    That is fucking nuts.

    What we need is productivity gains, meaning more output from existing inputs.

    Government, with its tax and regulatory burdens is depresses output, and kills capital formation.

    The subtext of the the shift that you perceive is that the republican donors who own the candidates who warble about such things want crony capitalism just as much as the dims do: an alliance with big government which throws the middle class under the bus.

    No more fairy tales, please.

  15. My broad condemnation of big media has its exception. The grilling which Matt Lee gave to that Obamatwit Harf warrants an exception for him. He is on the side of the country, and does not suffer Obamafools gladly.

  16. Of all the dumb things Harf spits out, the dumbest of all is that Obama did not get nearly enough credit for . . . . The tape shuts off, but I can complete the sentence: killing the country.

  17. Yesterday I got a call from Lyndon LaRouche’s people.

    I will confess to you that during the 2008 campaign they were pro Hillary, and for that reason I gave them my ear.

    I have heard from them a few times since, and yesterday was none of those times.

    The impetus for the call was a report that the dims were finally rebelling against the TPP advocated by their satan.

    From that they concluded—like they always do, that his final demise was hours away.

    I pointed out to them that in the last 24 hours, in exchange for the fig leaf of currency controls, they fell to their knees again.

    Whereupon the responded yes, but it came close, to which I replied that close is good in horsehoes but not politics.

    Needless to say, the discussion went down hill from there.

    On the way down, they told me that states rights are the legacy of the confederacy, and the people are incapable of self government.

    Therefore we need virtuous leaders of the federal government.

    Naturally, I told them they were full of shit, and that I meant that in the nicest way.

    I told them that I do not believe in virtuous leaders, because the competition for power precludes that.

    Surely, experience has taught us that much—those of us who wish to be thought of as adults.

    That does not mean I am cynical, because for me the remedy lies in institutions when they function properly.

    I told them that the framework laid down by Madison, which pits ambitious people against ambitious people is the only hope we have.

    And by that I mean federalism, aka states rights, and separation of powers between the three branches.

    And while the mob may not be capable of self government what makes us think that the Harvard trained elites are any better.

    It should be obvious by now that they have made a fine mess of things.

    Fortunately for us, Hillary and Bill did not go to Harvard. They went to Yale.

  18. Every Republican candidate for president has several flaws. Some additionally have certain strengths. A very few have powerful assets to marshal in their quest for the presidency. But if all we hear about is emails and the repulsive George Stephanoupolous, and deliriums about the Clinton foundation the GOP candidates will not be able to let their light shine, whatever that may be.
    ——-
    These are big media diversions, hoping to reclaim their sullied reputation, and to convince the ignoranti that they are not the bitter partisans and elitists they pretend to be. Study after study has shown that they all vote for one party, and carry its water. And what is the difference between contributing money and other forms of bribery to the political class which big media does every day? If you are going for the tar and feathers, this would be one case where you should start at the bottom and cast the net broadly. This kind of corruption permeates big media, and it is a fools errand to focus only on boy George. Hang him high for sure, but do not stop there. The entire culture of big media needs to be cleansed.

  19. And because I believe that is impossible, I advocate ignoring them, and for both parties to ignore them. Surely the Republican Party should drive a hard bargain on that. Election season is when big media makes its money and burnishes its reputation as the arbiter of our political system. I would move heaven and earth to either deprive them of that opportunity altogether, or to marginalize them.

  20. The “stump speeches” you immersed yourself in is not the coverage we saw nor the coverage the nation saw this past week. The biggest Republican story of the week was the multiple day hole Jeb Bush excavated. Your description of the “shift from the traditional anti-big government theme” this week from GOOPers is almost entirely without evidence in the public discourse other than for those busy ignoring the big news stories of the day. While you might be right that the “shift” is what Republicans need to do it is not what played out on the airwaves nor on the internet. Certainly you cite no evidence of that “shift” being the big story of the week.

    You are right. In the mainstream media, the election storylines was Bush putting his foot in his mouth and Hillary disappearing into the witness protection program. By that score, neither of the two family dynasty legacy candidates had a good week.
    I’m not really looking at the Presidential race/candidates in terms of the news cycle in a random week of May a year before the election. I see this as a time when candidates are developing and testing themes for the race next year, learning what works in front of live audiences, getting comfortable with their pitch and so forth.

    Even if we look at the Bush iraq kurfuffle. The two losers in the media cycle dustup on that one were Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Neither one really wants folk to be reminded of their now immensely unpopular positions. Heck, Clinton lost the nomination in 2008 because of her war vote. It was the wedge that gave Obama an opening. Neither benefits from reminders that they represent the same old same old from more than a decade ago. Bush and Clinton both lose with a suggestion that the 2016 election involve relitigating the policy debates of 2003.

    Don’t think Clinton is immune. She is obviously going to be asked the “if you had known then” question, reminding voters over and over and over of a vote she would prefer they forget. Lincoln Chafee all but announced his candidacy yesterday. Now, he’s not a serious threat for the nomination, but he is a complete one-issue candidate: “I opposed the Iraq war and Hillary voted for it”. A “Code Pink” candidate to go along with the Lizzie Warren rain dance among Dem primary voters is a nightmare for Hillary. Should she opt for debates, she is going to get hit on that one like a Pomeranian relentlessly yapping and biting at her ankles.

    Meanwhile, many in the Republican field used the issue to make a clean break from the Iraq war, dismissing it with an “of course not”. That pivot is important to any Republican candidate with an eye towards a “not your father’s Oldsmobile” shiny new car smell positioning.

    I happen to think that Bush is a bad candidate for the Republicans to nominate against Clinton. Not so much that he would necessarily be a bad candidate in a vacuum, just that he would undercut the “new” versus “same old, same old Bush/Clinton” legacy politics fatigue. So, the fact that Bush had such a bad week so early doesn’t strike me as bad news for the Republican party.

  21. One of the reasons we cited for Hillary announcing much later is that Hillary should have waited until the Republican field was matured so she could structure her campaign organization to maximize her advantage against whomever the Republicans select. In short, Hillary has a tactical advantage in that she has no primary opposition at this point.

    Republicans do not have the same tactical advantage but they do have an opportunity to battle over their differences, have all out war over their differences, have victors and losers in that battle, then finally unite to fight for whichever candidate and views are triumphant.

    True. Hillary has no idea who her general election opponent would be. Nobody knows. Nobody really even has a good guess at this point. I don’t know if that’s a tactical advantage or not. Any candidate running for a party’s third term is kind of stuck in the defender role. Pretty tough to rail against the status quo when you are the status quo!

    Just as the Dems had the advantage in 2008 of campaigning against Bush fatigue, the Republican nominee will have the tactical advantage of campaigning against Obama fatigue and against the target rich environment of the Obama record. The Dem is inevitably going to be cast with the Gore conundrum. Embrace or distance from Obama?

    On the flip side, the Republicans know exactly who their target will be in 2016. Four more years of Obama. Clinton will be the first half of the world’s first bi-racial siamese twin, joined at the hip with Obama. Here’s a sample of what’s coming in discussions on foreign policy:

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4537585/rand-paul-short-benghazi-riff

  22. kurfuffle
    ——
    ?

    Jesus Christ.

    Whoever heard of that word–much less used it, before the Obama zombies dredged it up to minimize policy failures?

  23. I have got to tell you, I am much more concerned with what is going on behind the scenes, than I am in this punch and judy routine orchestrated by the chattering class, where people with no bona fides get to play clarence darrow. This bullshit is supposed to divert our attention from what is really going on, and people fall for it. The Ken Vogel piece noted yesterday is the point of departure for a more in depth and insightful look at who calls the shots, and it sure as hell is not the American People, nor does it seek in any way shape or form to promote the general welfare. Simply put, it is a power grab: see what my left hand is doing, never mind what my right hand is doing.

  24. The bottom line of 2012 is nobody cared about the lies and policy failures of Benghazi. No one was willing to assess blame, or question the responsibility of Obama.

    The bottom line of 2016 is it really is old news. I know I no longer care about it. More important however, it has had no effect on Hillary’s polling numbers despite Republican–and big media attempts to press the issue.

    It is yesterday’s news, and it is dead as yesterday.

    And if that means we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, then so be it.

  25. What we need now is a cabbage patch doll of Obama. His ISIS strategy is a failure, which hearkens back to Tet. I think it was Sun Tsu who said the power to destroy is greater than the power to destroy. Also, there is the failure to understand the ideological power of ISIS as the rebuttal to modernization and westernization by an 8th century religion and culture.
    —————

    ISIS’ problem is to expand. Obama’s problem is to contain. ISIS’ problem is to start fires. Obama’s is to put them out. Contain ISIS and it will burn itself out.

    But in this task Obama is failing. Chaos is spreading to Libya, North Africa and through the Levant in part because Obama’s cannot unify his allies nor even US domestic opinion around a single over-arching strategy. What’s the plan? If Obama has one, nobody is explaining it. It is perhaps telling that the president couldn’t sell his ideas to the Gulf allies, who mostly stayed away from his summit.

    Perhaps nowhere is Obama’s “command presence” — or the lack of it — more evident than in his last interview with Al Arabiya.

    Obama’s remarks provide a look into his mind, into his categories of thinking and into the boundaries of his conception. And in a way, the glimpse is comforting. ISIS is going for the ideological headshot, for a way to break his will, but Obama is like some dinosaur from the age of degenerate socialism, with a mind full of mush. There’s no central nervous system to disrupt, no will to break that hasn’t been broken already. ISIS cannot shatter Obama’s strategic plan if there isn’t one. Trying to scare Obama is like trying to terrify a cabbage.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/05/16/isis-in-ramadi-like-the-tet-1968/#ixzz3aJrBEOW6

  26. hwc
    May 16, 2015 at 12:16 pm
    —–
    I did not get that insight from Cruz, but I am glad he said it. I thought it was McKensie Group or Naill Ferguson. But going back there I could not find it. It is the case for small business. Big business—and increasingly networks of left wing billionaires have the ability to buy exactly the kind of government they want. A recent study at Princeton proved that. And the Ken Vogel book puts an even finer point on it. Simply put, under the emerging system, the American People individually, and even collectively have no real power. Neither for that matter do the 1%. It is the .001 of the 1% that calls the shots. The networks they have established have created a shadow government, and Obama is the first manifestation of that. This is no longer a democracy or a republic. It is an oligarchy run for the benefit of the oligarchs, not the American People. Sadly, the general welfare has nothing to do with it.

  27. S
    May 16, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    If American Pharoh wins the triple crown, I expect that Messiah Obama will invite him to the White House for a photo op. He can stay in the room next to the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Sharpton. It has been renamed the NAACP room, and strong odors of horse maneuve waft through its premises. Before Pharoh, Ben Jealous stayed there. It feature, among other things, a fine prayer rug, and a compass which points to Mecca rather than Medina.

  28. wbboei:

    Yes. The government is corrupt. No argument from me. I’m been taking incoming here for my enthusiastic book review of Extortion:

    http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Pockets/dp/0544103343

    The author, Peter Schweizer makes the point that we are targeting the wrong side of the transactional politics marketplace by focusing exclusively on the BUYERS of influence when the real culprit is the SELLERS of influence. Blaming it all on Citizen United and big PAC donations is, in itself, a diversionary tactic by politicians and the media. It diverts our attention away from blaming the politicians who sell influence (and, really extort payments).

    In any case, influence peddling (in its worst form – foreign influence) has already emerged as a major theme of the 2016 election cycle.

  29. wbboei:

    Huge business is the only part of the economy that benefits (relatively) from onerous and complex regulation. At a certain point, the burden of compliance becomes so onerous that all the but the largest companies are driven from the marketplace. The burden of government forces competition out of the market. It’s not that the crushing burden is a positive for big business either. It’s a massive expense for them, too. But, they at least benefit by driving their competition out of business at the hands of government and the politicians who sell them their votes to accomplish it.

    Here’s Carly Fiorina in an awesome 60 second clip pointing out that Dodd-Frank turned 10 too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks into 5 too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks and drove 3000 community banks out of business:

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4537891/fiorina-big-gov

  30. The author, Peter Schweizer makes the point that we are targeting the wrong side of the transactional politics marketplace by focusing exclusively on the BUYERS of influence when the real culprit is the SELLERS of influence. Blaming it all on Citizen United and big PAC donations is, in itself, a diversionary tactic by politicians and the media. It diverts our attention away from blaming the politicians who sell influence (and, really extort payments).
    ————-

    And, you hwc will get no argument from me on that one.

    Here is more proof of who the culprit is, i.e. the political class and their big media whores.

    If there was ever a case of follow the money it is here, with these drags on the system and pilferers.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/politics/political-fundraising-griffin/

  31. The erosion in trust of the government cuts across party and ideological and issue lines. For example, I have generally been supportive of the death penalty in heinous crimes. But, when I see a government that is so corrupt it turns the IRS into a weapon against political adversaries, I can no longer trust government to be fair. With that view of government, there’s no way I could continue to support the government having the power of death penalty.

    Or similarly, I knew the extent of the NSA phone/e-mail surveillance years ago. It wasn’t widely covered in the media, but there were books detailing the early post-9/11 emergency efforts that included the NSA tapping into the major phone/internet hub centers to vacuum up data streams. The descriptions of the meta-data data mining made it pretty clear what was going on. I have been generally supportive, or at least willing to accept a necessary compromise in our rights. But, when I see a government that turns the IRS against political allies, I am forced to say, no. You have not earned the right to compromise our privacy. Just the opposite. You have proven to be a mean, corrupt, abusive government. So hell no, you can’t vacuum up my meta data….

    It’s going to be interesting election. The media only understands Hatfields versus the McCoys. But, American politics no longer divides so cleanly along those lines.

  32. Dem on Dem crime:

    The KOS crowd’s new website, vox.com, has a new allegation of influence peddling:

    http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

    Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her

    During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family’s foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

    In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

    The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different than the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions.

    Sheesh, I wonder what would happen if she weren’t running unopposed. The kooks still hate her.

  33. This is what I am getting at. It is what the LaRouche crew does not seem to understand:

    —————

    To hear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia tell it, America’s freedoms don’t come from freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

    It’s not the right to bear arms that keeps us free, nor is it the right to “be secure … against unreasonable search and seizure” or to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”

    The reason America’s basic freedom has endured for more than 200 years, Scalia said Friday in a speech to the Federalist Society in Morristown, N.J., is not the amendments to the Constitution but the Constitution itself.

    “Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights,” said Scalia, author of the 2012 book “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.” “That’s not what makes us free; if it did, you would rather live in Zimbabwe. But you wouldn’t want to live in most countries in the world that have a Bill of Rights. What has made us free is our Constitution. Think of the word ‘constitution;’ it means structure.”

    That’s why America’s framers debated not the Bill of Rights during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, he said, but rather the structure of the federal government.

    “The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power,” he said. “Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government], a Bill of Rights is just words on paper.”

    Scalia said the most profound and significant departure from our nation’s constitutional structure and the principle of federalism protecting the states from federal power came in 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, providing for the direct, popular election of U.S. senators. Before, state governments appointed U.S. senators.

    “What a difference that makes,” Scalia said. “When you have a bill that says states will not receive federal highway funds unless they raise the drinking age to 21, that bill would not pass. The states that had lower drinking ages would tell their senators, ‘You vote for that and you are out of there.’

    “That has all changed. You now have senators who have no connection to the state government, never been in state government and some of them have never been to the state.”

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/11/supreme-court-justice-scalia-constitution-not-bill-of-rights-makes-us-free/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojs6%2FAZKXonjHpfsX56%2BwoWqOxlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JT8JiI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

  34. It’s going to be interesting election. The media only understands Hatfields versus the McCoys. But, American politics no longer divides so cleanly along those lines.
    ——-
    The new divide is between the political class and the country.

  35. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-83557764/

    No love for Obama trade deal at California Democrats’ protest

    By Peter Jamison

    May 16, 2015, 1:07 p.m.

    Union workers gathered for a demonstration on the second day of the California Democratic Convention harshly criticized President Obama, giving voice to the grassroots angst that has turned much of the president’s own party against him on a signature trade deal.

    Supporters of the deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, say it would strengthen commerce in the Pacific Rim by lowering barriers to trade and standardizing some areas of regulation among the U.S. and countries such as Japan, Singapore and Vietnam.

    Obama has lobbied hard for the agreement, seeking a home-stretch legislative victory in what many say has been a largely unfruitful second term in the White House.

    But powerful figures in the president’s own party have undermined the pact, including firebrand Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is scheduled to address convention delegates Saturday morning. Obama came under criticism this week for lashing out at Warren because of her opposition to the trade deal, saying she was “a politician like everybody else.”

    “It was offensive,” John Hanna, government affairs director of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, said amid throngs of protesting union workers outside the convention center in Anaheim. “It was clearly his frustration because he’s getting no traction on these issues with Democrats.”

    Echoing what has been a frequent criticism of the president on Capitol Hill, Hanna said the president had himself to blame for the impasse, having “spent the last six years not really building relationships” with fellow Democrats in Congress.

    Manny Salcido, a 52-year-old carpenter from West Covina, said he believed the interests of American workers had taken a back seat to the president’s effort to burnish a foreign-policy legacy.

    “What he should be doing is helping the American people and our agenda,” Salcido said. “I kind of feel like he’s putting us in second place.”

  36. Hillary, if you pick Castro, Booker, or Patrick for VP…PLEASE STAY HEALTHY and CAREFUL!

  37. hwc

    Heck, Clinton lost the nomination in 2008 because of her war vote.

    Ok,now I’m suspicious. Are you sure you were a Hillary supporter in 2008?

  38. How could anyone who was a supporter of Hillary in 2008 forget the CHEATING, CHEATING, CHEATING?

  39. Yeah, you can’t say she “lost” the nomination with a straight face. Not when she received more votes than Obama, received more votes than anyone ever in the history of primaries, had more delegates than Obama, and that because neither one of them had enough delegates, they should have gone to the convention, but instead her delegates were stolen on live tv and the convention was turned into a giant narcissistic party with greek columns.

    ie, even with her war vote, more people and delegates went for her than for Obama, so it’s hard to see how a vote LOST anything for her. That’s more something a non-involved person says from hearing it repeated ad nauseum on the news.

  40. Wikipedia

    In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

  41. S
    May 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/thin-democratic-bench-brings-hillarys-vp-options-down-to-this-one-man/

    names being pushed…

    Julian Castro

    Corey Booker
    ugh…Deval Patrick
    ——-
    Castro?

    The putative VP??

    Fidel, maybe, Raul perhaps, but Julian? Neverre.

    For this article posted on Dan Abrams site to make any sense, the best explanation is a thin bench.

    Or, better still, a non existent one.

    This joker is a mutt, compared to Cruz or even Rubio.

  42. “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
    ___________________________

    With that definition, it does, indeed, seem like we have a been “blessed” with a troll. In that case, we all (and I must listen to my own advice) should just wear the wham out of our scroll key.

  43. I watched Donna Brazile et al steal those delegates in the DNC Rules Committee Meeting on live TV. I even remember where I was. In a motel room in Springfield PA for my daughter’s college graduation. I watched it while my wife and I were getting dressed to go pickup my daughter and head into downtown Philly for dinner at Iron Chef Morimoto’s restaurant.

    The next morning, we watched my daughter’s class graduate in the Scott Amphitheater:

    http://www.scottarboretum.org/gardentour/amphitheater/01-big.jpg

    If you want to relive the pain, here’s the CSPAN video of the DNC Rules Committee:

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?205768-1/democratic-rules-bylaws-committee-meeting

    That moment, watching CSPAN in a motel room was the moment that I knew I could not vote for Democrats. I haven’t voted for a Democrat since.

    So, don’t tell me that I don’t know full well, chapter and verse, how the primary season in 2008 unfolded. Remember, the photo I took from the front row at the Sept 2, 2007 Hill and Bill kickoff rally that I posted the other day? I took those photos. Stood in line for about six hours to stand on the front row at that rally.

    Even though the lefty Dems hated her from the get go, it was the war vote that have them the wedge to take her down in Iowa (where she finished third to John Edwards) and finish her off at the DNC Rules meeting. Without the war vote as a rallying point for the thieves, it may never have been close enough for the theft of the Florida delegates to matter. Or, maybe the Democrat Party is too sexist to nominate a woman under any circumstances. I don’t know. That’s something we could probably argue about.

    In any case, you keep calling ME a troll for attacking YOUR Democrat Party. The party that stole the nomination from Clinton in 2008. You don’t see ME supporting Donna Brazile and her buddies.

  44. I agree with you hwc. I do not cotton to this troll calling business. I think what you are doing is pointing out some of the ambiguities of her 2016 candidacy which never reared their ugly heads in 2008. Part of it of course is the effort to secure the nomination of a party which is now anti white and racist to the core. But the bigger issue for me does not involve the party or even the candidates. It is the system. A system which is transmorgifying before our eyes, and no one seems to care. And that is the part that leads me to suspect that I am wasting my time worrying about it. If it were you, me, admin, and a few others on this blog then we could have a frank discussion without ruffling feathers. Unfortunately, the electorate as a whole does not see it that way, and trying to point this out to them is like teaching pigs to sing–it is a waste of time and it annoys the pigs. The public at large is easily seduced by bread and circuses, and is easily terrified by things that go bump in the night, rather than the things that are real, should terrify and should also mobilize them to throw out the offending parties. That is the most discouraging part of it. In the end, it seems futile.

  45. wbboei
    May 16, 2015 at 6:44 pm

    May I suggest that your feelings of futility are being manipulated?

  46. Progressives and the many other friends of Barack Obama

    (CNN) —Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy was sentenced to death Saturday in a Cairo court for his role in a 2011 prison break. Morsy’s name will be passed to the Grand Mufti, along with those of a number of other defendants, for the confirmation of the death sentence on June 2.
    http://www.wpbf.com/national-news/urgent-egypt-morsy-death-sentence/33057744?utm_campaign=WPBF&utm_content=5557da4904d30155dd000002&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=trueAnthem%3A+New+Content

  47. “How could anyone who was a supporter of Hillary in 2008 forget the CHEATING, CHEATING, CHEATING?”

    exactly right!

    obama was actually crying the night of his second election because he expected to lose!!!
    his small venue was closed to the public and and he was ready to throw in the towel until the reports of voter fraud started piling up and he received 100 percent of the vote or more in many areas. 79000 reports of voter fraud had occurred when I stopped paying attention due to it being to painful to bear.

    it worked so well he decided to start the immigration flood to make sure the demonrats stayed in control.

  48. May I suggest that your feelings of futility are being manipulated?
    ————
    You may.

    Just as long as you realize that from voter fraud, to phony polling, to illegal campaign donations, to the power of billionaires to control the system, to the repudiation of campaign promises, to the massive debt, to the demise of legitimate media, to the lack of accountability, to the attacks upon citizens who seek to exercise their political rights, to the threats to fuck over whistleblowers and put them in a cage, to arming the drug cartels, to erasing our borders, to giving citizenship to illegals, to letting them take service jobs in this country, to farming out our manufacturing jobs, to letting lechers like Warren Buffett grow as large as a denisions of the gilded age and use the democrat party as his platform, to letting thieves run green energy scams, to letting big banks privatize profits while socializing their loses from the bail-out, to allowing a dictator to shred the constitution may have something to do with it as well. This suggests that we are not being manipulated. Rather, we are being frozen out and looted all at the same time.

  49. Here is an interesting conversation between Buchannan and Zuckerman who on this issue at least are on the side of the angels, and that loon for all seasons Clift and a limey fucktard on the other. This trade deal which Obama is pushing—Obama whose loyalties run to the third world and transnational corporations will cost this country hundreds of thousands of US jobs to the Koreans and Chinese who are economic nationalists. Clift is screeching and unintelligible as usual–I saw her one time at the Capital Hill Hilton wandering around in a daze in a navy blue overcoat and tennis shoes which did not match. Buchanan and Zuckerman were dismissive of her inane comments for good reason. But to the limey fucktards’s contention that this trade deal will be beneficial to the US in the long run, channeling Keynes, Mort points out that in the long run we will all be dead, whereas in the short term we all need to make a living.

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/16/zuckerman-on-tpp-you-cannot-do-it-where-hundreds-of-thousands-will-lose-jobs/

  50. So we have had 17 of these trade agreements since NAFTA.

    Could this be part of the reason why we have 93 million Americans of working age who are not working?

  51. Southern Born
    May 16, 2015 at 4:56 pm
    ——-
    Just remember a grain of sand can be irritating to an oyster, but sometimes it produces a pearl.

  52. lorac

    Ok,now I’m suspicious. Are you sure you were a Hillary supporter in 2008?

    _____________

    Thank you! Too many slip-ups to be a real 2008 Hillary supporter. Even references to PUMA were a little off.

  53. Southern Born
    May 16, 2015 at 3:29 pm
    How could anyone who was a supporter of Hillary in 2008 forget the CHEATING, CHEATING, CHEATING?

    __________

    No way in hell could anyone who supported her forget that. No way.

  54. S has done a good job of raising rational questions and concerns about Hillary. Her concerns have seemed genuine, and my impression has been that she is sincerely trying to figure out how far to the left Hillary has gone and will go. I appreciate her approach.

  55. How could anyone who was a supporter of Hillary in 2008 support the Dem Party responsible for the CHEATING, CHEATING, CHEATING?

    My ambiguity with Clinton 2016 that wbboei recognizes is simple: How in the hell can Clinton embrace that Party with such gusto for the last eight years? Who is she? Has anyone here, close observers of all things Hillary, ever seen her even drop the most subtle hint of distancing herself from it? I’ve watched and watched and listened and listened. The only thing I can come up with is that she apparently refused to go on the Sunday talk shows to deliver the video nonsense after Benghazi. She made Susan Rice do it. But, the only example I can come up with.

  56. Wow. Rick Santorum is a tool. Watched 10 Repubs speak at the Iowa Lincoln Day dinner. Santorum was his usually swarmy annoying self. He sad that radical Islam wants a 7th century version of their religion, so we should send bombers to bomb them back to the 7th century. Big smile like he really thinks this kind of rhetoric is going to play well in 2016. Sheesh.

    Trump was Trump. Lindsey Graham was John McCain; he wants to put troops back into Iraq (good luck with that). Bush and Walker were dull. Pataki was… I dunno, who is Pataki? Carson: right guy, wrong place, President is just not his gig. Paul and Fiorina were impressive again. Everyone else was meh…. No Rubio, no Cruz at this one.

  57. Shocking prediction: I think Jeb Bush is going to decide not to enter the race for the nomination to run against Hillary.

    I think that he is realizing that:

    a) a nomination when the base hates you isn’t worth it

    b) the dynasty family legacy is too much of a ball and chain to drag along

    In some ways, it’s not fair, but it is what it is. I think you can see it in his tepid campaign performance.

  58. The Smartest Guy in the Room Strikes (out) Again . . . no runs, no hits, multiple errors, covered up conveniently by big media:

    Hint: what we are dealing with here is a 360 degree fuck up.

    So sad.

    Or, if you prefer–or if you must: barry barry barry barry sad.

    As Elmer Fudd would say.

    ———–

    You’d think a fellow named Barack Hussein Obama would AT LEAST get this sort of thing right.

    HOWEVER . . . .

    Yesterday, two Saudi crown princes arrived to meet with President Obama at the Oval Office, after King Salman refused to meet Obama at the Gulf summit or at the White House.

    White House officials should have been careful to make sure everything with the two top Saudi officials went smoothly — but instead, Obama flubbed on the deputy crown prince’s name and the name of the king who forged America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. The prince sat stony-faced as Obama makes the error.

    Mistake #1: The deputy crown prince’s name is actually Mohammed bin Salman (bin means son of in Arabic); his father’s name is Salman.

    Mistake #2: The King whom President Obama called King Faisal is actually King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, who met with Roosevelt. That king’s son was named Faisal.

    Getting the names wrong “will deepen the sense in the Gulf and the wider Middle East that the president of the United States does not know what he is doing in their region,” said Elliott Abrams from The Council on Foreign Relations.

    As I’ve wondered before: did the White House fire its protocol officer? Or is it just that Barry is a better protocol officer than his protocol officer? He looks more like what he actually is: an in-over-his-head college kid who was up late partying the night before, furiously vamping in order the snow the teacher

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/16/smartest-guy-ever-to-become-president-blows-it-again/#ixzz3aMpWoVSi

  59. hwc: I can tell you from personal experience that the foreign policy establishment of both parties—epitomized by think tanks like Brookings and its evil twins are the source of our confused and ill fated foreign policy. It is not just their utopianism, which is a problem unto itself, i.e. the road to hell is paved with good intention—Montaigne. It is the further fact that group think, the constant embrace of old repudiated ideas, and the quest for tenure which predominates in an environment which tends to replicates what we see all too often in a college environment. Given all that, it should surprise no one that we can no longer manage our foreign affairs.

    Comes now Spengler with his real politic analysis, which channels the Iron Chancellor (Bismark) which I for one happen to agree with. I always have, and I always will. Substantively, it is the antidote to cloud cuckooland nonsense peddled by our Harvard trained elites. It says as Reagan did–trust but verify. Or, as my dad used to say, trust all men–but cut the cards. I am quite sure that the archangeles of the Obama Administration—like say Marie Harf, could eviscerate my argument with one toss of her mop and a claim that Obama does not take enough credit for what he has done for the world. I am sure Christians in the middle east would have a different view. Others might suspect she is a moron. Most likely a Harvard trained moron—which is the most respected kind–except perhaps to Matt Lee, who is on a diet and cannot bring himself to drink the koolaid.

    Here is what Spengler has to say about Cruz. Since I believe in a two party system, I feel compelled to weigh in on the candidates for both parties. In doing so, I find, as does he, that Cruz is “primus inter pares”.

    —————-
    Ted Cruz, the Only Republican Arrogant Enough to Be President

    We need a president arrogant enough to ignore the foreign policy establishment. And Cruz is that man. by David P. Goldman
    May 16, 2015 – 8:13 pm
    (110)

    Ted Cruz is intellectually arrogant, like Ronald Reagan. The difference is that Reagan masked his arrogance with self-deprecating humor. Sen. Cruz does a Reagan impression that would do a nightclub comedian proud, but he doesn’t have Reagan’s easy and spontaneous humor.
    One doesn’t think of Reagan as arrogant, but he was in fact the most arrogant leader we have had since Lincoln. He ignored the whole of the foreign policy establishment in his conviction that America stood to win the Cold War and bring down Communism. Then as now, the foreign policy establishment resembled Jonathan Swift’s scientists on the floating island of Laputa, treading perilously close to the edge with noses in the air.

    Sen. Cruz is authentically bright, sufficiently so for the liberal Alan Dershowitz to declare that he was the best student he had ever had at Harvard’s Law School. The conservative legal theorist Robert P. George, who taught Cruz at Princeton, says the same thing. He’s so smart that he is not the least impressed by the conservative foreign policy establishment.

    That’s what qualifies Ted Cruz for the presidency. Among the Republican candidates, Cruz is the only one to state plainly that we stayed too long in Iraq and erred in trying to turn it into Switzerland. (I exclude Rand Paul, who is a dumb rube isolationist of the old school and unqualified for national office.) Contrast this to Jeb Bush, who thinks we didn’t stay long enough. Cruz still has some things to learn, to be sure. Sending arms to Ukraine, as he proposes, is pointless. Russian leader Vladimir Putin wants to keep Ukraine in civil war indefinitely, and will match whatever we send in order to do so. Putin wants revenge for the West’s effort to break Ukraine out of the Russian sphere, and leaving the West with a bloody, bankrupt, ungovernable mess on its doorstep is his best move. As Prof. Angelo Codevilla told a Claremont Institute gathering last October, the way to frustrate Putin is to let him keep the Russian-majority Eastern Ukraine, a rust-bucket and money pit of no value to the West; the Western part of Ukraine would then be Catholic and pro-Western.

    Sixteen years of George W. Bush and Barack Obama will leave the next president with a different world: a new Sino-Russian entente directed against the US, and chaos in most of the Middle East. Both are the consequence of foreign policy utopianism. We destroyed the century-long balance of power in Iraq and Syria by forcing majority rule in Iraq, and stood godfather to a perpetual Sunni-Shi’ite civil war. We tried to flip Ukraine to the West, and Putin allied with China. We have scored nothing but own-goals. We are spending a trillion and a half dollar on the Edsel of the air, the F-35, and have allowed China to narrow the technology gap that once made the United States the dominant superpower.

    The foreign policy establishment of both parties agrees that it is America’s mission to remake the world in its own image, although the liberal Wilsonian and the neo-conservative Republican versions of this utopia have minor differences. We need a president arrogant enough to ignore the whole pack of them, just like Reagan did. That requires arrogance more than any other quality.
    Things looked bad when Ronald Reagan came into office. Most of the intellectual elite in Europe as well as the U.S. thought that Russia would win the Cold War. Of course, Reagan had one gigantic advantage: the U.S. was the only venue in the world where an entrepreneur could raise money for disruptive new technologies. The talent of the world came to America, while Russia and China remained paralyzed by Communism and Europe remained moribund. That’s not true today: China and other Asian countries are innovating, in some cases faster than we are. If you don’t believe me, visit the Science Park in Shenzhen where Tencent and other Chinese computer firms have facilities. The next president will have a much tougher mission. Sen. Cruz is the only candidate who is tough, smart and arrogant enough to do the job.
    Marco Rubio is a bright and personable young man with an attractive message, but he is callow enough to think that Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are foreign policy sages. Rubio speaks eloquently of his support for Israel, but a great deal of what he proposes will damage Israeli interests. For the past ten years, Russia has told us that it would hurt us in Iran in retaliation for Western efforts to get control of Ukraine. Russia is threatening to give Iran sophisticated air-defense systems; if it wants to, Russia can create a huge amount of trouble for us in Iran. America’s stupidity in Ukraine turns Israel into collateral damage; every Israeli I know thinks that American policy toward Ukraine is crazy.

    Scott Walker is a terrific governor and an attractive candidate, but he has no foreign policy experience–unlike Reagan, who did a weekly foreign policy radio broadcast for a decade, and did his own research. Walker could persuade me that he knows what he’s doing, but I haven’t heard much from him yet. Foreign policy is too important for the next administration for us to elect a president who needs on-the-job training.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2015/05/16/ted-cruz-the-only-republican-arrogant-enough-to-be-president/#ixzz3aP95CESM

  60. Yes. I read that op-ed on Cruz last night. High praise from the loathsome Alan Dershowitz, who I’m sure has had a number of impressive students at Harvard Law. Cruz clerked for a Supreme Court Chief Justice. I hear those are pretty tough positions to get. 🙂

    There’s another article up this morning quoting a bunch of billionaire PAC donors regarding their meetings with Cruz. Several Bush supporters. Many said that he was brilliant in one-on-one policy discussions and likely to be elected President sometime in the next four cycles.

    I don’t think it’s at all unrealistic to see a path to the nomination for him THIS cycle.

    Alternatively, he would have to get serious consideration for a Supreme Court nomination at some point.

  61. Obama’s failure: the inability to conceptualize what ISIS is, the challenge it represents, and the much hyped and entirely ineffectual deployment of industrial age weaponry to defeat an information age foe. Yet another example of the kind of idiot we are dealing with:

    “When president Obama described ISIS as a “jayvee team” he was being entirely candid, unable to imagine how a bunch of big beards in a few SUVs could possibly stand up to the might of the One Who Rides Around in Air Force One and Dances with the Stars, making the classic mistake of mirror imaging.”—Richard Rodriguez.

    It does not simply fail to mirror the nation state model conceived five hundred years ago. It defies it, it feeds of it, and in the end, it destroys it. The forces of civilization are thus in retreat, thanks to the blame america first leftist–like Obama, and the militarists who never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved through saturation bombing–like Bush.

    None of our vaunted foreign policy experts, certainly not the best and the brightest at Brookings has figured this out. Leave it to a former software engineer to identify the deeper forces that are moving—and transforming our world. For my money, and that of others who follow his blog, Richard Rodriguez has no equal. Not even close.
    —–

    Fighting Entropy
    Richard Rodriguez
    May 17th, 2015 – 5:26 am

    Most of us have watched movies where a mysterious threat attacks an unsuspecting community. They may be vampires ravaging an Alaskan town or a blob-like being swallowing a town. Typically the defenders, at first confident, are rapidly dismayed when they find that police firearms have little effect against the creatures. With that realization the characters go from complacent to desperate in a few minutes of movie time until the hunted survivors are forced by desperation to try an outlandish theory from a crackpot who has a peculiar insight into the nature of the monsters.

    Sometimes real life resembles a horror movie, as in the present instance when Westphalian states find to their surprise that the state-killing bullets in their arsenal can’t kill Islamic extremism. Perhaps the epitome of such weapons is the precision guided missile-firing drone or its equivalent, the special forces raiding team directed by the signals intelligence wizardry of the NSA. This targeted force is like Zeus’ thunderbolt; it is inconceivably potent, almost unimaginably effective. Surely such a thing can destroy what the president of the United States aims it at. (snip)

    Now that America has put a bullet through the body, head and wallet surely all that is left is to watch ISIS die. SECDEF Ashton Carter believes they’ve dealt it a serious blow. But others are not so sure. “Michael Weiss, author of “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror,” said Abu Sayyaf was unknown to close observers of the organization.” Killing him won’t hurt it any more than its been hurt before.(snip)

    But like the monster in the movie, it’s taken “three billion electro-volts of energy and it’s still coming on”! Why have none of the previous heavy blows slowed ISIS or any of the affiliated rebel groups down? Why is the jihadi organism inexplicably resistant to leadership disruptions, whether caused by drone strikes or the murderous work of rivals from other factions? How can it stand against the Olympian thunderbolt? This is an important question to answer.

    It’s resistant because it is not a state.

    No it’s not made of “solid nuclear material”. But unlike a state, headed by an Emperor of Japan or Fuhrer, Islamic militancy has the apparent ability to reconfigure itself on the fly; to find energy from catastrophes that would delegitimize ordinary state institutions. The Syrian rebel scene is a case in point. It’s a constellation of merging and splitting groups with fanciful names like “Defenders of Jerusalem”, “Knights of Justice”, “Shields of Revolution”, “Sham Legion”, “Knights of Constantinople” and “Euphrates Volcano”. It’s a regular Legion of Doom.

    In this environment a damaged Al-Qaeda evolves into ISIS or spawns an al-Nusrah, like a Hydra sprouting heads or water groping a path down a slope. Groups are constantly dividing, consolidating and taking each other over. Instead of dying under the blows of the administration, the collective organism mutates; it has now acquired the unnerving capacity to engage in “united front” tactics with governments and rival armed groups in Iraq and Syria. (snip)

    That’s impressive, considering Obama cannot even get his allies to attend a summit at Camp David.

    Part of the reason why the state-killing bullets of Obama don’t work is because they’re designed to kill something ISIS is not. The error is instinctive. Calling Abu Sayyaf a “chief financial officer” or ISIS “oil-minister” is a case in point. He’s nothing of the sort. The man is probably just a glorified border smuggler. Mike Giglio of Buzzfeed described the oil smuggling business on the Syrian-Turkish border in great detail. It’s a million dollar a day business for ISIS at best, conducted with drums, plastic cans transported in vans and pickup trucks or pumped over buried pipes to Turkey. On the scale of world affairs, a million dollars a day is hardly even a major oil business; it is something more suitable for a Turkish gangster than an energy mogul. Yet we think of him as a “minister” because ministers can think in no other way.

    But non-states can operate on chump-change, and Obama doesn’t fully grasp this. Cities, elaborate bureaucracies, constitutions — all of the paraphernalia of a Westphalian state that Obama cherishes — are irrelevancies to ISIS-like organizations. Armin Rosen notes that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was hiding out in a hick town in Iraq with a population of less than 5,000. When president Obama described ISIS as a “jayvee team” he was being entirely candid, unable to imagine how a bunch of big beards in a few SUVs could possibly stand up to the might of the One Who Rides Around in Air Force One and Dances with the Stars, making the classic mistake of mirror imaging.

    One analyst who understands this is former Army intelligence analyst Jessica Lewis McFate who writes: “ISIS is a state-breaker”. It doesn’t thrive on hierarchy or order and UN meetings. It thrives on chaos. She explains that the basic unit of jihadi control is conquered territory, which is not the same as a state territory. Conquered territory is the current area open to plunder and may shift as need arises. Such opportunities only present themselves in a collapse.

    Control of cities … are not, however, the metric by which to measure the defeat of ISIS’s fighting force.

    ISIS’s ability to remain as a violent group, albeit rebranded, has already been demonstrated, given the near-defeat of its predecessor AQI in 2008 and its resurgence over … a vast dominion across Iraq and Syria.

    In this most dangerous form, ISIS is a counter-state, a state-breaker that can claim new rule and new boundaries after seizing cities across multiple states by force, an unacceptable modern precedent. (snip)

    ISIS, despite its name, does not live to become a Westphalian state. On the contrary, it lives by breaking down Westphalian states. It gets its energy from the throes of a dying country; from ransoms, looting, extortion, smuggling, people trafficking, rape and pillage. Thus Obama’s decision to dismantle American hegemony in the Middle East, whatever its merits, had the unfortunate side effect of increasing entropy. That, plus the wayward consequences of the Arab Spring supercharged the rise of ISIS-like organizations.

    It fed the beast with a huge input of chaos and quick, give it another burst. Send Saudi Arabia after it with its corrupt, incompetent army. What could go wrong?

    The jihadis are so fat on fuel they can hardly masticate the feast. One can only imagine what will happen when the Jihad ingests a major regional country, the oil-rich Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia. It will look like Libya, only much bigger. When the jihad eats Saudi Arabia it will glow like a nova on the nutrients of a collapsing House of Saud. And then it will be on to Europe. It’s in the cards. Journalists are becoming gradually aware that the flood of migrants to Europe is yet another money making branch of the jihad.

    It’s in the cards because Europe is where the loot will be after MENA is sucked dry. The key to understanding Islamic extremism’s invulnerability to ordinary Westphalian bullets is to grasp that it is something like a living life form, which exists not at the level of the state, but in small groups and clans. It is self-organizing, “triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.”

    To survive it needs a constant source of outside energy to keep it going and that insight is perhaps why Ashton Carter and the US military tried to take out its “oil minister — in the hope that the loss would power it down, like an angiogenesis inhibitor. However it is unlikely that killing or capturing Abu Sayyaf will of itself, hurt ISIS by much. We need another kind of ray to put the crimp on it, but that is for another post.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/05/17/fighting-entropy/#ixzz3aPW7ge29

  62. Troll Antidote:

    The Serenity Prayer

    God grant me the serenity
    To accept the things I cannot change;
    Courage to change the things I can;
    And wisdom to know the difference.

    Living one day at a time;
    Enjoying one moment at a time;
    Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
    Taking, as He did, this sinful world
    As it is, not as I would have it;
    Trusting that He will make all things right
    If I surrender to His Will;
    So that I may be reasonably happy in this life
    And supremely happy with Him
    Forever and ever in the next.

    Amen.

  63. To the clueless category of experts you can add Larry Johnson, who I like. But even he does not understand the challenge presented by ISIS, and he is also mired in the Bush Plame controversy to full envision what the future will look like. The future belongs to the non state actor, and national defense will require two skills: the ability to protect our financial system, and the ability to come up with an effective solution to the non state threat. Technology alone cannot do it, and it can easily lead to tyranny. We need a strategy, and for that we need to think outside the box of state actors like Brookings. A better source would be AEI if they can separate themselves from the antediluvian preoccupations of the Republican establishment.

  64. Lu4PUMA
    May 17, 2015 at 12:09 pm
    ———
    Et tu Lu?

    No wider discussion permitted here?

    By whose divine decree?

    Are we to mirror the behavior of bots?

  65. To put a finer point on it–the megapolitical threats presented in the first quarter of this century are:

    1. state actors: the threat to bring down our system without firing a shot—-through some attack on our financial system–hopefully not one that our elites step into the middle of through their own greed and incompetence. With no adults left in the room that is no hypothetical fear.

    2. non-state actors: the threat to wage war against the western democracies through unconventional means—and to feed off the carcass fo failed states, to export their evil through major demographic shifts, and to ally themselves with the hard left in this country to bring down what they claim to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, capitalist order, which has sunk deep roots in media and universities.

  66. I just want to say right now, about whenever Hillary starts doing campaign events…

    If she plants a stooge at every rally to scream “WE LOVE YOU” when she takes the stage and she responds “LOVE YOU BACK”, I’m going to vomit…

  67. When faced with an adversary, whether they are more aggressive or just way bigger than you, I have found that the Serenity Prayer works quite well. Take the Global Oligarchy that has taken control of our political system. Every way we move, we lose, so it would seem. But the truth is that their determination to control is fear driven. For good cause.

    You sell your soul for money and then you lose your money, what have you got? The system they built to obtain their wealth is not sustainable. They pushed it one more level with the interventions done in 2008. But it is still a Ponzi scheme. Inflated assets without productivity. Financial cannibalism. The longer and higher the high, the bigger the crash. And it is crashing. They are desperately looking for ways to sustain it. And it is not pretty. There is talk of negative interest rates and doing away with cash so that the government just controls everything. And they are actively looking for ways to implement these things. They are getting more and more dangerous because they are getting more and more fearful.

    We are warned by many economists of this crash. It will be global. It will be ugly. There is nowhere to hide. Cash? Gold? Property? Make your best plans and pray. I am at a point in my life where it is problematic. I should be preparing for my retirement. But live free and die young would have been fine for me except that I have a daughter. And so I fight. I say bring on the crash if it gets these malignant oligarchs gone. They have left us with so little to lose.

    That being said, I am making a list and going to be calling our “representatives” in Congress this week about the TPP. If anyone know a site that is organizing any lists of how these yutzes are voting, please post.

  68. wbboei
    May 17, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Lu4PUMA
    May 17, 2015 at 12:09 pm
    ———————————–
    Wbboei,

    The intent of the troll is not discussion, it is demoralization. There are many articles on the internet about such people and none of them recommend discussions with them.

  69. Voting doesn’t make you a better citizen, comprehending the issues makes you better.

    Voting without that makes us all suckers.—Actor Richard Dreyfuss

    ——–

    Election Coming: Nobody Knows Anything

    by Richard Dreyfuss

    MAY 11, 2015 – 12:00 AM

    This is a pre-partisan statement that should find agreement across the political landscape: None of the front-page stories on any newspaper in the country are understood by anyone.

    From the Wall Street bailout to the Middle East to the Ukraine and Russia, no content or clear lines to content are available, and that’s true of any American TV news, network or cable.

    This is the result of a complete absence of teaching current events in our schools and teaching without context or candor. We have eviscerated our children’s education and unconsciously treat them as people we hate, denying them any excellence or agility of mind.

    Western kids are reportedly trying to join ISIS; why? Perhaps because the only spiritual movement being discussed in public, however ugly its ideology, is extremist Islam. Judeo-Christian spirituality seems pallid and disconnected; certainly Americans are no longer learning the secular faith of the Constitution, the musculature of republican democracy, its values of individual worth, its religious tolerance, its embrace of opportunity and merit.

    Kids who grow up in a spiritual void may drift to ideological thuggery because we let go of its most powerful enemy, the mobility of mind that comes from Enlightenment values.

    Our values are not transmitted genetically; they must be taught. They’re not. We’re asked to make choices between political parties that have ceased all rational intentions to communicate their stand on issues with any clarity. We live in an hypnotic trance of inaction because we aren’t taught how to run the nation, that we as a people are the highest sovereign power, that we can and should hold villains accountable.

    Voting doesn’t make you a better citizen, comprehending the issues makes you better. Voting without that makes us all suckers.

    Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfuss is the founder of The Dreyfuss Civics Initiative.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/05/11/election-coming-nobody-knows-anything/#ixzz3aPlwNKSF

  70. Lu4PUMA
    May 17, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    ———
    Well, maybe that is the difference between you and me.

    I do not feel demoralized when someone who supported Hillary raises doubts.

    Those results are there for most of us who are paying attention.

    I will listen to them until Hillary makes a clean break with Obama.

    Only then can I know for sure that she is the change candidate we need.

    Once again, my concern relates to policies, not personalities.

  71. Lets get one thing straight in this whole brouhaha over Boy George:

    Stephie may have been a Clinton advisor early in his career, but that ended when he left the administration and wrote his tell all book.

    For years Bill would not speak to him because of that breach of trust.

    FOX and others are quick to vilify him as a Clinton surrogate masquerading as a journalist.

    Because that serves their agenda.

    But he is not a loyalist–history proves that, when you consider the entire record.

    When you consider the entire record, it becomes obvious that he is nothing more than a crass opportunist only out for himself.

    And to that end, he will do this and other things that do not withstand scrutiny when viewed in the light of day.

    George is corrupt, and that is where it starts stops and ends.

    Is ABC content to have a corrupt man like him being its public face?

    If you talk with Westin the answer is yes.

    But Westin is damaged goods.

    I had occasion to ask him about CNN censorship and other issues in a public forum when he came to Seattle promoting his book.

    He acknowledged that CNN had a problem, ditto NBC, but he assured me that his (former) network ABC was a pillar of journalistic integrity.

    If so, then it is a styromphone pillow not unlike those that adorned the landscape in Denver in 2008 when Obama promised us all a new heaven and a new earth, and big media stooges like him fell to their knees in ritualistic worship.

  72. Any objective evaluation of the Obama legacy must recognize the adverse impact of his rejection of American exceptionalism and leadership.

    That rejection is what is causing the world to collapse and to unleash the forces that now threaten to engulf it.

    Spengler confirms this with the following truism:

    “The world will be a miserable and dangerous place without our leadership, strategic as well as economic. Most of the world’s cultures are failing, and if we forget what makes us different, we will suffer the same decline.”

  73. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 1:12 pm
    ———
    I hear ya, but I think it was a pretty clean break.

    Stephie is no longer credible to an objective audience.

    This is a bigger problem for ABC than the Baron Von Munchausen tall tales of lying brian was for NBC.

    Or the suppression of investigative journalism by Scott Pelly at CBS.

  74. Having betrayed their trust for personal advancement, Stephie could never again be a trusted ally, much less a trusted adviser. Just another journalist whore to be nice to, and make him feel he is important.

  75. If I recall from reading Stephie’s book (it’s been many, many years), his falling out with the Clintons centered around his relentlessly pushing them to take more liberal far-left positions and Clinton finally having to just get rid of him because he was so annoying.

  76. It is gratifying to see these big media titans taken down by citizen journalists. As these demigods come crashing down to earth, and their employers assure us that they will gladly stand by their man, it reminds me of that time in the late 1980s when Russian citizens tossed a cable around the statue of Stalin in Red Square, and it fell to earth with the force of an extinct meteorite.

  77. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    If I recall from reading Stephie’s book (it’s been many, many years), his falling out with the Clintons centered around his relentlessly pushing them to take more liberal far-left positions and Clinton finally having to just get rid of him because he was so annoying.
    —–
    Well, that would be his (self serving) interpretation.

    But that would not explain the freeze out for many years.

    The rule of probability suggests that His betrayal was at the heart of it.

    A betrayal which now makes him less of a surrogate than critics want the rest of us to believe.

    Bottom line: Stephie is a complete whore, and a stain on ABC’s reputation.

  78. Richard Dreyfus forgot to mention one important thing…

    Election Coming..No One Knows Anything…has he taken a look at the current President O…he does everything in secret…and is the master of distraction and the leader of shallowness…

    no one knows what is in his Iran deal

    no one knows what is in his TPP deal

    no one knew or currently knows what is in his Ocare…many of those so called subsidies that people got are now being required to be repaid….what he giveth he takes away…

    evidently O doesn’t even know because he finds out most of what his admin is doing reading it in the paper or on TV

    on and on…

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

    Freespirit…thank you for your comment above…

    …it is difficult to take O apart and then be silent if Hillary supports him and then many of us continue to argue against O on the same issues…hypocrisy doesn’t help us…call me naive…and let me just throw in…if Hillary is going to the first female President…then I would love to see her win and doing her job as President… different than most of the men before her…with less of the BS…like I said…call me naive…

    I have come to the position that it is early…Hillary does have to be careful for extra traps that are being set for her and on all sides around her…along with a very willing press…

    I have heard that she is planning a rally and speech in June…and will start interacting more…she would have avoided alot of this if she had just waited longer to jump in and said very little about immigration…instead she went full speed ahead on that issue…she invited the discussion…

    at a certain point she is going to have to take clear stands and project as a leader and not get ‘defined’ as someone sitting on the sidelines or trying to have it both ways…

    I do still believe she has that leader inside of her…however it is going to be up to Hillary to let that leader out when the time is right…

    I know she has to deal with the far left of the party…I just don’t want her to sell out and lose her common sense and standing in the middle…which I do think is one of her greatest strengths…

    …and I am genuinely worried about the influence of O people in her campaign and the direction they may want to push her in…right now it feels like she is being directed to have ‘his back’…

    I just am sincerely hoping to see and welcome Hillary the strong, independent leader many of us respect…and not someone who is so inside the game in DC that she has to trade away and deal make and compromise so much that we, the American people, are last again and just get stuck with all the bills…

    I do not want the American people…and the middle class…taken for granted…

  79. Oh, yeah. His book was definitely self-serving. Didn’t it open with a vignette of him sitting in his White House office seething because he was excluded from a meeting with Clinton and Dick Morris or Gergen or somebody?

    The amazing thing is that anyone watches network news coverage of anything. I haven’t watched a network news show since 2008, except for the odd highlight clip, like Stephie’s interrogation of Peter Schweizer…

    I’ll never forget Stephie as the moderator of a 2012 Republican debate (who’s great idea was that?) asking Mitt Romney if he thought contraception should be banned.

  80. I try to be fair and balanced in my limited consumption of TV/radio news. I occasionally watch the nightly news with Brett Bahre on Fox, mostly because the panel is usually intelligent, biting, and entertaining.

    And, I consume regular doses of my favorite NPR politics/current affairs radio show (podcast version) to get the lefty view. They cover political campaigns almost exclusively with Democrat partisan media (but I repeat myself) guests.

  81. wbboei
    May 17, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Lu4PUMA
    May 17, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    ———
    Well, maybe that is the difference between you and me.

    I do not feel demoralized when someone who supported Hillary raises doubts.
    —————————————

    Wbboei,

    You have been expressing feeling of futility. I have suggested manipulation.

    Let me make this clear. I do not believe our troll ever supported Hillary and is more likely manipulator paid by Soros and company. They obviously have an emotional stake in the progressive movement because they show their true selves, when they are criticized, with numerous nasty trivial troll turds.

  82. Lu4PUMA
    May 17, 2015 at 2:20 pm
    ————
    Honestly Lu I thought he did. I recall comments by hwc in the 2008 time frame which were supportive of Hillary. Thus, I tend to review criticism as par for the course. Think back to those who were with us then and have since left–they number in the hundreds–emjay, marry richards, abm 90, all of them solid supporters. They were part of that army who labored hard and unselfishly to get Hillary into the oval office. They were sustained by all manner of things. For some it was gender, for others the appearance of competence and for others–like me it was policy driven. And none of us were stupid enough to buy Obama’s bullshit, which was a mile wide, six inches deep and seized upon by stupid asses, and insiders for their own schemes. For many of us, Hillary’s refusal to separate herself from Obama, the merger of her campaign team with his, presented a problem. The line which was once so clear began to blurr. The faith that sustained us that she was the truth and he was the lie was shaken. It is against that backdrop that the comments by some on this blog, dismissed by others on this blog as trolls make sense to me. Quo vadis Hillary. Because if it is in the same direction as Obama, or a similar one it will lead to more and more disaster. Therefore, for those of us who care about policy, we wait to hear how she would turn the ship of state around and restore order to the world. And we want to know where the constitition fits in her thinking–because that is the source of our strength as a nation, as Justice Scalia has correctly noted.

  83. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 2:06 pm
    —-
    You realize, I am sure, that FOX has already decided who it will support: Bush. The tells are all there. We have heard this from Krauthamer, Hayes among other. And recently, in a hypothetical we heard it from Kelly. It mirrors the thinking of Murdock and of Roger Ailes. And we saw it before in their takedown of Gingrich. And Levin has pointed this out as well. It is a done deal. The question thus becomes how do those of us who have rejected big media, find the truth. Returning to big media is a fools errand. They have shot their wad for all eternity, and they need to expire.

  84. I think I can safely say that the tidal wave of money showered on Jebediah is stupid money because the beneficiary is an unattractive candidate with a toxic name and a wooden manner. It stems from Bush loyalists who contribute for the sake of their group, rather than the merits of an obviously defective candidate.

  85. It’s On. Now where is that Peace Prize?

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Middle_East/article1557090.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_05_17

    AUDI ARABIA has taken the “strategic decision” to acquire “off-the-shelf” atomic weapons from Pakistan, risking a new arms race in the Middle East, according to senior American officials.

    The move by the Gulf kingdom, which has financed much of Islamabad’s nuclear programme over the past three decades, comes amid growing anger among Sunni Arab states over a deal backed by President Barack Obama, which they fear could allow their arch foe, Shi’ite Iran, to develop a nuclear bomb.

    The agreement, which is due to be finalised by the end of next month and involves the permanent members of the UN security council and Germany, is designed to roll back part of Tehran’s nuclear programme in return for an easing of UN sanctions.

  86. I’ll never forget Stephie as the moderator of a 2012 Republican debate (who’s great idea was that?) asking Mitt Romney if he thought contraception should be banned.
    ——-

    Erickson:

    The real story in my mind is that the Republican Party ever thought George Stephanopoulos should moderate a Republican Presidential debate to begin with.

    George Stephanopoulos may be as objective as possible, but he is still a liberal with a liberal world view. That thinking shapes his questions to candidates and was on full display in 2012 when he asked Mitt Romney about banning birth control.

    Not one damn soul in America thinks that is going to happen and there is not a single elected official in the United States who is seriously considering that, or was even considering it in 2012. But George Stephanopoulos felt the need to ask that question as a way to set up a media gotcha moment to feed on the “war on women” narrative.

    And the Republican Party still felt like it could let the former Clinton employee moderate a Republican debate in a year Hillary Clinton is running for President.

    That’s the story. That is the shocking part.

  87. If you want a name, as to who would allow Stephie to moderate the Republican debate—the answer is Rence Priebus—head of the RNC.

  88. DrudgeReport at the moment features as the top link a Washington Post article which regurgitates much of what we have written:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-leaders-worry-their-deep-bench-of-candidates-may-cause-trouble/2015/05/16/81683062-fb1a-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

    With no clear front-runner and Bush so far unable to consolidate his path to the nomination — his fumbles over the Iraq war and his brother’s legacy further exposed his vulnerabilities — the GOP’s internecine battle could stretch well into the spring of 2016.

    This could cost presidential aspirants tens of millions of dollars; pull them far to the right ideologically, from hot-button social issues to foreign policy; and jeopardize their general-election chances. And in such a muddled lineup — officials are planning to squeeze 10 or more contenders onto the debate stage — candidates will be rewarded for finding creative ways to gain notice.

    “We’re in a danger zone,” said Doug Gross, a top Republican establishment figure in Iowa. “When the party poobahs put this process together, they thought they could telescope this to get us a nominee who could appeal to a broad cross-section of people. What we’ve got instead is a confederation of a lot of candidates who aren’t standing out — and in order to stand out, you need to scream the loudest.”

    Looming above the GOP show is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the dominant Democratic candidate whom Republican officials brashly dismiss as a scandal-plagued, out-of-touch relic of the past but whose early strength and political durability is nevertheless giving them a serious scare.

    Republican officials are dismayed that months of relentless, negative press coverage of her use of private e-mail servers, foreign donations to her family’s charitable foundation and her six-figure paid speeches have done minimal damage to her favorability ratings. [snip]

    At the start of the year Bush was seen as the most electable contender and a favorite for the nomination. Thanks to his dynastic family’s deep network, Bush began building a juggernaut of a campaign.

    But he has shown himself to be politically rusty, most acutely last week, as he twisted himself into knots over the unpopular war started by his brother, former president George W. Bush. Finally, he said on Thursday that he would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the intelligence failures at the time. Meanwhile, among activists in the early voting states, the former Florida governor has yet to catch on, raising doubts about his ability to unite the party.

    Instead of a front-runner, Republicans have an array of candidates demonstrating strength. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker got off to a fast start in January and sits at or near the top in many polls, while Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) rose with a splashy April campaign launch that highlighted his charisma and youthful vigor. Others have impressed, too, including Carly Fiorina, a former technology executive and the lone woman in the field, who is considered a long shot but wowed RNC members in Scottsdale with her substantive stump speech and cutting attacks on Clinton.

    Republican activists love that they have so many candidates to consider.

    Instead of “prepping the battlefield” against Hillary Republicans should concern themselves with what they are selling. McDonalds worries about how many burgers they are selling not how many burgers Wendy’s sells.

  89. You realize, I am sure, that FOX has already decided who it will support: Bush. The tells are all there. We have heard this from Krauthamer, Hayes among other. And recently, in a hypothetical we heard it from Kelly. It mirrors the thinking of Murdock and of Roger Ailes.

    Yes. I suspect that’s true. Ailes sets the editorial slant and I suspect Bush would be his default candidate. Generally speaking, the Fox view is mainstream centrist Republican. That’s fine for now. Nobody at Fox News knows how the Republican race is going to shake out.

    Personally, I think Bush is toast. He’ll be a on a short leash as the money guys and party poobahs don’t want this thing to drag on forever. If Bush falters, they’ll move on. I actually think Bush will decide not to officially enter the contest.

  90. I thought the WaPost article was a typical WaPost Democrat view of the Republican race. I haven’t seen much negative to worry about to this point. Of course, I expect the field to narrow pretty quickly as some of the “hopefuls” fail to gain any traction.

    One of Santorum’s big supporters from 2012 endorsed Cruz on Saturday. Jindal, Huckabee, Santorum, and Perry are going to be running on fumes from the get go and will be under pressure to get out sooner rather than later.

    The dynamics aren’t like 2012 where the party hated Romney and was willing to support the devil (or even Newt) if that was the last one standing against Romney.

    This time around, Bush is playing the role of Romney, but the power brokers know their best shot is rallying around one of the potential winning candidates, not some loser.

  91. Instead of “prepping the battlefield” against Hillary, Republicans should concern themselves with what they are selling. McDonalds worries about how many burgers they are selling not how many burgers Wendy’s sells.

    —–

    And with McDonald’s and Wendy’s, although not the best quality, the question remains:

    Where’s the beef?

  92. Republican officials are dismayed that months of relentless, negative press coverage of her use of private e-mail servers, foreign donations to her family’s charitable foundation and her six-figure paid speeches have done minimal damage to her favorability ratings. [sn
    ————-
    Which is what I have said too. Ever since Lee Attwater they have been so committed to the negative campaign.

    What they ought to have learned from the late 90s was that kamikazee attacks against the Clintons are no substitute for having a platform that empowers the American People rather than the Chamber of Commerce.

    The final shoe to drop was their unequivocal support for TPP which is favored by the Chamber, but will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs to people in this country, thereby engendering the very thing they claim to oppose—the welfare state.

    This nation would have fallen on its face in the late 19th century if Hamilton had not appeared on the scene. He argued that free trade would kill us, and advocated in favor of economic nationalism. Like the ill fated Bourbons, McConnell, Corker and their ilk have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

  93. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 3:54 pm
    ——
    Forget the article, focus on the core problem, which is the big divide between RINOS and the conservative base.

    That is not the kind of thing that can be lightly dismissed, nor does it portend of halcion days ahead.

    As for the party leaders–there are none.

    That is what Peggy Noonan has told us. Not like there were a generation ago.

    Today, it is simply competing money men who call the shots.

    And to working people in this country, they offer merely, blood, tears, toil and sweat—-and no victory at the end.

  94. hwc: you suggested my statements about productivity came from Cruz and I told you they did not, but I could not recall specifically where they came from. I just found the article which I was channeling–it is called: The Mystery of Declining Productivity Growth by Princeton Professor Alan Blinder which appeared in WSJ last Friday.

    Another article which came from that same paper on that same day was an excellent one by Cleta Mitchell, a super lawyer who represents Tea Party Groups who were targeted by the weaponized IRS. Lois Learner has been held in contempt by Congress, but it no prosecution against her will occur, because the same executive branch that perpetrated the crime is charged with its prosecution.

    The solution to that problem is to give Congress standing to sue in federal court, rather than forcing them to defer to a US Attorney who is as corrupt and self interested in the outcome as the Obama hack in DC.

    However, as she rightly concludes: “this will be a difficult challenge as long as partisans in both Houses see their role as political gate keepers to protect the executive when he is from their party. . . Yet it is a challenge that cannot be shirked (to prevent) continuing abuses of power by the executive branch.”

  95. Republican officials are dismayed that months of relentless, negative press coverage of her use of private e-mail servers, foreign donations to her family’s charitable foundation and her six-figure paid speeches have done minimal damage to her favorability ratings. [snip]
    —————————–
    They have passed the tipping point. Gone too far. All the attacks in ’08 and now. People ended up with Obama, now knowing they would have been way better off with Hillary. Her defects are minimal compared to his glaring deficiencies. And those of Bush, for that matter. Can I say the attacks have lost their credibility? The Republicans, now joining with Obama on TPP, have lost their credibility? Maybe people are not so stupid, but have come to understand that she is the populous last chance. If she is insincere about being their champion, well, there is no one else, anyway.

  96. By ALAN S. BLINDER
    May 14, 2015 7:10 p.m. ET
    120 COMMENTS
    Are you worrying about America’s recent dismal productivity performance? You should be. Productivity gains are the wellspring of higher living standards, and the well has been running pretty dry lately.

    How dry and how lately? I prefer to date the slowdown in productivity growth from the end of 2010 because productivity growth (in the nonfarm business sector) averaged a bountiful 2.6% per annum from mid-1995 through the end of 2010, but only a paltry 0.4% since. Other scholars prefer earlier break points. For example, productivity growth averaged 2.9% from mid-1995 through the end of 2005, but only 1.3% since.

    Either way, the drop is large, and the scary thing is that we don’t understand why.

    One cheerful hypothesis is that the problem is a statistical illusion. By definition, labor productivity growth is the growth of measured output minus the growth of labor input. So if we undercount output growth, we automatically understate productivity growth. One notable aspect of modern life is the wide array of online services people now get for free. Because they are free, they add nothing to measured output growth, which seems like a measurement error. But what are they “really” worth?

    To account for a 1.6 percentage-point decline in the productivity growth rate for 10 years, all those new apps, social media and free services would now have to be worth almost $2.5 trillion more per year than in 2005. That’s not believable.

    A second hypothesis sees the dismal productivity performance after 2010 as payback for the marvelous performance of 2009 and 2010, when productivity soared while the economy was weak. American businesses shed workers so fast that annual productivity growth topped 3% for two years. Then, as the economy improved, firms had to catch up by hiring many more workers, and hours of work rose rapidly. This sort of catch-up seemed a plausible explanation in 2011 and 2012. But productivity growth still has not returned to a normal rate of 2% or more.

    A third hypothesis, weak investment, is more promising. The basic idea is straightforward: If the capital stock grows more slowly, as it has in recent years, workers will have less new capital to work with, and their productivity will therefore improve more slowly.

    But when it comes to making that intuitive idea numerical, the time period matters a lot. I’ll spare you the calculations, but the necessary data, which end in 2013, show that weak investment can account for about 70% of the sharp slowdown after 2010. But three years is too short a time period to draw any conclusions. If we date the productivity slowdown from 2005, weak investment accounts for only about 25% of the slowdown.

    Here are two less conventional, even counterintuitive, hypotheses.

    First, a series of papers co-authored by John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland has documented a surprising fact: American businesses are churning and reallocating labor less than they used to. That’s good, you say: Reduced labor market volatility makes life less onerous for workers. Yes, but Mr. Haltiwanger and his colleagues point to a downside: Less churning may connote less entrepreneurial dynamism, which could slow down productivity improvements.

    “Wait,” you might say. “One trip to Silicon Valley will disabuse you of this notion. Industrial dynamism is in the air.” Maybe so. But Silicon Valley is just one corner of the economy. The Haltiwanger studies test their hypothesis with national data and find evidence that declining dynamism started in the 1980s, but spread into high-tech industries, and perhaps accelerated, in the 2000s.

    Second, consider the possibility that technological progress has actually slowed in recent years, despite all the whiz-bang stories you read in the business press.

    Impossible? Well, keep in mind that to an economist “technological progress” means getting more output from the same inputs of capital and labor. Does Twitter do that? Or Snapchat? Some popular online services might even reduce productivity by turning formerly productive work hours into disguised leisure or wasted time.

    In somewhat different ways, John Fernald of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, two leading productivity experts, have argued that the greatest productivity gains from information technology came years ago, and that recent inventions look puny by comparison. Compare Facebook with the Internet, or the Apple Watch with the personal computer. Maybe inventiveness has not waned, but the productivity-enhancing impacts of inventions have.

    So what do we conclude? Low investment during and after the recession likely played some role in slowing productivity growth. Under-measurement of output probably contributed a bit too—and maybe also over-measurement of hours of work, as more office time was gobbled up by Facebook, Twitter and the like. Perhaps American industry lost some of its previous dynamism and entrepreneurship.

    But the big question mark is technological improvement. Has it really slowed down? Or are we simply waiting for the productivity fruits of the latest inventions? Tune in 20 years from now to find out. In the meantime, worry.

    Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, is the author of “After the Music Stopped: The Financial Crisis, the Response, and the Work Ahead” (Penguin, 2013).

  97. Lu4PUMA
    May 17, 2015 at 5:40 pm
    ——
    Correct. Just as long as she keeps her mouth shut, and does not allow herself to be drawn into the Obama Wars by his partisans.

  98. hwc: you suggested my statements about productivity came from Cruz

    Oh, no. I didn’t mean that. Just that there are Republican candidates saying exactly what you are saying…

    Republican officials are dismayed that months of relentless, negative press coverage of her use of private e-mail servers, foreign donations to her family’s charitable foundation and her six-figure paid speeches have done minimal damage to her favorability ratings.

    Maybe “Republicans” like David Brooks. Fake Republicans. The kind of unnamed Republicans volunteering to be sources in WaPost stories. The only people who think Hillary hasn’t taken a hit with the e-mail and Clinton Cash stories are the lefty loons in the mainstream media. Clinton obviously sees a hit. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have gone into the witness protection program. She’s taken a hit in the same way she took a hit from Obama’s 1984 YouTube ad in 2007.

    Only the airheads in the media pay any attention to polling at this point. John Q Public isn’t paying any attention to an election a year and half from now.

  99. Lu, I agree with your well articulated comments above, and I admire your energy and determination.

    S, I share some of your concerns. I guess time will tell how far to the curb Hillary is willing to kick O and his policies. I think there are other variables to keep in mind, as well, including the fact that no one will be allowed to get away with the things O has gotten away with. Even if Hillary or anyone else, for that matter, supports policies to keep us on the exact same path O has taken the country down (the garden path to hell), there won’t be a free pass available, as there was for O – especially in the beginning.

    At the end of the day, each of us must make our own decisions based on our own best judgment. In seeking information on which to base decisions, we have to try to filter out the info that is inaccurate or that serves someone else’s agenda – which can be challenging.

  100. No one will be able to get away with the things obama has? This is just the continuation. We have had almost total capitulation by the Republican party and the Courts…
    It will take a fearless leader to steer us back to the people and the Constitution. Fearless.You see anyone out there not in the pockets of the 001% who had those cjones?.Hillary with her billion dollar war chest and Obama 3 agenda is not the “one”.
    I don’t see the “one”…

  101. Forget the article, focus on the core problem, which is the big divide between RINOS and the conservative base.
    That is not the kind of thing that can be lightly dismissed, nor does it portend of halcion days ahead.

    Kind like the big divide between the Clinton dems and the liberal base in the Democratic party!

    As for the party leaders–there are none.
    That is what Peggy Noonan has told us. Not like there were a generation ago.

    Peggy Noonan supported Barack Obama. Republicans don’t care what she or David Brooks (who liked the crease of his pants) thinks…

    I look at results. Preibus and the party leaders worked behind the scenes herding cats, lining up strong candidates, finessing the Todd Akin wackos out of races, and produced stunning results across the country in 2014. Will they herd cats as successfully in the Presidential primaries? Time will tell. I see a lot of focus on winning.

    It appears to me that the far right “Tea Party” candidate in the primaries is going to be Ted Cruz. He’s hardly a fringe candidate. Not exactly Todd Akin. Princeton undergrad. Harvard Law. Clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist at the Supreme Court. Solicitor General of Texas where he personally made oral arguments in eight cases (I think) at the Supreme Court. Married to a Goldman Sachs VP.

    If anyone thinks they get him to go Todd Akin in debates against Hillary, Princeton’s undergrad debating trophy is named after him.

    I just don’t see the chrishun coalition elmer gantrys and the cross burning lunatics getting very far in the Republican primaries this time around. It’s a strong field five or six candidates deep.

    The only intellectual “lightweight” who worries me a little is Rubio. He’s pretty sober as a candidate, just very green. Personally, I’m a little concerned that the establishment money could go to him if Bush flames out. Walker worries me a little because I have found him to be uninspired so far on the stump, but he’s certainly no Todd Akin.

    I am having a hard time making my self clutch the pearls over this year’s Republican field after having suffered through the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich in 2012. It was pretty painful to have to root for Mitt Romney. Talk about slim pickin’s… Sheesh.

  102. It is hard to know the players without a scorecard.

    And the key to a scorecard is a nick name people remember.

    A former Senate Majority Leader, Dick Gephardt, a Democrat from Missouri, was known to his colleagues as “Mr. AFL-CIO”—because they controlled him, and he always did their bidding, even at the expense of the country.

    Likewise, the current Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, deserves to be known as “Mr. Chamber of Commerce”, because they control him, they got him re elected, and even when it harms the nation, violates his oath of office, and repudiates the promises made to the electorate, this waste of protoplasm consistently does their bidding.

    From this point forward, for the sake of clarity and alignment, I shall refer to him as Mr. Chamber of Commerce, just as I always try to refer to Barry as The Big Media Beloved Messiah.

  103. Preibus and the party leaders worked behind the scenes herding cats, lining up strong candidates, finessing the Todd Akin wackos out of races, and produced stunning results across the country in 2014. Will they herd cats as successfully in the Presidential primaries?
    ———-
    They achieved similar results in 2010 with the wackos still in the party.

    They failed in the presidential election because they offered up candidates which the base would not support.

    As for working behind the scenes, that is a bit of an overstatement. Think back to their little stunt in Mississippi which placed those elitists on front street—paying walk around money to blacks, invoking images of the KKK to get a half corpse re-elected over an energetic conservative—pretty fucking stupid in my view.

  104. As for the party leaders–there are none.
    That is what Peggy Noonan has told us. Not like there were a generation ago.

    Peggy Noonan supported Barack Obama.
    ——
    Then by your logic, because she supported Obama, her independent observation that there are no party elders left in the Republican party–like James Baker, George Schultz, Hugh Scott, Howard Baker etc. should be given no weight?

    Are you quite sure there is a connection? Unless you are suggesting falso in uno falso in omnibus.

    As for Brooks he was never a Republican. At best he was a poseur. When the resident republican of NYT–Saphire slipped the mortal coil they needed a replacement, so they selected that deranged dirt bag. But every day he flies under false colors, and his sexual attraction to Barry, replete with heavy breathing and purple prose is the stuff of romance novels. Gwenneth Paltrow in drag, me thinks.

  105. The only intellectual “lightweight” who worries me a little is Rubio. He’s pretty sober as a candidate, just very green. Personally, I’m a little concerned that the establishment money could go to him if Bush flames out.
    ——-
    Well, if you review my comments over the past month that is exactly what I have been saying. Ted’s wife may be very important in the scheme of things here, given her connections to Wall Street. On a personal note, Ted was with Morgan Lewis and Bockius in their Washington DC office and I was their client for over twenty years. I never knew him personally however. Wish I had.

    In fact, he and Hillary could have a very good set of debates. Both of them are good debaters. And, unlike most debates the country could learn something and the candy crowleys would get their fat asses kicked if they tried to put their thumb on the scale.

  106. gonzotx
    May 17, 2015 at 6:15 pm
    No one will be able to get away with the things obama has? This is just the continuation. We have had almost total capitulation by the Republican party and the Courts…
    It will take a fearless leader to steer us back to the people and the Constitution. Fearless.You see anyone out there not in the pockets of the 001% who had those cjones?.Hillary with her billion dollar war chest and Obama 3 agenda is not the “one”.
    I don’t see the “one”…
    _____________

    I’m not arguing with your position or trying to make a point. I was stating an opinion. You have a different one apparently, and believe there’s a candidate out you would rather support than Hillary. If so, go for it. I’m not trying to influence you in any way.

  107. It all comes together in 2016. The banksters of the left and right have looted to their gluttony and may now be wondering what good all their spoils will be if they destroy the system. Many of them must be operating with substantial denial systems, believing they can inflate the bubble forever and the Obola administration played that to the hilt. They were such geniuses that they would be able to Ponzi forever. Or maybe they do not know how close it is to popping. Or maybe I am wrong and they will find ways to draw this out longer. But it IS a failed system. Greece, China or the US playing Global economic collapse chicken. We will be in economic purgatory until then.

    I have always suspected they knew Hillary would shut them down. Or at the very least, limit them. Now enough of them know that they need to be shut down or it is ALL over. So they are going to let her do it. It feel there is a wink and a nod. The Obola presidency was all about the leftists looting. They wanted their turn, after Bush. And they certainly put him to shame.

    But we knew that, did we not?

    There will be factions that try to stop Hillary 2016. But they are losers. I cannot promise you she is sincere about her offer to champion the populous, but you know what? I believe her. So she is, to me, innocent until proven guilty.

    Hillary 2016!!

  108. Old soldier never die they just fade way.

    Old politicians are a different story.

    The don’t die, nor do they fade away.

    They continue to follow the money.

    Into plush lobbying jobs.

    And new relationships with Goldman Sachs.

    Crony capitalism at its best.
    ——-

    Since his retirement from politics, Gephardt has become a significant lobbyist. He founded a Washington-based public affairs firm, Gephardt Government Affairs, and an Atlanta-based labor consultancy, the Gephardt Group, as well as consulting for DLA Piper, FTI Consulting and Goldman Sachs.[2]

  109. Then by your logic, because she supported Obama, her independent observation that there are no party elders left in the Republican party–like James Baker, George Schultz, Hugh Scott, Howard Baker etc. should be given no weight?

    With all due respect, those fine ol’ gentlemen are all either dead or cleaning their dentures, putting new batteries in their hearing aids, and using walkers. We can add George H. W. Bush to that list as well.

    This is not the same Republican Party of those gentleman. It’s not the party of Strom Thurmond in SC. Today’s three statewide elected Republicans are a Sikh-American woman governor, a gay Senator, and the first black Senator elected from SC since reconstruction. All Republicans.

    As for Mississippi, I was happy to see Haley Barbour able to successfully “appeal” to Democrats and “unite” the two parties behind a winning candidate.

    Do I wish they had talked Cochran into retiring early and electing a more youthful non-fossilized face of the party? Yes. But, I whole-heartedly endorse their successful effort to kick a nutjob talk radio flame thrower Neanderthal to the curb. That guy had said so many inflammatory things on air that he would have jeopardized elections across the country. That is exactly the kind of effort I was originally applauding.

  110. gonzotx
    May 17, 2015 at 6:15 pm
    —————————–
    Hillary is not Obola 3.0 because cats do not bark. It’s like trying find silver in a gold mind. It’s like trying to drink wine from a bottle of whiskey.

    Do you remember how Obola worked the 2008 campaign, assuming her positions? He is not anything, has no substance, is an empty suite. Hillary could not be him, even if she tried.

    You are not going to get any substantiation of that right now. Because Admin is right, she should not have declared yet and she needs to keep her mouth shut. It is a long time until the Democratic Primary. Major things could change so many times before then.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that I hope you will enjoy this day, knowing that tomorrow is a possibility of something better. We will see what we will see.

  111. Democratic campaign spokesman Stephanopoulis takes a shot at Cruz (note, this was the weekend of the Bergdahl hostage swap, before it was known he was a deserter):

  112. I guess what I am trying to say is that I hope you will enjoy this day, knowing that tomorrow is a possibility of something better. We will see what we will see.
    ________

    Well said, Lu.

  113. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Two Democrat operatives/TV talking heads aggressively attempting to Todd Akinize Ted Cruz:
    ————
    Wouldn’t you rather have them take their best shot and give him a chance to respond?

    Both Dana Bash and Lauder (the 19 million dollar man) gave him that chance.

    She by the way is the best asset CNN has, so much better than wolfman blitzer.

    Yes, they asked loaded questions.

    But he hit their questions out of the park.

    There will come a point, after the Republican situation has firmed up and they have a rino and a conservative candidate, that Hillary will need to come forward and do the same sort of thing.

    Remember in 2008 they would cut her off, and not allow her to respond. They were hell bent on nominating Obama. That decision was made by kennedy and others in February of that year. Fat Bill Richardson was a bell weather.

    If they try to pull that shit ever again, there must be consequences for them.

  114. hwc: stephie would be dead as a doornail, if Mr. Chamber of Commerce had not rescued him by granting him an interview this morning. Mitch the bitch. A character study in slow, corrupt and stupid. His master’s voice.

  115. As for Mississippi, I was happy to see Haley Barbour able to successfully “appeal” to Democrats and “unite” the two parties behind a winning candidate.
    ——-
    Happy to see Barbour operative pay walk around money and inflame racial tensions?

    Happy to see a corrupt filandering geriatric with flashes of altzheimers win the nomination?

    Surely you jest.

  116. I thought this was a Hillary site, not a Ted Cruz platform.

    No real experience to lead the US and yet, is he the second coming of Raygun for some folks on Big Pink?

    The last couple of days it’s been Cruz 24/7 here.

  117. With all due respect, those fine ol’ gentlemen are all either dead or cleaning their dentures, putting new batteries in their hearing aids, and using walkers. We can add George H. W. Bush to that list as well.
    ——
    Correct. But you are making my point–or rather Noonan’s point. There are no elder statesmen left in the party. People who care about the country and the party. Just a bunch of scam artists like fast Eddie Gillespee who collected a cool $36 million taking his ques from big media and running a be nice campaign which cost their party the presidency. That is her point.

  118. Shadowfax
    May 17, 2015 at 7:52 pm
    ——–
    This is a Hillary site.

    Do you think Hillary is ignoring what is happening in the Republican Party–or how she will respond to Cruz if he is the nominee.

    For now those are back burner question, but you can be sure of one thing.

    She has oppo research working on it.

    In a sense shadow we are filling a void while she decides when and how she wants to come forward.

  119. Happy to see Barbour operative pay walk around money and inflame racial tensions?

    When it Rome, do as the Romans do.

    How do you think the Dems drive black turnout in an election? Racial fear-mongering (KKK posters, etc.) and walkin’ around money.

    As Haley would say, “I don’t know how ya’ll do it up there, but here in Mississippi, I don’t think invitations to the Yazoo City Chamber of Commerce pancake breakfast woulda done the trick…..” 🙂

  120. Still 4 Hill has an article about Hill and Bill attending a matinee performance of the play, The Audience, starring staunch Hillary supporter, Helen Mirren. Article also contains a link to SNL skit spoofing Hillary on the campaign trail.

  121. I thought this was a Hillary site, not a Ted Cruz platform.

    OK, let’s talk about Hillary’s campaign speeches and interviews.

    I just posted her brand new campaign video. No comments? No thoughts?

  122. When it Rome, do as the Romans do.
    ———-
    Next time I have a criminal defendant I will try that one:

    Your Honor, my client is guilty as hell, but when in Rome do as the Romans do.

    Next time I have a civil defendant who has breached a contract I will quote Lenin:

    Promises are like pie crusts–made to be broken.

    In your court room, I gather that those defenses would be accepted.

    But for me, they do not pass the red face test.

    I had hoped that you saw the same need I do–to change the system.

    But your response to Barbour’s misdeeds make me wonder whether I have misjudged your intentions.

  123. wobbei:

    Just from watching a couple rounds of stump speeches and interviews in an effort to figure out who these candidates are… I found myself coming to the same conclusion as Carville. And, I started from a very negative view of Cruz after the one-man shutdown filibuster.

    I see echos of Reagan and LBJ in his political style. In an election climate that is ripe for a fire-breathing anti-Washington populist, I think he could be a powerful force.

    What’s interesting to me… He’s already got the Tea Party/evangelical base, but it’s easy to see how disciplined he has become in assuaging the fears of the establishment and money men.

    In the same way that the Tea Party wing will probably accept Walker “if they have to”, I suspect that the Chamber of Commerce wing will eventually come around to accepting Cruz “if they have to”.

  124. wobbei:

    Unfortunately, I had the “pleasure” of reading some of the things that the mouth breather had said on his right wing talk radio show in Mississippi. His playlist was a walking hit machine of national Democratic ads. He had no redeeming values and wouldn’t have been an improvement on Cochran. He was a disaster. Barbour did what he had to do. You just can’t have candidates that hand oppo researchers recordings of racist and sexist rants.

  125. hwc: perhaps you should refresh your recollection of the totality of what occurred in Mississippi:
    ————
    EXCLUSIVE – TEA PARTY PATRIOTS PUBLISHES EVIDENCE HENRY BARBOUR AT CENTER OF RACE-BAITING IN MS, CALLS ON REINCE PRIEBUS TO CENSURE

    Exclusive – Tea Party Patriots Publishes Evidence Henry Barbour at Center of Race-Baiting in MS, Calls on Reince Priebus to Censure
    by MATTHEW BOYLE7 Aug 2014380

    A new white paper from Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund puts a target on GOP operative Henry Barbour for his role in incendiary racial appeals in the Mississippi GOP Senate primary.

    “Henry Barbour was the field general in an unprecedented campaign to smear a fellow Republican, so desperate was his family to cling to power,” Jenny Beth Martin, the chair of TPPCF, said in the statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News. “We’re used to these tactics from Democrats: desperate appeals to emotion, fear-mongering, even playing the ‘Klan’ card. Who would have thought the Barbour machine would finance such despicable race-baiting?”

    During the campaign, a super PAC run by Barbour, Mississippi Conservatives, provided funds to Democratic operatives and organizations that put out literature and ran radio ads. These ads said that voting for incumbent Sen. Cochran was a means of stopping the Tea Party and preventing his primary challenger, state Sen. Chris McDaniel, from “roll[ing] back the hand of time,” among other examples.

    According to National Review, Barbour, the nephew of former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, vehemently denied to Republican colleagues having any role in the ads, before finally admitting to it in an interview with reporter Eliana Johnson, saying colorful remarks McDaniel made on talk radio a decade ago, and efforts to prevent voter fraud invited the scrutiny from black Democrats.

    “Many Mississippians, who were already disgusted by McDaniel’s race-baiting talk-radio-show comments, heard the code words that insinuated that African Americans were not welcome in the Republican primary,” Barbour told National Review.

    Monday, however, a Democratic activist said she had funded one particularly vicious ad that raised the specter of the KKK, and Barbour was quoted saying, “I am glad the people really behind this despicable KKK ad have been revealed, because Sen. Cochran’s opponents have falsely accused our group and others of running it. As I have said from the start, I had zero to do with it.”

    There are also outstanding questions about the KKK ad, and the Democratic activist’s claims may not necessarily be true, either; the radio station that ran the ads backed up previous allegations against political operatives in Mississippi connected with Barbour. The radio station owner said Democratic operative Greg Brand was behind the ads–something Brand denies. If Brand was involved, it confirms a lot more connections back to the Barbours and Cochran’s allies. Radio station WMGO owner Jerry Lousteau said that if Brand is denying being involved, “he is lying.”

    The new white paper from Tea Party Patriots outlines the nexus between the Barbour-run super PAC and the race-baiting ads that proliferated in Mississippi in the waning days of the race, helping drive Democratic turnout that gave Cochran his victory in the GOP primary.

    Martin is calling on Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus–who is holding meetings right now in Chicago with all RNC members–to censure Barbour for his conduct in Mississippi.

    “Chairman Priebus and members of the Committee, if you do nothing, you sanction Henry Barbour’s conduct,” Martin said, adding:

    Is this why he was on the Committee’s hand-picked group to study ‘minority outreach’ after 2012? Well Reince, maybe I didn’t get the memo, but shouldn’t the GOP reach out to minorities with the conservative values in the party platform? Or is Henry’s method of fear-mongering with food stamps and school lunches the way to recruit African-Americans?

    “By not repudiating such despicable conduct, you’ll tell 183,000 conservatives in Mississippi, ‘Yes, it’s fine that Democrats chose your nominee, and yes, the Barbour machine had to be preserved at all costs,’” Martin said in her statement, speaking directly to Priebus. “And Reince, never again accuse Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)0%
    or Eric Holder of playing the race card. Because by your silence you’ve forfeited the right to complain, and have endorsed the shameful tactic yourself.”

    The Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund white paper on Henry Barbour’s role in race-baiting ads is 24 pages long, and it opens with the statement that “Henry Barbour is not telling the truth.”

    Before detailing how Henry Barbour’s denials are false, the white paper reads:

    Henry Barbour, Republican National Committeeman from Mississippi, repeatedly claims in public that he had nothing to do with the race-baiting flyers and robocalls that were deployed against Republican State Senator Chris McDaniel during the June 3, 2014 Mississippi Republican U.S. Senate primary election and the June 24, 2014 Mississippi Republican U.S. Senate runoff election.

    “Henry Barbour directed a PAC that provided the funding that produced and disseminated vile racial slurs against REPUBLICAN state Senator Chris McDaniel and his REPUBLICAN and conservative supporters,” the white paper reads.

    It continues:

    The Mississippi Conservatives PAC, under Barbour’s direction, funded (through illegal means) various operatives and organizations of dubious background to implement a deliberate and premeditated strategy of vicious race-baiting and fear mongering over issues of race during the runoff election between incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)33%
    and challenger Chris McDaniel. Henry Barbour deliberately chose to use well-known Democrat operatives and organizations in a character assassination scheme – the kind that the professional Left has perfected, and which Republicans abhor – in order to destroy the reputation of a loyal, fellow Republican, a current Mississippi state legislator in good standing and a Republican Party member since the age of 13, whose only offense was to announce and run for a Senate seat held by an incumbent Republican. (NOTE: Sen. Chris McDaniel announced for the U.S. Senate seat well before incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)33%
    had announced – and at a time when most observers believed that Sen. Cochran was not seeking reelection.)

    TPPCF notes that the evidence against Barbour “raises serious and troubling questions” about “his behavior during the primary and the runoff campaign, and his evasions and downright falsehoods to the RNC afterwards.”

    TPPCF thinks that the RNC and Republican leaders can’t legitimately demand certain standards of behavior from the Democrats and President Barack Obama if they can’t live by their own rules. “Every day, Republican Party officials demand that President Obama and the Democrats act responsibly and with the consent of the American people,” TPPCF wrote. “We think this is a perfect opportunity for the leaders of the Grand Old Party to demonstrate to their base and to all Americans that they will enthusiastically live up to the same standards that they demand of the President and his Party.”

    Specifically, TPPCF is demanding the RNC censure Henry Barbour and issue a public statement condemning the actions he and others took to try to smear Tea Partiers as racists.

    The white paper then walks through how Barbour’s Mississippi Conservatives pro-Cochran super PAC used race-baiting tactics to get Democrats to voted for Cochran on June 24.

    “In the days immediately following the June 3 primary election, pro-Cochran forces inside the Mississippi GOP and its allies scrambled to find a new strategy,” TPPCF wrote, adding:

    Given the results of the June 3 primary, it was clear that Cochran could not win a majority of REPUBLICAN votes in the June 24 runoff – so the strategist began to develop a plan NOT to rely only on the votes of Republican primary voters. Henry Barbour and his allies determined to go outside the GOP voters in Mississippi and to rely on a provision of Mississippi law that allows any voter – including Democrats – who do not vote in the Democratic primary to vote in the REPUBLICAN runoff election. Mississippi law does not require voters to state a party preference when they register to vote, so any registered voter who had not cast a ballot in the Democratic primary on June 3 was eligible to vote in the June 24 GOP Senate runoff.

    TPPCF noted that Barbour’s goal – which he was very public about – was to “flood” the June 24 runoff with Democrats, and to do so “with Democrats who could be frightened into supporting Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)33%
    … based on leftist, Democratic race-baiting, rather than time-honored Republican principles. And that is exactly what they did,” TPPCF wrote.

    Furthermore:

    Mississippi Conservatives PAC, under the direction of Henry Barbour, raised funds from the national GOP establishment to then fund the efforts of All Citizens for Mississippi PAC – a new PAC established by Bishop Ronnie Crudup Sr. of the New Horizon Church International just before the Mississippi primary on June 3. This new PAC shares its street address and Treasurer with the church. This new PAC violated federal campaign finance law by not filing required FEC reports until well after the close the June 24 runoff election.

    Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show that Crudup’s new PAC raised money from only one source: Henry Barbour’s Mississippi Conservatives super PAC.

    TPPCF details how Crudup’s “All Citizens for Mississippi PAC,” quickly “essentially became a cut-out” for Henry Barbour’s shop, and specifically pounded out advertisements into the black community accusing Chris McDaniel and the Tea Party of being racists–so they needed to support Cochran to keep a conservative out of office.

    TPPCF cites three major examples of All Citizens for Mississippi’s race-baiting with Henry Barbour’s money. “All Citizens for Mississippi PAC produced and disseminated at least one flyer that claimed that ‘the tea party intends to prevent you from voting.’”

    “All Citizens for Mississippi PAC also produced and aired radio ads,” the white paper continued, asserting:

    One said, “A victory by tea party candidate Chris McDaniel is a loss for the state of Mississippi. It is a loss for public education. … It is a loss for the citizens of this state in a time of natural disaster, for our public universities and particularly our historically black universities. A victory for Chris McDaniel is a loss for the reputation of this state for race, for race relationships between blacks and whites and other ethnic groups. Mississippi can’t afford Chris McDaniel.”

    “A second radio ad produced and aired by All Citizens for Mississippi PAC said, ‘I’m Pastor Siggers, Pastor of the Mt. Olive Baptist Church. These are some tough times. … And tough times call for tough decisions. A time when there is an effort to roll back the hand of time.’” The white paper went on to state, “I’m talking about the race for the U.S. Senate between Thad Cochran and tea-party candidate Chris McDaniels [sic]. I know that traditionally we as a community don’t vote Republican, but for this special election, we need to turn out in record numbers to push back against this tea party effort.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/08/07/exclusive-tea-party-patriots-publishes-evidence-henry-barbour-at-center-of-race-baiting-in-mississippi-calls-on-reince-priebus-to-censure/

  126. Shadowfax
    May 17, 2015 at 7:52 pm
    ———————–
    There are all kinds of ways to disrupt and misdirect. The main news is the TPP that the Democrats do not have the votes to stop because the Progressives turned off so many voters with their Snakeoil salesman. The Repubs are claiming they can push it through. So how does that make Lizzy look? Hillary needs to keep her mouth shut.

    Unsafe food, more immigrants and pollution all coming to YOUR country. An evil lot they are. Traitors. Hillary needs to play her cards right to get the Repubs voted out over this.

  127. Just to be clear, WBB:

    I am not a supporter of the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund. I have no more use for the Sarah Palin/Tea Party wing of the Republican party than I have for the Chrishun Coalition Elmer Gantry wing.

  128. Okay fine. You have told us what you are not.

    But do you realize who Haley Barbour is?

    He is a partner of Karl Rove.

    Hillary has no greater enemy in the Republican Party than Karl Rove.

    She told us this at a high value fundraiser.

    But beyond that Rove is a defender of Imperial Washington

    Which defies the constitution and sucks up the wealth of the nation.

    Do you favor that, or do you favor a smaller federal government.

    Because if it is the former, then you will weary of Cruz.

  129. And by the way, what do you expect Barbour to say.

    I just wish we could attach him to a lie detector.

  130. Lu4PUMA
    May 17, 2015 at 8:55 pm
    ———–
    Agreed.

    This is one scenario I would not blame on the progressives.

    This is a republican problem.

    And, of course, an Obama problem.

  131. The main news is the TPP that the Democrats do not have the votes to stop….

    (snip) Hillary needs to keep her mouth shut.

    (snip) Unsafe food, more immigrants and pollution all coming to YOUR country.

    (snip) Hillary needs to play her cards right to get the Repubs voted out over this.

    To me, this seems basically just political. Hillary stays silent now to protect herself somehow, then later she can use it to get more democrats into congress to help herself and the party.

    What about the people, what about now? Someone needs to be a leader NOW, because once this happens they’re not going to be able to put the cat back in the bag. Sure, they can score some political points later and make their team bigger, but again, what about US, what about the country?

    There must be someone who has a spine, who wants to fight for the people. They’re not ALL running for office and looking out primarily for themselves. Is that whole party full of bought off senators and representatives, corrupt, uncaring, they’ve gotten rich in office and that’s all they care about? There must be SOMEone who is a leader (and not Hiawatha, but someone who would be taken seriously by the average American).

    Term limits. I am so for them.

    SMH.

  132. I’ve always been a big fan of Haley Barbour. I wish that he had run for Cochran’s seat after he left the Miss governor’s mansion.

    He did a good job as Chairman of the Republican Party and he did a good job as governor and, I assume, he’s done a good job as a big dollar lobbyist…

  133. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 9:24 pm
    I’ve always been a big fan of Haley Barbour.
    —–
    Evidently.

    You have done a commendable job of ignoring his faults and evading my questions.

    In that case, you will favor the big business wing of the Republican Party.

    And you will oppose the grass roots faction which provides boots on the ground.

    And, in time, you will reject Cruz–although you do not realize it now.

  134. New story in the WaPost detailing Clinton’s conscious decision to shift to the left:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-to-the-left-hillary-clinton-is-banking-on-the-obama-coalition-to-win/2015/05/17/33b7844a-fb28-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is running as the most liberal Democratic presidential front-runner in decades, with positions on issues from gay marriage to immigration that would, in past elections, have put her at her party’s precarious left edge.

    The moves are part of a strategic conclusion by Clinton’s emerging campaign: that it can harness the same kind of young and diverse coalition as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012, bolstered by even stronger appeal among women.

    Her approach — outlined in interviews with aides and advisers — is a bet that social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position Clinton takes now is likely to hurt her when she makes her case to moderate and independent voters in the general election next year.

  135. In that case, you will favor the big business wing of the Republican Party.
    And you will oppose the grass roots faction which provides boots on the ground.

    I’m a “big tent” kinda guy. 🙂

  136. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 9:31 pm
    New story in the WaPost detailing Clinton’s conscious decision to shift to the left:
    ————
    I read it the same way. It is the Texiera analysis. But does it work when you are dealing with someone who has been in the public spotlight as long as she has. This is not some blank canvass on which millions of idiots can project their own hopes and dreams for the future on. I think this is a mistake, because she has got the nomination. Its the general election she needs to worry about. And in the general election this left wing platform will be scare the horses. This is a calculated decision, and the risks are obvious. Much depends on how Obama’s lame duck presidency ends and who the Republicans select.

  137. I’m a “big tent” kinda guy.
    ——–
    Excluding the tea party and the evangelicals, I gather.

  138. is a bet that social and demographic shifts mean that no left-leaning position Clinton takes now is likely to hurt her when she makes her case to moderate and independent voters in the general election next year.
    ———
    Meaning that moderate and independent voters no longer matter?

    I think they have talked themselves into an untenable position.

  139. …I still think the repub Hillary will have to contend with is John Kaisch…he is going to jump into the race…and he comes across as a ‘different’ kind of repub…

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

    fwiw…i think hwc begins with a J…too, too many similarities…

  140. S
    May 17, 2015 at 9:57 pm
    …I still think the repub Hillary will have to contend with is John Kaisch…he is going to jump into the race…and he comes across as a ‘different’ kind of repub…
    ——-
    Yes. And as you know I have said the same thing. But is there any evidence to support this. I assume you see him entering the race later in the game, when the conservatives and the grass roots each have their candidates and things are at impasse. At that point, he would be pressured to enter the race, but I am not sure he would. For whatever it is worth, Soros is worried about that. But if demograhics are destiny, a Richie Cunningham Happy Days poster boy like him may not sell.

  141. Posting the link to Correct the Record

    I know Hillary spoke out against the bill just passed in the Congress changing the gestation period for abortion on demand from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. But, her position in “Correct the Record” seems to imply that she favors elimination of any gestation period for on demand abortions. Do you know if she is for late term third trimester on-demand abortion?

  142. Okay hwc. Lets parse this one out:

    1. You admire Haley Barbour.

    2. Barbour is the partner of Rove.

    3. Rove is a sworn enemy of Hillary.

    4. Rove was conspiring with Donna Brazille to defeat Hillary in the primary.

    If 1-4 are all true, then how could you have been a Hillary supporter in 2008?

    Please elucidate.

  143. Here’s Hillary’s quote on the Republican passed bill:

    “This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v Wade, which has protected a woman’s constitutional right to privacy for over forty years. The bill puts women’s health and rights at risk, undermines the role doctors play in health care decisions, burdens survivors of sexual assault, and is not based on sound science,” Maya Harris, a senior policy advisor to the Clinton campaign, said in a statement.

    “Politicians should not interfere with personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman, her family and her faith, in consultation with her doctor or health care provider.”

    A literal reading of her second paragraph suggests that she believes there should be NO legal restrictions for on-demand abortion at any time. That could be viewed as an extreme position as it would allow abortion even after the point where the fetus would be unquestionably viable (the accepted time limit standard in the US courts).

    To put that in context, the United States is one of only 6 countries that allows on-demand abortion past 20 weeks. Canada would be a 7th at the national level, but there are province level restrictions. There are only three countries in the world (not counting Canada) that has no gestational restriction on abortion (Communist China, North Korea, and Vietnam). Almost all of Western Europe (except the UK and the Netherlands) only permits on-demand abortion up to 12 or 14 weeks and many of those countries have mandatory three-day waiting period and counselling requirements.

  144. Please elucidate.

    I was not a fan of Karl Rove until Donna Brazile et al stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton on May 31st, 2008. Voting for Hillary Clinton in my state’s primary in 2008 was the last time I voted for Democrat.

    Until that time, I had voted exclusively for Democrats for my entire life, with four exceptions. I voted for Mack Mattingly over Herman Talmadge in Georgia when Talmadge had just been caught stuffing his coat pocket with cash bribes. Mattingly was awful, but I had no choice. And I voted for Bill Weld and Mitt Romney a few times for governor because, in Massachusetts, a Republican governor is the ONLY check and balance against 100% Democratic machine/mob machine. Jesus, the President of the State Senate was the brother of a serial killer mobster (Whitey Bulger). A Republican governor was the only way to at least dampen the corruption a little bit. I was so hopeless, I even voted for Kennedy and Kerry.

    Even when I was a Democrat, I gave Haley Barbour his due because, as I said, he did a capable job as Chairman of the RNC and an excellent job as Governor of Mississippi. And, I love listening to him talk politics in terms of the “important ishyoos facing our great nation, today…” and what the people “back in Yazoo City” think…. He’s a character.

  145. wbboei

    as far as John K…more talk starting to get louder

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/politics/john-kasich-election-2016-running-announcement/

    today…

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kasich-to-run-presidential/2015/05/17/id/645109/

    snip

    Kasich would likely mount a moderate campaign, saying that if he runs, he won’t “spend my time dwelling” on social issues, even though he is a Christian.

    Further, he believes what the country needs most is “a large dose of positive; coupled with that a realistic approach to restoring a positive sense among the public.”

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

    and He doesn’t have O around his neck dragging him down…

    Hillary should not sell herself out for the O voters…if they are going to vote for anyone it will be her anyway…

  146. I was not a fan of Karl Rove until Donna Brazile et al stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton on May 31st, 2008. Voting for Hillary Clinton in my state’s primary in 2008 was the last time I voted for Democrat.
    ———
    do you mean you were a fan of rove until he stole the nomination?

    the way it reads, it does not make sense.

    or do you mean you became a fan because brazille stole the nomination?

    in that case you need to consider who helped her do that—Rove.

  147. Okay fine. It is possible to admire people on the other side of the political divide without embracing their politics.

    But I see things more like Disraeli did when Gladstone told him he would die either by hanging or a terrible disease.

    Disraeli replied: sir, that depends on whether I embrace your politics or your mistress.

  148. Before the Democrats stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton, I voted for Democrats in every election except for the four exceptions I listed. Therefore, until the Democrats stole the nomination from Clinton, I did not support Republicans and therefore did not support Rove’s efforts to elect Republicans.

    The day that the Democrats stole the nomination from Clinton, I made the decision to stop voting for Democrats and to vote to defeat as many of them as I could. That meant that I wanted Republicans to win, since they were the only option. Because I wanted Republicans to win, I started supporting Rove’s efforts to elect Republicans.

  149. I don’t realistically see Kasich getting any traction in this race, although he might be gunning for VP consideration. I think you really have to look at candidates who can plausibly get the various factions of the party to say, “Ok, I can support him if I have to”.

    I guess Kasich is probably hoping he’ll be the establishment candidate if Bush craters.

  150. S
    Hillary should not sell herself out for the O voters…if they are going to vote for anyone it will be her anyway…

    I can’t stand that she’s going so far left. I’m not a political expert, but it seems to me that most lean to the left in the primary to snag them. However, she’s being very clear that she’s not leaning, but instead out-lefting Obama (although, he also does right leaning things, himself). I don’t believe most would go THIS far left, especially in today’s political climate as most people DO NOT want a third Obama term. I think it’s the wrong move. People are FED UP, they’re longing for law and order, for our constitution and cultural values to be upheld – the moderates and independents may be chased rightward by this ploy.

    It makes me wonder if this advice came from some of the Obama staffers she has hired on.

  151. Realistically, the only math that might add up for the Dems is heavy enthusiastic turnout by the Obama base. It could well be that Clinton’s polling shows the “moderate Democrats” are gone.

    If you look at the 2014 results in congressional, senate, governor, and statehouse races, the Dems are pretty much winning the urban areas and nothing else. There are still moderate Dems in deep blue states, but they don’t matter. Are there any in swing states?

    The answer would lie in running the election models without heavy African American and youth turnout.

    So, maybe it’s the smart strategy. It worked for Obama. He has never lifted one finger to appeal to moderate voters.

  152. The populace is different now. And Obama “won” with a lot of lies. Obama is the reason for the rightward move by many in the last 6 years. The populace that Hillary is looking at has faaaar fewer left wingers than when Obama snaked his way in.

    It seems to be that the smart move would only be to entice the far left, then move to the middle (where she was in 2008). To do that now in the upcoming general, would be very hard to explain away, going from far left to center.

    There were strong Hillary sites in 2008 that over the years, for all practical purposes, have gone republican. She’ll never get those people back if she doubles down on the kind of stuff that drove them away when Obama took over.

    JMHO.

  153. Here’s the 2014 election map with Repub congressional districts in red, Dem in blue.

    http://media.cq.com/elections/2014/

    The Dems have some advantage in presidential elections because their districts are concentrated in big electoral vote states, but nevertheless this map shows where their votes are. As I look at the blue districts, there’s not a much point in kow-towing to moderates.

  154. I referred to them as being republican “for all practical purposes” because many are still registered democrats. They will be in the blue areas of the map.

  155. hwc
    May 17, 2015 at 11:11 pm
    ——-
    That is what I thought you meant.

    But I was not sure.

    That leaves only one contradiction.

    You supported Rove because the dims took Hillary.

    But you ignore the fact that Rove helped them take her down.

    I guess that is not a contradiction really.

    It is one thing to conspire with your adversary to take down the candidate of your party.

    That is treason.

    And quite another to help the opposing party do that.

    That is politics.

    The problem with that position however is Rove is guilty of doing the same thing to conservatives.

    And violating the core principles of the party in the process.

    For me Rove is reminiscent of that gelatinous blob Sydney Greenstreet in The Maltese Falcon.

    And Barbour has the southern charm of foghorn leghorn.

    https://youtu.be/L8TQZBHszI4

  156. The Dems have some advantage in presidential elections because their districts are concentrated in big electoral vote states,
    ———–
    Some advantage?

    Like 240 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the general election.

  157. As I look at the blue districts, there’s not a much point in kow-towing to moderates.
    ————–
    Well that is what redistricting has done. It has eliminated the blue dog democrat. Today, the differences between conservatives and hard core leftists are irreconcilable. That is why nothing gets done in Congress. It gives Republicans an advantage in congress and the dims an advantage in presidential elections. It is a very bad state of affairs for the country.

  158. lorac
    May 17, 2015 at 11:36 pm
    ———–
    I think you are right.

    It would be interesting to see what the response of likely voters would be on whether they want change or stay the course.

    Virtually any polling firm other than Rassmussen could give accurate insight on that important question.

    Still the critical issue is not the voters as a whole, but those in big electoral states.

    My sense is this will be a change election, and the demand for change will become more intense in the dying days of this benighted administration.

  159. Oh, for Heaven’s sake! Admiration for Haley Barbour and of all people…KARL ROVE? He is one of the vilest political operatives around. Rove is a Bush baby and is eaten up with Clinton Derangement Syndrome and has been since Bill Clinton beat out Bush Sr. He would do anything…anything to bring the Clintons down, bankrupt them, and have legal action brought against them.

    I’ve tried to follow the “silence is golden” rule today, not engage and mostly scroll, scroll, scroll but this Karl Rove admiration lunacy was the tipping point. I can’t remember back in 2008 someone who is here now being so vocal as with the 43 comments they made on May 17th.

  160. lorac
    May 17, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    To me, this seems basically just political. Hillary stays silent now to protect herself somehow, then later she can use it to get more democrats into congress to help herself and the party.

    What about the people, what about now? Someone needs to be a leader NOW, because once this happens they’re not going to be able to put the cat back in the bag. Sure, they can score some political points later and make their team bigger, but again, what about US, what about the country?
    —————————————————-

    I know how you feel and I agree. The rotten business disturbed my sleep last night, I am so disgusted.

    On one hand Hillary may not have the power to stop it. I suspect the dirty deal is done. Our representative have made their deals to sell out their electorate for bribes of one kind or the other. See how impotent Lizzy looks as the messiah disses her.

    On the other hand, if she does have the power to stop it, it needs to take place behind the scenes with private contacts with the representatives. She has too much at stake to go public and be defeated. If she can unite the party against Obama and pull the progressives fat out of the fire, she will have a major quite victory.

    Obama has actually been calling the poisonous bill a progressive trade bill.

  161. Has anybody come across a list of how the prostitutes in Congress are voting on the TPP? It does not seem to be that any opposition to this treachery is very well organized at all.

    If you can find one, please post.

  162. Southern Born
    May 18, 2015 at 2:10 am
    —————————
    I think wbboei is having fun. Kind of like a cat with a mouse. But I definitely have to scroll when I am not in a humorous mood.

  163. I think wbboei is having fun.
    ———
    More like despair.

    I see clearly what is going on.

    And find nothing to be cheerful about.

    Our political system is a joke.

    Admin nailed it: this is the age of fake

    And time is working against us.

    Where are we going?

    What do the long term and intermediate term look like?

    If you are really interested, read Richard Rodrigues.

    Whose articles I have brought her for anyone who is interested.

  164. First they were jv.

    Second, they were on the wrong side of history.

    Third Ramadi falls to people who are jv and on the wrong side of history.

    Could it be that the Messiah is like Oliver J Tweet, who saw the Wright Brothers contraption at Kitty Hawk NC and assured us it would never get off the ground.

    Yet, through all this, and in spite of it, he remains the people’s choice of big media and half the nation.

    All the more reason to see our political system as a joke.

  165. Well that is what redistricting has done. It has eliminated the blue dog democrat.

    The Democrats have eliminated the Blue Dog Democrats. Ask Joe Manchin about being a blue dog in today’s Democrat party.

    And, as to this redistricting thing… that’s a self-inflicted wound, too. Let us not forget that the point of redistricting was to create African-American districts. Haley Barbour and Republican leaders across the South were more than happy to smile sweetly and do precisely as asked in the creation of these districts. Haley is happy. Jim Clyburn is happy. Everybody is happy, happy, happy… 🙂

    ———–

    BTW, I don’t know why you are casting me as some big Karl Rove fan. I’m pissed at him for being so brain dead in his prognostications about the 2012 election. I do like that he is able to raise massive amounts of money for Republican advertising with his PAC. That made big difference in 2014.

  166. BTW, I don’t know why you are casting me as some big Karl Rove fan. I’m pissed at him for being so brain dead in his prognostications about the 2012 election. I do like that he is able to raise massive amounts of money for Republican advertising with his PAC. That made big difference in 2014.
    ——–
    Only because he and Haley are business partners–or were. W called Rove “turd blossom”. I see no reason to disagree.

  167. HWC: do you think Hillary’s sharp turn to the left–almost an about face is a viable strategy for the general election? Or do you think lightening does not strike twice—or perhaps a third time in the same place? Especially, she is not the blank canvass Obama was in 2008, and the Republican Party is super energized. With 93 million out of a job—in what is really a depression, is this a viable strategy. And, if it is, does the middle class have any future. Those are the questions which I am thinking about now. It appears that our entreaties to move to the center have fallen on deaf ears, and once to the left, she will stay there. I would be lying to you if I said this was not discouraging. Because I think we will have a civil war in this country if this progressivism goes on much longer.

  168. When I say a civil war, I do not mean a shooting war. I mean a level of passive resistance to the welfare state that we have not seen before. Massive cheating on taxes–starving the beast. A splintering of parties. And civil disobedience on both sides of the line. And a failure of the safety nets. Most people do not see it. I do, and I hope I am wrong.

    In the ongoing atomization of society citizens and classes have vanished. The forces of change have created a world of individuals who come together not as Americans but as consumers of goods and information. For good reason, they trust the internet more than they trust their elected officials, or the pollsters they see on television. Meanwhile, governing institutions have lost sight of rooted in the principle of pro bono publica, and big money calls all the shots. The heads of state flock to the UN in a ritualistic column, they talk of reform and they do nothing. Politicians, journalists, businessmen make pilgrimages to the alpine village of Davos. Our elected officials continue to cede power to self interested experts and regulators, there is zero accountablity in government, and a skeptical public looks on. The idea of good government has become yesterday’s dream.

  169. HWC: do you think Hillary’s sharp turn to the left–almost an about face is a viable strategy for the general election?

    I think she has no choice. Just as Romney had no choice but to move right and become severely conservative in order to get the Republican nomination in 2012. If she doesn’t take a stand as the female Che Guevara, she’ll lose the nomination, even running “unopposed”.

    So, whatever impact it may or may not have in the general election is, as a practical matter, irrelevant.

    The fact that she is announcing herself as a socialist candidate shows how concerned she is in protecting her left flank in the primaries.

    All you really have to know to see that the Democrat Party has lost the plot: they kept BOTH Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as their leaders after the 2014 shellacking, without even so much of a whimper of a challenge.

  170. Southern Born
    May 18, 2015 at 2:10 am

    —-

    I’m with you. The past couple of weeks or so, two people have decided that Big Pink needs to discuss all things Republican, Cruz and people like Rove.

    Wbb thinks he is helping Hillary somehow, with her listening tour.

    The other person who has derailed every conversation besides his own is beyond getting on my last nerve.

  171. When I say a civil war, I do not mean a shooting war. I mean a level of passive resistance to the welfare state that we have not seen before. Massive cheating on taxes–starving the beast. A splintering of parties. And civil disobedience on both sides of the line. And a failure of the safety nets. Most people do not see it. I do, and I hope I am wrong.

    I agree with that. I think the country is at the boiling point. I’ve thought for a while that the country was ripe for a “mad as hell, not going to take it anymore” populist politician to come to power. I don’t think the corruption of the government and media has ever been as clearly apparent to as many people. There’s a cumulative effect of being so obviously lied to over and over and over.

  172. hwc
    May 18, 2015 at 11:56 am
    —–
    Precisely.

    If you examine English literature you find a recurrent theme: lost innocence.

    From William Blake to William Wordsworth to Matthew Arnold to Oscar Wilde to Thomas Hardy to William Butler Yeats to TS Elliott.

    The catalysts? technological change, war, and the shattering of faith in institutions.

    Today we have a similar loss of faith in our government.

    The utter corruption of insiders and outsiders alike, and the media is there, for all to see.

    And the general welfare is left at the alter.

    No establishment politician can provide a credible path forward.

    And how can we be sure that the newbees on the scene are not simply the puppets created by the elites?

    The situation today is fluid.

    The future is more important than ever.

    The financial sector commoditizes and models it in ways that were unthinkable a century ago.

    And no one feels the burden of an essential but unknowable future more accutely that the stock trader.

    We are all just guessing.

    But the greater problem is this radical money driven individualistic future as crowded out the older concept of the public good.

    It is, as Law Professor Van Alstein once observed, like Gresham’s Law (and affirmative action): the bad money drives out the good.

  173. Wbb thinks he is helping Hillary somehow, with her listening tour.

    At one time, I thought it was helpful.

    Now, it is probably something she does not want to hear.

    I think I have earned the right to speak what I believe to be the truth, through past efforts.

    And there may come a point when they are considered.

    In the meantime, I owe something to all of you to tell you what I see.

    You can read it or not–that is up to you.

    But we have travelled to far together not to be honest with eachother.

    Yes, I have lost faith in Hillary, but not in you.

  174. There’s a cumulative effect of being so obviously lied to over and over and over.
    ——
    True enough.

    But we could tolerate even that IF we could be confident that there would be accountability at the end of the day.

    But in this political environment, in addition to all the lying–there is no accountability on the part of the jamokes running the system.

    A system that operates that way will fail spectacularly at some point.

  175. Yes, I have lost faith in Hillary, but not in you.

    I still have faith in Hillary and you too Wbb, even if I don’t agree with you on many issues.

  176. OT – Amazing he lived to 43 years old.

    Dean Potter, one of the generation’s top rock climbers and charismatic personalities, was one of two men killed in a BASE-jumping accident at Yosemite National Park in California on Saturday.

    Potter, 43, and the other man, Graham Hunt, 29, leapt near dusk off Taft Point, a promontory about 3,000 feet above the floor of Yosemite Valley, not far from the iconic granite masses of El Capitan and Half Dome. Flying in wingsuits, they tried to clear a notch in the granite cliffs but instead smashed into the rocks in quick succession.

    Neither of the men pulled a parachute.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/sports/dean-potter-extreme-climber-dies-in-jumping-accident-at-yosemite.html?_r=0

  177. …back to thoughts talking out loud in politics…

    this is what has confused, disappointed and perplexed me with Hillary and her approach at this time…

    ok…if we think back to the second campaign when O was on the ropes and the democratic party was running away from him…and lo and behold…the popular and beloved Bill Clinton had to step in to save the day once again…

    and Bill was hearlded as the one who brought the party back to the fold and essentially got O re-elected…

    ok…and then as discussed the way the districts are set up there is a very big advantage built in to any democrat winning…

    …then you have the overwhelming affection people feel for the Clintons…the hope that many have been waiting for them to come back and start running the country again…

    the hope that many of those Reagan Dems and McCain/Romney Dems have tucked away in hopes of coming back to a sane, fair minded, moderate Democratic party…the way many of those people…along with many moderate Republicans did…when they voted for Bill Clinton twice to become their President

    …so why, why, why is Hillary currently seeming so desperate for the O votes?
    I just don’t get it…it feels like she is very insecure…or being held hostage…and there seems to be a very big O/O people imprint…

    I am waiting to hear that strong, independent woman with a mind of her own…she has time…but as a voter, I am not looking for a Democratic Party that is further left than O…and I hope we are not being taken for granted and being played…

    and that is coming from a sincere Clinton supporter…

  178. Please don’t misinterpret me. I’m not comparing anyone to Hitler. But, when you have such a sweeping loss in confidence in the political and economic structures in a country, you start to have the conditions that allow a Hitler to come to power.

    Using hate as a currency of political persuasion is not a healthy thing.

  179. …so why, why, why is Hillary currently seeming so desperate for the O votes?
    I just don’t get it…it feels like she is very insecure…or being held hostage…and there seems to be a very big O/O people imprint…

    Because, for a number of reasons, she cannot allow a primary challenge to plant roots.

    Think about this scenario. Hillary tries to be moderate. Bernie, and O’Malley, and Warren attack attack attack. The left wing media attacks. And, then in November, Eric Holder enters the race and takes 99% of the black vote. Hillary has to protect her left flank at all costs.

  180. not a fan of Greg Sargent…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/18/morning-plum-the-real-reason-hillary-is-embracing-liberal-positions/?hpid=z3

    Morning Plum: The real reason Hillary is embracing liberal positions

    snip

    Partly because of that broader story, it isn’t really that hard for Clinton to embrace these positions. Clinton might have a tougher time navigating Dem differences on economic issues, particularly the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Interestingly, Clinton advisers confide to Gearan that they recognize this is a problem, particularly given the stance on trade held by a previous president named Clinton, but “her advisers are gambling that the issue won’t leave an enduring rift within the party.”

    The strategic hints from Clinton’s advisers raise another question. Recent political history, plus the Democratic embrace of cultural priorities important to the party’s emerging coalition, suggests that Dems are less and less reliant on culturally conservative blue collar whites to win national elections. One key unknown about 2016 is whether Clinton (or any other Democrat) can turn out the Obama coalition in the numbers that he did. If not, she might need to perform better among white voters (including blue collar whites) than Obama managed to do.

    So one angle worth further exploration is: Do Clinton advisers agree that changing demographics mean that she won’t need to significantly outperform Obama among non-college whites? Or do they believe that liberal positions on some of these social and criminal justice issues have simply lost the cultural charge they once had, meaning they no longer seriously pose a risk of alienating blue collar whites, who can (hopefully) be won over with a strong economic message? Gearan’s reporting suggests the answer is the latter, but I’d love to know more on this.

  181. imho…a primary challenge is the least of her concern…especially if she zig zags all over the place with positions contradicting the ramifications of what outcomes they will produce…

  182. hwc
    May 18, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Hillary tries to be moderate. Bernie, and O’Malley, and Warren attack attack attack. The left wing media attacks. And, then in November, Eric Holder enters the race and takes 99% of the black vote. Hillary has to protect her left flank at all costs.
    —–
    When you swing to the extreme left–and I mean to the left of Obama, how do you recover in the general election. Yes, I know the bromide about moving to the left in the primary and to the center in the general election—but will the undecideds and the independents who number more than either party believe what she says in the general election when it conflicts with what she said in the primary. And will the allegations of corruption take root. Speaking of Matthew Arnold this strategy is fraught with the problem he described: caught between two worlds—one dead; the other powerless to be born. Which is a long way of saying–focus on the general election. Do not allow them to drag you so far to the left that you cannot recover.

  183. If she moves that far to the left, then it opens the door to Ted Cruz. Big media’s attempts to portray him as a right wing zealot will gain no traction with the swing voter, because the alternative is even worse.

  184. Or do they believe that liberal positions on some of these social and criminal justice issues have simply lost the cultural charge they once had, meaning they no longer seriously pose a risk of alienating blue collar whites, who can (hopefully) be won over with a strong economic message? Gearan’s reporting suggests the answer is the latter, but I’d love to know more on this.
    ———
    The huge fallacy in that argument is that the democrat party has no credibility on job creation. And the last six years proves it. The Republicans would love to fight a war on that battleground. Gearan’s reporting is not credible. Nor for that matter is Sargeant’s.

  185. To my mind, the entire progressive agenda is very fragile. The best evidence of this is their constant attempt to kill the messenger, rather than debating the merits of their position. That is not what confident people do. And because it is fragile, it is susceptible to breakage at many points. It is openly hostile to the American experience, so once it does fail, it will fall apart.

  186. Oh, those rascals….

    NYTIMES says Republican digital media groups are targeting Clinton from the left:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    This year, Zac Moffatt, a co-founder of Targeted Victory, a right-leaning political technology firm, who handled Mr. Romney’s digital operation and has worked with groups like America Rising and American Crossroads, laid out the strategy in a memo to several clients. “There was a hole to fill in the market,” he said, and if Democrats were not willing to challenge Mrs. Clinton, Republicans could do it themselves.

    For example, as Mrs. Clinton was traveling through Las Vegas this month on a campaign swing, “liberal Democrats” (as identified by Targeted Victory’s voter file) in the Las Vegas area saw a video pop into their Facebook news feeds, highlighting recent news reports about foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation. The video was shared by America Rising and received over 6,300 views, most from people who would never follow a group like America Rising on social media.

    Other groups are also using micro-targeted advertising to inject their content into the Facebook and Twitter news feeds of “liberal Democrats,” environmentalists and declared supporters of Ms. Warren, among others.

    “You might start looking at union households. You might start looking at Bernie Sanders’s core of support,” Mr. Moffatt said, referring to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Mr. Law said members of his staff at American Crossroads had easily been able to inhabit the liberal role, despite being fervent Republicans. “We wear these little bracelets — W.W.E.W.D.,” Mr. Law joked, referring to “What would Elizabeth Warren do?”

    W.W.E.W.D bracelets! Oh, my. It would be a hoot to see Karl Rove wearing one… 🙂

  187. hwc
    May 18, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    ———
    That was in that paper yesterday or the day before.

    I do not doubt that the Republicans want her campaigning as far to the left as possible.

    When your adversary wants you to do something, it is best to stop and think whether it is what you should be doing.

    There was an article in today’s WSJ that the unions are not forcing her to take a position on TPP—which is where she could do herself a lot of good with average Americans. There and on immigration.

    But this idea that any democrat following in Obama’s footsteps can rekindle the economy and create jobs is fantasy island. Better to focus on not losing existing jobs. That part is doable, but it would require a change in her current position.

  188. If she moves that far to the left, then it opens the door to Ted Cruz. Big media’s attempts to portray him as a right wing zealot will gain no traction with the swing voter, because the alternative is even worse.

    Unlike several of the Repub candidates, Cruz is not trapped needing to prove his bona fides to the right wing of the party. He can afford to tack to the center because nobody is ever going to accuse Ted Cruz of being a “squish”. 🙂

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvlcbXvQWAk&feature=youtu.be&t=630

    Ha. The gun range video is from the town where I live in NH! Here’s his answer on immigration to a gathering at the Fish and Game club. This is pretty impressiving retail politicing on a hot-button issue:

  189. Whoops sorry, wrong clip. Here’s the question and answer from a 2008 Hillary voter in my hometown:

  190. Unlike several of the Repub candidates, Cruz is not trapped needing to prove his bona fides to the right wing of the party. He can afford to tack to the center because nobody is ever going to accuse Ted Cruz of being a “squish”. 🙂
    ———-
    True.

  191. Looks like the Repubs are trying to limit their debates to just 12 candidates. That should give each of them plenty of time to answer questions like Stephie wanting to know if they are in favor of banning Trojans.

  192. For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
    But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
    An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
    An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!
    ————
    The reason the press has been trying to corner interviewees into “admitting” that George Bush made erred in toppling Saddam Hussein is the need to reassure themselves that catastrophe in the Middle East isn’t really their fault. The constant need to be told it’s not their doing is a form of denial. The more certain they are of their blunder the more they will need to tell themselves that the sounds they hear aren’t the footfalls of doom.

    Because the alternative is to admit the truth and accept that to reverse the tide, 20th century Western liberalism has to die or radically reform itself. None of the people who have built political and establishment media credentials want to hear that, but all the same …

    Putin is preparing anew offensive in the summer. Aden is under siege. Syria has returned to using chemical weapons and the Christian Science Monitor’s editorial board says its time to face the fact that very soon the country will implode. China is pushing into the South China Sea. ISIS has routed security forces in Ramadi who are fleeing pell-mell leaving large quantities of US supplied weapons to swell the armories of the jihad, as Hugh Naylor of the Washington Post reports.

    The fall of Ramadi represented a huge victory for the Islamic State and dealt a profound blow to Iraq’s U.S.-backed government, led by Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, and its military campaign to drive the extremist group out of the war-torn country. Just 24 hours before, officials in Baghdad announced that military reinforcements had been dispatched to defend the city, capital of Iraq’s largest province, against a brutal assault that began on Thursday.

    But by Sunday, even the roads to Baghdad, 80 miles to the east, appeared vulnerable to the militant advance.

    “Ramadi has fallen,” Muhannad Haimour, a spokesman for the Anbar governor told the Associated Press. “The city was completely taken…It was a gradual deterioration. The military is fleeing.”

    The problem isn’t these things of themselves but the fact that nobody in the establishment seems to understand how to react to these and other challenges. As it is, no one knows where this retreat will end. Despite their outward bravado, American liberalism must suspect it could well finish, politically at least, in the New York Times’ newsroom.

    ISIS is adapting very quickly and while liberalism is adjusting not at all. Like the need for reassurances on Iraq, the more unsuccessful their projects become the more compelled they are to repeat them. Even now they must pretend that president Obama hasn’t given away the store to Iran in his nuclear negotiations. But come on, they know that he has.

    The last Belmont Club post asked: what can defeat ISIS? The answer is a civilization that can adapt faster than it; which can seize free energy more quickly than the current masters of the Jihad; a society that can seize the initiative and not simply be content to reactively “lead from behind”. That eliminates the Western status quo ideology, based on 1930s socialist ideology, from the running. That’s never going to change.

    Yet the only way to survive the challenges of the coming years is to change the existing political status quo. The good news is that change is going to happen come what may. The bad news is that the Left, because it is the most mobilized, will probably initiate it.

    The classic leftist defense mechanism against a threat is to morph into fascism. It is highly probable that as the West comes under pressure in Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East the status quo ideology will become increasingly repressive. This is probably unavoidable. But it is what comes after the eventual collapse of liberal fascism that will either save the world or drown under the surging tide of barbarism. The phase after the collapse of Western fascism will either tend toward a new “dark age” or lead to a new era in prosperity and creativity.

    Therefore the solution set consists of those actions that will maximize the exit from the fascist phase on the best possible terms.

    In the next few years the political parties of Western Europe and the United States will clamp down hard in an effort to preserve themselves. They will try to square the circle and cobble together a Frankenstein stew of political correctness, repression, dysfunction and temporizing. It will fail, big time and when it does, it will take 20th century liberalism to the trash heap with it.

    The challenge before ordinary people is to join actions which will help Europe and North America work its way through this coming episode of psychosis. In general three survivable exits from madness can be attempted.

    Reforming the system through regular political action in a way similar to how the British went from absolutism to a constitutional monarchy. The old system replaces itself with new parts in a more or less peaceful process;
    Creating “monasteries” of survival by establishing affinity groups which preserve culture, technology and values from submergence in the wave of chaos;
    Flight to the frontier. Creating technology that will allow some people to physically escape or hold off barbarism.
    Reforming the system through political action is probably the most obvious response and the one people will most commonly use. It means engaging in thankless, often fruitless interaction with the generally dishonest political class, but while it will never deliver as much change as one hopes, it will never be completely fruitless. It does something. Whether it can do enough to help us avoid the crisis entirely remains to be seen. But it should be tried.

    Creating monasteries of thought means fully amplifying the social network model by creating affinity group replacements for the Westphalian State. It’s already happening. Christian Health Care Ministries, home-schooling efforts, kidnap and ransom insurance, independent universities, and even local currency are all practical examples of limited replacements for the state that already exist. They are the monastic vessels of the modern world.

    The New York Post, for example, describes how Eva Moskowitz helped thousands of kids “escape from public schools” to her Success Academies where kids are taught science, math, physics, code in computer languages and play chess. You can think of many such institutions. Just as the Irish monks saved Western knowledge from pirates and raiders, so too is preservation in the hands of latter-day monks.

    The monastery technique often goes unnnoticed but it is more widespread than we think. In Iraq or any other conflict torn area, affinity groups (such as the Kurds), tribal militias, barter trades and informal method of governance arise spontaneously to supplant the state. During World War 2 in Europe similar institutions arose. The United States, by its federal design, is in many ways designed to operate at a subsidiary level. If political action is not for you, try being a modern monk. Ultimately even the Mongol hordes were held back by stubborn tribesmen or bands of families making a stand in the steep hills.

    The last method — reaching for the frontier — relies on the fact that disruptive technology has played a decisive role in human survival. It is the creative antithesis of barbarism. The mastery of navigation, the Green Revolution, the discovery of antibiotics, the computing revolution were in hindsight the ways in which mankind warded off the insanity of rulers and passed through the valley of the shadow of death. Robotics, nanotechnology, new power technologies, and even travel to other planets may play a similarly decisive role in the future.

    People have always made for the frontier in times of trouble. Even though the world has no more new frontiers upon its surface, there are still inner frontiers and of course, the cosmos.

    Things are not hopeless, nor even gloomy. Not in the historical sense, anyway. Be any of these three things: politically involved, a monk or a frontiersman and have some assurance that you are contributing to your children’s survival. Do any of these things and you will help build a civilization that can out-evolve ISIS or failing that, quit this sad old earth and head for the stars.

    Only do not become like the hacks and celebrities of liberalism who prance across our screens. They are the past. Leave them there.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/05/17/fighting-entropy-part-2/#ixzz3aWrcYdox

  193. To follow up on the excellent analysis of Richard Rodriguez, David Ignatius and the rest of his ilk are trying to convince the public that Bush lost the middle east. And the more they repeat that, the more you hear ordinary people picking up on it, like parrots.

    Let me be clear: I applauded the 1991 decision not to invade Iraq and I opposed the decision to go in years later, based on the Powell doctrine, the need to contain Iran, and the need to maintain a balance of power between the two main variants of Islam. Thus, I believe it was a megapolitical mistake to invade Iraq, but having done so, thanks to the surge we redeemed ourselves.

    It was only after Obama took over, and did his Arab Spring deal, and embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, and toppled other regimes that gave a sense of stability in the region, and drew red lines which vanished when he was pushed, and made political promises to run against the advice of his generals. THAT WAS THE POINT AT WHICH EVERYTHING FELL APART.

    This is not a defense of Bush. Rather, it is an indictment of Obama, who may not have been the initial cause of the chaos and barbarism that now engulfs the middle east, but is the proximate cause of it. But the indictment must also implicate his co-conspirator, which was and is big media. And that is why they are planting the seed that the whole damned mess is Bush’s fault, because they know in their hearts that they more than him are the guilty party. But they do not want anyone else to know.

  194. The other salient point Richard makes is that liberalism has morphed into fascism.

    Think back to the time when giants of the civil rights movement came forward and questioned the assertion by the politicized justice department that the voting rights act only protected black people, or to the questioning of voter identification requirements or to the assertion that anyone who opposed Obama was ipso facto a racist.

    Or consider what Kristan Powers, a bona fide democrat and liberal’s contention that liberalism has become intolerant where it was once tolerant, it attacks critics rather than giving them a fair hearing, and it tells whistle blowers if you speak to journalists we will fuck with you and put you in a cage.

    And now on the international front we are in full scale retreat.

    Again, Richard’s analysis sheds important light on how and why this is happening. No. It is not our imagination. Our bigotry. Our ignorance. It is empirical, real and palpable. All you need to do is look. And as you look through the looking glass darkly you see that this demand for political correctness and repression of free thought is certain to become more McCarthy like as time goes on, as the dishonest political class attempts to maintain their power. But in the end it will have to yield to reality. It is a form of psychosis.

  195. I called Fauxahauntis’ office today and demanded to know why she had dropped the ball on organizing a resistance to this poisonous deal. I told her aide we needed a list of the congressional prostitutes that the Repubs say are going to vote for it.

    He absolutely did not know what to say to me.

  196. Uh, oh. Irritating news for Hillary camp on three fronts in new NYTIMES article: Libya, Clinton Foundation, e-mail server…

    NYTIMES just published copies of e-mails from a clinton server e-mail account that Hillary’s lawyer David Kendall told Trey Gowdy (in response to subpoena) didn’t exist when Clinton was SecState. Yikes.

  197. S
    May 18, 2015 at 1:12 pm
    ————————–
    Admin has answered this. Hillary gave in to pressures to announce too soon. Now she needs to keep her mouth shut and listen. I am not suggesting you lower your expectations of her. I am suggesting you be patient.

    I know what I saw in ’08. That person did not come out until faced with adversity. That is just how some of us are. You know, ever since I found out that Hillary is a Briggs Meyers INTJ, I have understood more why I felt a kinship with her. The INTJ personality is the rares of the 16 types. Only 1 in 200 people have it. It is more rare in women, with only 1 in 300. We are not rock stars.

    What does Hillary Clinton think? http://www.truity.com/personality-type/intj

  198. BTW, the NYTIMES story appears to be sourced from Obama folk backing up the dump truck on Clinton. The article is about Richard Blumenthal’s memos to Clinton about Libya, but includes the note that Obama’s people hated Blumenthal so much they barred Clinton from actually hiring him. Where would that come from, except Obama?

  199. My biggest mistake in pretending that I am a Hillary adviser, which obviously I am not, but my biggest mistake was in supporting her decision to enter the Obama Administration. My thinking at the time was she would not be welcome back in the Senate, she would probably lose her next election because of the black vote, the nation needed someone with experience and judgment–surely not Biden who has a long track record of being wrong on every foreign policy issue, etc. I never realized the degree to which she would be controlled not by him, immersed in a cloud cuckooland agenda and controlled but by idiots like Rice, Power, Brennan and their ilk. I believe she had all the responsibility but very little authority. As a result they would use her as their fall guy when they got in trouble. If memory serves, admin went the other way and opined that she should not be part of the administration. And so, I recall, did some of you.

  200. Perfectly believable explanation for the e-mail confusion. While SecState, Hillary only used one email: HROD22@clintonemail.com.

    When she left office in 2013, she changed it to a new e-mail: HROD17@clintonemail.com.

    Now, supposedly, when they printed e-mails for the Benghazi committee, they all showed up with the new HROD17 address as the sender.

  201. After Jebediah fumbled the question as to whether it was a mistake that his brother attacked Iraq, Liz Cheney tweeted that Jebediah should have told them to ask Obama whether it was a mistake to have abandoned Iraq. A better question was the one Richard suggested, whether based on what we know now, it was a mistake for big media to have demanded that we abandon Iraq. Because for me, that is where it all comes to rest. Obama can lie and lie and lie about everything, but it is the fundamental dishonesty of big media that carries the day. If they had been critics rather than cheer leaders, he could not have destroyed this country.

  202. gonzotx:

    The Judicial Watch memos from the Defense Intelligence Agency confirm that significant arms shipments were going from the Port of Benghazi to Syria (to arm the Syrian rebels, AKA ISIS). At least now we can see why we were in Benghazi in the first place….

  203. The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), is a trade association that leads the effort to advance medical technology in order to achieve healthier lives and healthier economies around the world. AdvaMed represents 80 percent of medical technology firms in the United States and acts as the common voice for companies producing medical devices, diagnostic products and health information systems.

    Our members produce nearly 90 percent of the health care technology purchased annually in the United States and more than 40 percent purchased annually around the world. AdvaMed’s member companies range from the largest to the smallest medical technology innovators and companies.

    BIO is the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world’s largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world.

  204. Lu4Puma @ 7:53pm

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

    I hear you Lu4Puma and Admin clearly…I get that…

    I just do not want Obama 3…or Obama 3 on Steroids…

    like I have said…I agree, it is early…and I am keeping an open mind…

    I also agree Hillary would have been much better off had she not gotten involved in O’s tainted admin and did something independent and on her own laurels and come out solely with the Clinton brand but it is what it is and I am hoping for the best…

  205. wbboei
    If you examine English literature you find a recurrent theme: lost innocence.

    From William Blake to William Wordsworth to Matthew Arnold to Oscar Wilde to Thomas Hardy to William Butler Yeats to TS Elliott.

    The catalysts? technological change, war, and the shattering of faith in institutions.

    Today we have a similar loss of faith in our government.

    If you examine American literature as transcribed in blog entries and Ani’s book and another book, here, today, in America – that event for many of us was the Rules and Bylaws meeting. We lost the innocence (and security) of thinking that one party was good and the other bad. We lost faith in our government as we learn more and more about how corrupt most seem to be…. And we have to try to second guess what the politicians really mean… it’s exhausting, neverending, and often feels hopeless….

  206. wbboie’article:

    Western kids are reportedly trying to join ISIS; why? Perhaps because the only spiritual movement being discussed in public, however ugly its ideology, is extremist Islam.

    This thinking always bothers me. The vast majority of “western kids” who do this either were brought here from a Muslim country when they were children, or were born here of recently immigrated parents. Bottom line: they are from families that have not assimilated. So, technically they are “Americans”… but not really. IMO, it’s not our growing secular society that causes this, but our societal move away from the melting pot and towards diversity.

Comments are closed.