@RealDonaldTrump Just Won The Third GOP Debate – ‘Fizzles’ Fiorina Fumes

CNBC caves to demand from Trump and Carson, agrees to limit next GOP debate to two hours:

Or rather, CNBC caved to the demand from Trump. Carson co-signed the letter that Trump sent to the network, but it ain’t Dr. Ben who’s delivering an extra 10 million viewers or so to these things.

Pretty simple calculation for CNBC: Enjoy two hours of boffo ratings with Trump as your star or three hours of middling ratings for special guest star Jeb Bush. [snip]

Anyway: With 10 candidates on stage, figure a minute for each opening and closing statement plus 20 minutes for commercials each hour and you’ve got one hour of actual Q&A — which includes the time needed by the moderators to actually pose the questions. Not including their openings and closings, each candidate should end up with … four minutes of speaking time, maybe? Five?

Let’s be the first to say it: Ban these debates. All of them. The public gets nothing from these phony filled-with-baloney “debates”. What are these phony “debates” about? The public gets nothing by way of information from them, the candidates get “free” airtime, the TV station gets money from commercials. The public gets screwed. Find another format and get rid of these phony debates. We suggest gladiatorial spectacles as in ancient Rome with candidates physically assaulting each other.

Get rid of these phony debates. These debates all have an agenda and it is not an agenda for the voter to get informed. On the Republican side it is attacks on Trump all the time. It’s attempts to prop up little Jebbie Bush as his pawns try to take down Trump. On the Hillary side, there is no one for her to debate. Sanders and the rest of the Obama fluffers are not serious applicants even for a McDonalds’ janitorial management job let alone fit to be in any “debate” with the word “presidential” in the description. Get rid of these debates.

Maybe, if the Villages idiot – Mourning Joe Biden – decides to do as Obama wants and runs against Hillary then we can see one debate against these two. But then, basta! Enough! As to the Republicans, there is only Trump or Jeb Bush and the satire magazine The Onion provides the best commentary on JeBush:

Extension Cord On Stage Steals Spotlight From Jeb Bush During Campaign Rally

CONCORD, NH—Emphasizing the allure and appeal of the 30-foot length of electrical power cable that shared the stage with the former Florida governor, sources confirmed that an orange three-pronged extension cord completely stole the spotlight from Jeb Bush during a New Hampshire campaign rally Friday. “Jeb made some interesting points about the need to prioritize national security, but ultimately he was just completely overshadowed by the far more riveting extension cord running along the floor beside him,” said political pundit Chris Wallace, who acknowledged that attendees appeared more energized by the flexible orange cable taped to the stage and noted that the one-time GOP frontrunner repeatedly failed to connect with the audience as effectively as the cord. “Unfortunately for Jeb, no matter what he did throughout the night, he just looked bland and flat compared to that extension cord. He’s not going to want to bring that piece of electrical equipment with him to any more rallies if he wants voters’ attention to stay directed at him.” At press time, the Bush campaign team was rapidly assembling a focus group to learn how the candidate could be more like the extension cord.

Hillary Clinton is up against Bernie Sanders, a man about as interesting as an intermittently working light bulb. Donald Trump is up against a dauphin less interesting than an extension cord.

Do we need more dim bulb debates? More no energy dullards on stage? No! CNBC, in order to have more time for commercials, wanted another three hour debate. Donald Trump said “NO” and Donald Trump won:

Again, that’s not a problem for Trump, who can get 30 minutes of cable-news time to riff on whatever he wants anytime he wants simply by dialing up CNN or whoever and asking to be put on the air. On the contrary: Both as the frontrunner and as a guy whose grasp of policy detail is not, shall we say, his chief selling point, he has every incentive at this point to keep the debates as short as possible.

Let’s assume, for arguments sake, that Donald Trump wants less time for self-interested entirely selfish, politically motivated reasons. None of that matters. Donald Trump won the larger debate over who is the dog and who is the tail. Big Media efforts to convince the public, the political parties, and the candidates, that Big Media is the big dog and the political process is the tail just got beat by Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the new Big Dog and Big Media is what comes out of the dog in the tail region. Donald Trump did what we have advised candidates to do since 2007 and that is why Donald Trump is a leader who wins and wins and wins:

CNBC Agrees to Two-Hour Debate: This Is Why Donald Trump Is Winning

While every other Republican remained publicly silent, frontrunner Donald Trump got his closest rival, Dr. Ben Carson, to join with him and together they stood up and said, “No.”

This kept Trump in the headlines and at the top of the news cycle throughout yesterday afternoon and this morning. And now we’ve learned that Trump and Carson won. The DC/NY media agreed to the frontrunners’ demands.

Does anyone in the weak-kneed Republican Establishment, or among the bubbled-morons in the Punditocracy, have any more questions about why The Donald appears to be coasting to the Republican nomination for President of the United States? [snip]

Look who publicly stood up to the media. Look who punched back by threatening to boycott the debate and used their leverage as frontrunners to get CNBC to back down.

This morning CNBC caved and agreed to a two-hour debate. The RNC also believes the candidates will get their opening and closing statements.

Let me put this as simply as possible for the GOPSmartSet-impaired: The Republicans will not win the White House in 2016 with yet another “electable” squish. We need a standard-bearer who is not only willing to stand up to the media but who also knows how to prevail against the media. [snip]

Strength and competence wins the respect of voters and by extension their confidence and their votes. And right now, while Establishment candidates like Jeb Bush go full-Beta, the only Republican candidate showing both strength and competence is Donald Trump.

Trump is in command.

A Bill Clinton axiom is “Better to be strong and wrong, than weak and right.” The new Big Dog, Donald Trump, understands and fights. Donald J. Trump is not only right, he’s strong enough to fight for what’s right. Trump is strong, and not wrong.

The third Republican debate will be under the command and control of Donald J. Trump. CNBC will try to take Trump down at the debate but at every turn Trump will be able to say that CNBC is attacking Trump in vengeance for lost commercial dollars. And that is why Donald J. Trump just won the third GOP debate.

CNBC and the Lilliputians will still try to take down Trump. Already we have seen how Megyn Kelly teamed up with Carly “Fizzles” Fiorina to sneer against Trump.

After the second debate Big Media proclaimed Carly Fiorina’s performance to be spectacular and Rich Lowry on Fox News declared Fiorina to have cut off Trump’s testicles. Our modest prediction was that Fizzles Fiorina would “rise and rise and rise from the low single digits to the high single digits.” Our prediction came true along with our “poof” addendum that after the rise Fizzles Fiorina would be back to low single digits. Done and done.

Fizzles Fiorina, as devastated as she is, compares favorably to what Donald Trump has done to the rest of the field of dreamers. Have you seen the financial results for the last quarter as filed by the candidates?

Consider Donald J. Trump:

Donald Trump Accidentally Raised Almost As Much As Rubio

Donald Trump’s campaign collected $4 million in the third quarter, roughly the same as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). The real difference, though, is that Trump’s campaign hasn’t conducted any fundraising efforts.

Almost all of that $4 million total is from “unsolicited” donations. People simply sent his campaign money without being asked for it. [snip]

The result is that Trump, without trying, raised far more than Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and was largely in-line with major challengers Rubio and businesswomen Carly Fiorina. [snip]

According to the most recent FEC filing, Jeb Bush’s campaign was spending more than $3.5 million each month during the Summer.

Donald Trump has spent the least amount of any of the major candidates. Through the entire campaign so far, Trump has spent just over $5 million total.

That’s not the most astounding Trump money news. It’s all about the hats:

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump spent more on hats, bumper stickers, yard signs and t-shirts than he did on any other category in the third quarter, according to his latest campaign finance report filed on Thursday. [snip]

In typical presidential campaigns, top expenditures are usually payroll, mailings and consultants.

But those items did not feature largely on Trump’s report. The filing, made with the Federal Election Commission, contained no line item for payroll at all. [snip]

Trump raised nearly $4 million in the third quarter. In total, the campaign has raised $5.8 million and spent $5.6 million. Despite proclamations that he would self-fund his candidacy, Trump still raked in unsolicited donations from nearly 74,000 people, who gave an average of $50.46.

Jeb Bush? Jeb Bush is the profligate prodigal son:

“The high life has ended,” said one Florida operative familiar with the campaign’s operation. [snip]

“At a certain point, we want to see a bang for the buck. We’re spending the bucks — and we’re seeing no bang,” a longtime Bush Republican said.

Bush is stuck at 7 percent in an average of national polls. [snip]

In New Hampshire, seen by many as a must-win for Bush, Bush and the Right to Rise super PAC backing him have spent at least $4.8 million on TV and radio to support him since early September. One ad-tracking firm produced an analysis for POLITICO that showed pro-Bush spots in the past three weeks have occupied about 60 percent of the political ad air-time in the state. Bush’s numbers have moved from 9 perrcent [sic] to 8.7 percent since the ad blitz began, according to the Real Clear Politics averages of polls in the GOP primary. [snip]

But when asked how he plans to improve his standing, Bush himself has been blunt: “I’m going to do something really novel,” he said last week. “It’s called advertising.” [snip]

“In the past, advertising was a show of strength. Now, if you’re advertising it’s because you’re in a weak position,” said Elizabeth Wilner, senior vice president of Kantar Media Ad Intelligence overseeing its Campaign Media Analysis Group.

TipToes JeBush can barely keep his nose above water.

Self-funded Donald J. Trump has a “burn rate” lower than the money Americans are sending him! And Trump is tops! JeBush spends like a drunk sailor in a Nevada whorehouse. And Bush is drowning! Carson? Ben Carson is making money to spend money:

In the three-month period that ended September 30, the campaign spent 53 cents for every dollar it raised. That number was down slightly from 64 cents for every dollar raised in the second quarter of the year.

Spending top dollar on fundraising has enabled the campaign to assemble a list of more than two million donors from whom it raises between $200,000 and $350,000 per day, a campaign spokesman said.

In all, Mr. Carson directed $11 million of the $14 million he spent in the third quarter to fundraising costs.

Get Dr. Carson to the burn unit at the hospital as a patient. Bad, bad, burn rate. He raised $20 million last quarter but already spent $14 million.

Donald J. Trump is winning every poll in every state, every national poll, consistently, month after month even as he spends less than the other major candidates. The new polls shatter the dreamers:

He first took the lead in the RCP national poll average on July 20, so next week will mean three full months at the top. And Trump is far ahead of the two squabbling candidates, Bush and Rubio, in the early-voting states:

1) In Iowa, Trump is up by 17 over Bush, and 18 over Rubio, according to the most recent poll, by the Wall Street Journal.

2) In New Hampshire, Trump is up by 10 over Bush and 11 over Rubio, according to the Journal.

3) In South Carolina, Trump is up by 25 over Rubio and 30 over Bush in a brand-new CNN poll.

4) In Nevada, Trump is up by 31 over Rubio and 32 over Bush, according to CNN.

They keep burying Trump but, but, Zombie Trump continues to rise and thrive in the supposed strongholds of other candidates:

Trump Trouncing GOP Foes on Their Home Turf

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is not only leading all national and state polls, but he’s trouncing his other GOP opponents in their own states as voters soundly turn against established government leaders in favor of the New York real estate billionaire.

On Thursday, the trend continued, with a new Rutgers-Eagleton poll in New Jersey showing Trump soundly defeating all challengers and coming in several points ahead of Gov. Chris Christie. The numbers in the poll are as follows, reports The Record:

Trump, 32 percent
Ben Carson, 13 percent
Marco Rubio, 13 percent
Ted Cruz, 6 percent
Carly Fiorina, 5 percent
Chris Christie, 5 percent
Jeb Bush, 5 percent
John Kasich, 2 percent
Mike Huckabee, 1 percent
George Pataki, 1 percent
Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul, less than 1 percent
Graham and Jim Gilmore, 0 percent

Christie’s numbers dropped from 12 percent in August, according to the poll, while Trump’s rose, from 21 percent. [snip]

The latest Quinnipiac University poll shows Trump holding double-digit leads against both Bush and Rubio, with Trump at 28 percent, Rubio at 14 percent, and Bush at 12 percent.

Trump is also leading in Florida over Rubio and Bush among Hispanics, a group with which both Florida leaders share ties, reports Breitbart. According to a September Public Policy Polling survey, Trump defeated Bush among Hispanics by 37 to 29 percent, and defeated Rubio by one percentage point. [snip]

Trump is also defeating Ohio Gov. John Kasich, even though the Republican governor has been enormously popular among his own state’s residents, reports The Columbus Dispatch, reporting last week on a Quinnipiac Poll that focused on Ohio and two other swing states, Florida and Pennsylvania.

The numbers were:

  • Trump, 23 percent
  • Carson, 18 percent
  • Kasich, 13 percent
  • Cruz, 11 percent
  • Fiorina, 10 percent
  • “Gov. John Kasich’s big card was his enormous popularity in Ohio, generally considered the most important swing state in the November election,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. 

    “But with Trump zooming well past him in the Buckeye State and Kasich’s numbers in Florida and Pennsylvania in low single digits, the Ohio governor’s campaign is going in the wrong direction,” Brown said.

    Graham, who has represented South Carolina for several years, recorded an embarrassing defeat in a CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday that gave Trump 36 percent, compared to 5 percent for Graham.

    Rand Paul in Kentucky and Ted Cruz in Texas are not beating Trump either. Trump tops them all, consistently. That’s something not even Hillary Clinton can boast in her primary against non-entities.

    Donald Trump has triumphed in the third GOP debate even before it is held. It’s not just the third debate though. Donald Trump might have won this primary already. It’s only a few more months until Iowa votes on February 1 and if JeBush cannot advertise himself out of the circling drain, Trump will flush him along with the rest of the, um, schleps.


    How To Destroy Donald Trump

    Update: CNN poll: 64% of Republicans prefer securing border and deportation of illegals over legalization. 64%??? Maybe the voters like someone who agree with them on the issues? Is that part of the “secret sauce?” Is that why “attack Trump” does not work? Is that why “ignore Trump” does not work? Could Trump win? The real question is, “how can you stop him from winning?” Trump appears to be the right messenger with the right message.


    Why do we write these “How To Destroy….” articles? Because a word of warning, an ounce of prevention, can stave off disaster. Forewarned is forearmed. We’ve written many articles riffing on “How To Destroy Hillary Clinton” because we want Hillary Clinton to put armor on her soft underbelly so she can survive and thrive.

    Thus far our warnings and advice to Hillary have been in vain. There is no armor on her soft underbelly. Instead Hillary appears to have outlined her vital organs in glowing paint to make targeting them easier for her enemies.

    The only good news along this front, before we get to Donald Trump (to be followed with some more Hillary news), has been happening in the past few days. Something is happening. The ice is slowly melting. Since the polls from Iowa, Colorado, and Virginia, became public some good news might be happening.

    What is this good news? Not much really. But ever since we placed country and principles above political party in 2008 we have found ourselves isolated. Old friends treated us like lepers. Our nationally recognized big name friends mostly no longer called (except those who leaked things to us in deepest background). The big dollar donor associates lost the ability to communicate. In short, once we refused to lie to ourselves and others, did not bury our objections with a shroud of silence about the creep Barack Obama, we became outcasts. We’ve grown happy about the situation and view these “losses” as gains that make us feel better about ourselves. In the past few days however we’re getting more and more “how have you been?” communications. Some of these big time Democrats (many of whom privately detest Barack Obama and think as we do) are now even willing to make outreach to us in a way they must know might not remain very private. We think and hope that this is because they fear we are right that Hillary had better change her strategy to what we suggest or she will find herself a loser. It’s not much hope, but it’s something folks. We’ll get back to Hillary after we teach the “How to destroy Donald Trump” seminar.

    How To Destroy Donald Trump

    It’s not going to be very easy to get rid of Donald Trump let alone “destroy” him. But there is a tried and true method that might work even though we don’t think it will. Remember when we defended Donald Trump against the whining Republican candidates for president with this little anecdote about Bill Clinton?:

    In 1992 Bill Clinton was behind George H.W. Bush, and both of them were losers to the #1 H. Ross Perot. Did Bill Clinton whine? No, Bill Clinton put on dark shades, grabbed a saxophone, and went on the Arsenio Hall show and made his own luck. That’s how its done.

    No “heartbreak hotel” for Bill Clinton that election. That little publicity stunt only got Bill Clinton some attention. But at the time that little attention was a pitcher of water in the desert for Bill because Perot had so energized the presidential race that Bill was sucking Perot’s exhaust pipe.

    Bill Clinton used that saxophone stunt to get back in the game. But how did Bill Clinton go from a weak third place to inauguration? The answer is one word: theft. Um, we mean good theft. We mean issues theft. Bill Clinton stole H. Ross Perot’s big issue of the debt and deficit.

    It wasn’t wholesale theft. Perot still had the oomph on the debt and deficit issue but Bill Clinton shifted his campaign strategy sufficiently to be taken seriously, as no Democrat ever has since, that he would fight the national debt and get rid of the deficit as president. Eventually President Bill Clinton would not only get rid of the deficit but start Andrea Mitchell’s husband a’worrying about how Bill was about to destroy the debt too. Good ol’ days.

    It was not the first time Bill Clinton committed grand larceny of an issue. During the primaries in 1992 the befuddled Bob Kerrey campaigned on universal health care. Bill Clinton stole that issue wholesale and retail, lock, stock, and barrel, and won the nomination. Does anyone see how this relates to Donald Trump.

    If any Republican candidate wants to “destroy” Donald Trump it’s not going to be with recitations of past positions or “rude” or contradictory statements by The Donald. The only way to destroy Donald Trump is to steal his issues.

    Yeah, the only way to destroy Donald Trump is to steal his issues. But that is easier said than done because of the nature of Donald Trump’s main issue.

    Donald Trump’s main issue is not really illegal immigration. Sure, illegal immigration and his colorful attack on illegal immigrants got lots of attention. But that is not really Donald Trump’s big issue.

    Donald Trump’s main issue is not really the deplorable conditions in this country. Donald Trump’s main issue is not really the fleecing of America by other countries. Donald Trump’s main issue is not really ObamaCare. Donald Trump’s main issue is not really ObamaTrade. Donald Trump’s main issue is not drug dealers and/or crime.


    So how does a governor or a senator or even a former Secretary of State steal that issue from Donald J. Trump?

    Republican candidates for president, along with Hillary and Saint Bernard of Vermont, know they cannot steal Donald Trump’s #1 main big mammajamma issue. So the first tactic was to attack Trump without restraint. Remember this from Republican/conservative website Hotair:

    But this is one gigantic bridge too far. Whether he said that out of ignorance, a desire to cause a stir or – and I pray this isn’t true – because he really feels that way, I am done with him. Completely and absolutely done. Anyone who can allow those words to pass their lips is not fit to command our armed forces and is either too stupid, too oblivious or just too unamerican to serve as President of these United States.

    Speaking only as one veteran who survived absolutely nothing compared to Senator McCain, I will close with a simple message. Goodbye, Mr. Trump. Your little show has been entertaining to say the least and, in your own way, you spurred some aspects of the national debate which needed a boost. But the sooner you exit the stage the better. You shall have no vote from me in any election, primary or general.

    That writer was joined by the Republican National Committee as well as just about every Republican/conservative/leftist/moderate website and so many “leaders” they are too many to count. Those attacks against Trump were joined by major companies and business leaders and business associates of Donald Trump. The only brave souls that stuck by the Trump were good ol’ Big Pink and the voters.

    That writer we cited above? Behold the latest from that “I’ll never vote for Trump” writer:

    The full numbers were announced on Jake Tapper’s State of the Union broadcast and he took a fifteen minute phone call from Trump live on the air as soon as he finished reading them. It was a fairly aggressive, wide ranging interview, but Trump came off very well. In fact, as much as I might want to, I’m having a hard time staying mad at Donald Trump. I’m still completely turned off by his McCain war record comments (and no, I’m not getting into the whole thing again this morning) but I can’t deny the appeal of most of the rest of what Donald is selling this summer.

    Okay… I can’t stay mad at you, ya big galoot. If you’re the nominee I’ll vote for ya. I can’t risk a “Hillary by default” vote on my conscience.

    That’s some big change isn’t it? From “you shall have no vote from me in any election” to “I’ll vote for ya” is a lot of distance. From “not fit to command our armed forces and is either too stupid, too oblivious or just too unamerican to serve as President” to “I can’t deny the appeal” is a walk further than Long Island. So what accounts for this?

    The Republican establishment now realizes that the attacks against Trump have backfired. We’ll document why in a moment. So now the strategy is to ignore Trump. Bring up some other failed candidates to the fore for interviews. Drag some elected who have a tough speech into the limelight if only to ignore Trump. Ignore Trump. Ignore Trump. Ignore Trump. As if.

    Donald Trump will not be ignored, so writes the leftist Atlantic:

    There’s No Stopping the Trump Show

    Republicans wish their bombastic frontrunner would go away—but they can’t figure out how to get rid of him.

    LAREDO, Texas—You want the Trump show to be over. But it’s not over.

    You want to ignore Donald Trump. You think maybe if you ignore him long enough, he will go away. Well, guess what? He’s not going away.

    The media, you may have noticed, is full of Trump—explanations of Trump, denunciations of Trump, justifications of Trump, analyses of Trump, handwringing about the coverage of Trump, and accounts of the latest outrageous thing Trump has done. He is on the front page of every newspaper, the top of every newscast. They can’t believe it; they can’t get their heads around it, that this is happening, and not only is it happening, it is the biggest thing in American politics right now. It has consumed American politics. It—Trump—is bigger than the entire rest of the Republican field, which, by the way, has 15 other people in it—governors, senators, very big, very serious people. Trump is bigger than them all.

    Trump is so big they are attacking him just to get themselves noticed. [snip]

    Trump has the Republican Party by the throat. It cannot figure out how to get rid of him. The party elites, those snobs in D.C. who do not respect or understand the people out there in America, are tearing their hair out over the damage Trump is supposedly doing to the party. [snip]

    Yet the party has no power over Trump. He has the money, he has the press, he has the voters.

    The Trumpnado in Laredo was not Donald Trump’s last stand. Trump was in Oskaloosa Iowa on Saturday. He was truly brilliant in his very polished politician presentation even as he came off as everyman fighting the powers that be. We thought this was a particularly clever way to do politics:

    Trump vs. Clinton: A tale of 2 Iowa rallies

    Hillary’s intimate policy seminar could not have been more different than Donald’s bombastic barbecue. [snip]

    Donald Trump was in town.

    The billionaire mogul gave a rowdy rally in his signature meandering, yet riveting style. He went after a new target — Scott Walker, calling his state a “disaster” and ripping the Wisconsin governor’s fiscal policies. He regaled the crowd with tales of Thursday’s circus-like trip to Laredo, Texas, where he toured the border and showcased his provocative attacks on illegal immigrants. He spent the rest of his time lamenting the state of the country while touting what an amazing businessman he is.

    Who can do better than Trump?” Trump said. “I fix things.” [snip]

    He betrayed a little insecurity in going after Walker, who he said was “finally” fair game because one of the governor’s donors had called him a “dumb-dumb.” [snip]

    “Wisconsin’s doing terribly. It’s in turmoil. The roads are a disaster because they don’t have any money to rebuild them. They’re borrowing money like crazy. They projected a $1 billion surplus, and it turns out to be a deficit of $2.2 billion. The schools are a disaster. The hospitals and education was a disaster. And he was totally in favor of Common Core,” he said to big cheers, adding later, “I wrote all this stuff down though I don’t need to though because I’ve got a really good memory.”

    Trump was also sure to sell the crowd on his resume: “I’m very good with contracts, don’t you want that? … I went to Wharton School of Finance. I was a really good student.” [snip]

    If it wasn’t for me, you would’ve never heard of a ‘sanctuary city’” he said. [snip]

    But all the bluster has yet to put him in the lead in Iowa, where he trails Walker in recent polls.

    “Will you please put me in first place so I feel better?” he asked the crowd.

    That’s a mix of bombast politicians typically use but without the phony humility – along with a schoolboy charm in doing what campaign strategists stress to candidates is an important “ask”. “Ask the voters to vote for you” is something candidates, especially first time candidates, often forget to do. But Trump asks for support from voters with a vanity and charm that is clear English. “Will you please put me in first place so I feel better?” Who does an ask in such a manner? Trump.

    That type of pomposity mixed with humility is sneered at by the political class. But for Trump, who was pronounced dead by just about everyone after his remarks about McCain, it works. It works wonders.

    It works wonders in New Hampshire. It works astonishingly across the nation. It works miracles in Iowa, as the leftist loons at Vox are forced to admit:

    Republicans’ Donald Trump problem just got worse

    Donald Trump was supposed to flame out fast. Instead, he’s burning ever hotter in the first contests of the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

    The real estate mogul and reality TV star has a seven-point lead over his nearest competitor in New Hampshire, and he’s breathing down the neck of longtime Iowa caucuses leader Scott Walker, according to two NBC-Marist University polls released Sunday morning. [snip]

    Scott Walker remains in the pole position in Iowa with 19 percent of Republican saying he’s their candidate. But Trump, who has lagged him by 8 or 9 percentage points in each of the last three polls taken in Iowa, now trails Walker by just 2 percentage points at 17 percent.

    Trump’s favorability rating is right side up with Republicans. [snip]

    Trump appears to be bleeding support mostly from the bottom tiers of candidates, as Jeb Bush, at 12 percent, is the only other hopeful in double digits in Iowa. That is, Trump seems to be consolidating a lot of the anti-establishment vote.

    The turf in New Hampshire is even more fertile ground for Trump. He’s supplanted Bush as the favorite in the “Live Free or Die” state. Trump checked in with 21 percent of registered New Hampshire Republicans, leaving Bush at 14 percent and Walker at 12 percent, in the dust.

    “Will you please put me in first place so I feel better?” Trump is 2 points away from feeling much better and being in position to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s also #1 in North Carolina so we suspect that South Carolina might be on Trump’s menu. Then there is the Florida primary, winner take all, which up to now was supposed to be a caged death match between Rubio and Jeb. Could Trump, who regularly visits his many properties in Florida decide to contest Florida thereby knocking out both Rubio and Jeb in one bloody stroke? And don’t forget, if Walker loses the neighboring state of Iowa, Walker is out (and what a fool Walker was to attack Trump and follow that up with a Walker donor also attacking Trump opening the door to a Trump attack). So is Donald Trump set to be the nominee???? You betcha!

    Outsider Ben Carson? Trump is a bigger outsider and not so soft-spoken. Carly Fiorina? A tough outsider like Trump but without organization and popularity and a problem history at Hewlett Packard. Pataki?, Gilmore?, Cruz?, Graham?, Perry?, etc., etc.? We’ll wait until the August 6 debate; but if Donald Trump is consolidating the anti-establishment voter juggernaut all calculations go out the window.

    Think any Washington elected figure such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Graham, can steal Trump’s main issue? Think any elected official such as Walker, Christie, Kasich, can steal Trump’s main issue? Think again. Trump is throwing out the moneychangers at the temple and burning down the establishment:

    OSKALOOSA, Iowa—Donald Trump said there was no cap in the amount of money he would be willing to put into his campaign for the Republican nomination for president if his message continues to resonate with voters.

    Speaking at a free-wheeling press conference following a rally in this city east of Des Moines, Mr. Trump also attacked Republican rivals Jeb Bush and Scott Walker and Democrat Hillary Clinton with accusations that they were beholden to wealthy donors.

    Mr. Trump, a real-estate developer and television personality, has almost entirely self-financed his campaign so far.

    “Bush is controlled by those people. Walker is controlled by those people. Hillary Clinton is controlled by those people. Trump has none of those people,” he said Saturday afternoon. “I’m not controlled. I do what’s right for the people.” [snip]

    He’s saying the things we really feel,” said Gary Staggs, a 55-year-old small business owner from Oskaloosa. “Politicians can’t say them because they are so afraid of somebody they will offend.”

    Mr. Trump delivered a nearly hourly long monologue without notes that touched on the imbalance of trade with China, his wealth and Iowa’s hot weather.

    I love you people. I love Iowa. But it’s hot as hell and I’m sweating like a dog,” said Mr. Trump, who wore a full suit.

    “I’m sweating like a dog” is not something that comes out of the mouths of politicians. “I’m perspiring profusely” is the mushy English politicians use, er, utilize.

    English when properly wielded is a potent weapon. Winston Churchill rallied Western civilization with profound words of defiance and resolve – and backed them up with fearless action. Like Churchill, when Donald Trump was allegedly in “trouble” Trump did not back down. Trump mobilized his voters with powerful English backed up by equally powerful action when he refused to apologize to the sanitation truck chasing dogs called Big Media and the political class.

    Hillary Clinton

    Which brings us back to Hillary Clinton. We continue and will continue and continue and continue to scream that the Hillary2016 tactic of the “Obama third term” or hugging Obama or keeping quiet about the disaster that is Obama is a strategic mistake which will lead Hillary2016 to Hindenberg size defeat. We persist that a massive purge of Obama operatives from Hillary2016 and separation from Obama must take place. We will scream and shout that Barack Obama is Hillary and Hillary2016’s most nefarious and dangerous enemy.

    Some will insist that no, Benghazi or email stuff is the big problem Hillary has. But no. As we have written, the big enemy of Hillary and Hillary2016 is treacherous Barack Obama:

    Hillary faces dangerous enemy in the Obama administration [snip]

    Look for Vice President Joe Biden to jump in soon, and lefty Sen. Elizabeth Warren might also take the leap.

    Meanwhile, Clinton must play ­defense against her former colleagues in the State Department and intelligence agencies.

    Actually, it’s worse. She’s almost certainly up against the White House.

    Somebody very high in the food chain leaked the memos requesting the probe. The New York Times, which broke the story, identified its source only as “a senior government official.”

    My money is on Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ Rasputin, who is known to despise Clinton. If it was Jarrett, she would not do this against the president’s wishes.

    That also would be true for any “senior government official” who leaked the memos. Targets don’t get any bigger than Hillary Clinton, so this was not a rogue operation. This was an approved hit. [snip]

    It’s also possible the White House is ­using the issue to keep her in line on the Iranian nuke deal. The implied threat is “look what happened to Robert Menendez.”

    Bed – dogs – fleas.

    Does this deter Hillary’s dangerous liaison with treacherous Barack Obama? No because we’re told Barack is so popular that Hillary has to tie herself to B.O. and the cult. But the stink of B.O. overpowers the senses:

    They Really, Really Don’t Like Him
    Our unpopular president.

    Barack Obama is not popular. This plain and simple fact may surprise those who read only legacy journalists, who often elide this inconvenient truth. [snip]

    Obama’s job approval in this poll was a paltry 43 percent, with 55 percent disapproval. This is hardly a public “closely divided,” but it is typical of the media’s approach. They prefer to gloss over his bad numbers, point out the weakness of the GOP, or emphasize how popular he is among Democrats.

    But ignoring a fact does not make it any less true. Obama is unpopular, and he has been unpopular for a while. [snip]

    To date, Obama has been unpopular for more than two-thirds of his tenure. If he stays under 50 percent for the remainder of his term, he will have been unpopular for longer than any postwar leader. [snip]

    The cumulative effect on the public mood is evident. According to Real Clear Politics, 61 percent of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. [snip]

    The country likewise does not believe Obama’s policy prescriptions are sensible. [snip]

    Though Hillary Clinton is increasingly dominating the political spotlight, the president’s standing will affect the 2016 contest. Clinton is scurrying leftward to keep Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley from winning the progressive vote, but in so doing she risks alienating the middle of the country, which has tired of activist government. And it is quite likely that, as his former secretary of state, Clinton will be seen as Obama’s successor, thus bearing the burden of his unpopularity.

    So before our dear friends try to hop on lifeboat Big Pink they better have an answer as to why Hillary is at all tied to Barack Obama and hires Obama cult members to populate Hillary2016.

    Before our former dear friends and establishment pals try to cuddle with us they better understand that Hillary2016 is on a slow boat to palookaville. We advised that Hillary had to run a “time for a change” campaign, not an Obama third term “stay the course” mess. We got the mess instead of a call for change.

    Think we’re alone? We wrote about the Hillary2016 muddled message mess in 2013. Now the leftist kooks at Salon begin to see what was in front of their faces:

    This is why Hillary’s losing: The issue Jeb Bush and Donald Trump understand, which may keep Clinton from the White House
    Her negatives are almost as bad as Trump’s. She’s not trusted, and losing swing states. Start talking about reform! [snip]

    Politicians are going to destroy this country. They are weak and ineffective. They are controlled by the lobbyists of the special interests. Every one of these lobbyists that give money expects something for it… They could take a politician and have him jump off this ledge.
    –Donald Trump, last Wednesday

    And here you thought Trump was wrong about everything. [snip]

    Government corruption is perhaps the central issue of the 2016 campaign because it’s the biggest problem facing our country. [snip]

    In office Obama forgot all about ethics reforms. It was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Republicans didn’t stop him. It is a hallmark of many ethics reforms, including most of his, that they may be implemented by executive order. Obama didn’t pursue them because he didn’t want to. [snip]

    That Obama translated this public anger into a message in 2008 — but didn’t follow up with policy in 2009 — may reveal an underlying worldview. [snip]

    I think reform is the key not just to the white working class but to the election. The Democrats must embrace it with specificity and sincerity, but so far they’ve barely mentioned it.

    So why is Hillary embracing the unpopular treacherous Barack Obama?

    Does anyone think that Donald Trump’s winning big issue can be stolen by the creatures of, by, and for D.C. whoever he, or she, is?

    If she does not change her ways and her campaign strategy, Hillary2016 will be destroyed. Donald Trump? How to destroy Donald Trump gets harder and harder every day. Most every voter knows it is time to make America great again.


    Uranium One: Hard Truths About The Radioactive Problem of #Hillary2016

    Here are some hard truths for Hillary, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, Republicans, Jeb Bush, Big Media, Hillary Haters, and Hillary Supporters: (1) Hillary Clinton is lying; (2) Republicans are making a big mistake with their focus on Hillary; (3) the Hillary 2016 campaign deserves all the attacks against it; (4) the Hillary 2016 campaign does not deserve all the attacks against it; (5) the email and Clinton Foundation scandals devastate Hillary; (6) the email and Clinton Foundation “scandals” are meaningless. We’ll discuss these hard truths in no particular order below.

    Let’s start with Jeb Bush because he is an object lesson. In December of last year Jeb Bush announced he was preparing to possibly run for president. We praised the shock timing of his announcement. We gave Jeb his due and called him “formidable”. We understood Jeb’s strategy. The sooner Jeb financially asphyxiates potential candidates the better for him we wrote. We also wrote:

    It is very possible that today’s announcement pretty much ends the Romney return, the Christie bounce back, the Rubio resurgence, and any and all middle of the road Republican candidates such as Paul Ryan and Mike Pence. Or maybe not. But certainly any Republican “moderate” has to at the very least reassess.

    Jeb Bush is formidable but has some real weaknesses. He’s a Bush in a country that might have Bush fatigue. He is a strong advocate for Common Core. He is a big “immigration reform” amnesty guy. He’s viewed with the same type of loathing from conservatives that Hillary gets from skunk eye leftist totalitarian kooks. Jeb is a “centrist” in a party that wants Tea.

    Pretty much all we wrote has been confirmed. The only miss is the big one (Rubio) and therein is Jeb Bush’s strategic mistake. Hillary, take note.

    Jeb Bush’s strategy was to financially asphyxiate the moderates then take on a conservative opposition and beat them with establishment money and establishment views and establishment operatives with establishment tactics. But Jeb Bush’s strategy has failed (read this strong article on just how much Jeb’s strategy has failed) because he did not realize we live in a post Citizens United world where it is difficult to financially asphyxiate opponents if you have just two or three billionaires or multimillionaires who are willing to provide financial oxygen.

    Jeb Bush’s strategy has collapsed. He is still a candidate with formidable skills who might win both nomination and election but his strategy of financial asphyxiation has collapsed. Jeb blocked Romney and might have finished off Chris Christie but Scott Walker’s star still rises (he might be the Koch Brothers choice for financial largesse and political support) and Marco Rubio (the likely Sheldon Adelson beneficiary) lives to threaten Jeb in home state Florida, Ted Cruz has sufficient funds and multimillionaire support as well and Rand Paul still has daddies little helpers to survive. Hillary’s strategy is next in line at the emergency CPR unit.

    Why is the Hillary 2016 strategy near death? First of all because Hillary is lying. Hillary is lying and it shows. Hillary is lying and it is eating her up inside.

    Hillary 2008 supporters most of all can see Hillary is lying. Many, not most, Hillary 2008 supporters are disappointed if not utterly disgusted with Hillary 2016. We can’t blame the disappointed and disgusted. They see Hillary clearly lying.

    What is Hillary lying about? Why is Hilary lying? This is the story of the Hillary 2016 strategic mistake.

    Hillary is like a blind-deaf drunk lost and cut to pieces in the forest because she cannot see there is a smooth path just feet away. Why can’t Hillary see the path nor hear the traffic whizzing by? That too is the story of the Hillary 2016 strategic mistake.

    Hillary is lying about who she is. That email and fundraising stuff is not the problem. Hillary is lying about who and what she is and few are fooled.

    We’ll be writing a great deal about who Hillary is and what she stands for in the next several weeks. For now we’ll just write that Hillary has a great story to tell but she is not telling that story. Hillary is not telling that story because it conflicts with her flawed strategy for 2016.

    Hillary 2016’s strategy is first to gull the crackpot left into not fighting her for the nomination. This first prong leads to yells of “entitlement” and “coronation” from the left and Big Media that wanted a coronation for Obama in 2008. This first prong is bound to fail because the left hates Hillary and all its efforts are aimed at raising up candidates against Hillary to destroy her so that the left can control the once great, now debased Democratic Party.

    The second prong of Hillary 2016 is an identity politics appeal based on gender. Again, this is a massive fail. Why? Because misogyny and hatred of women is very much acceptable whereas racism or homophobia even when they do not exist are attacked and completely unacceptable. In Hillary 2016’s case the misogyny will be disguised by the left (Republicans have legitimate policy and political opposition to Hillary 2016) as “well, I want a woman president just not Hillary”. Remember in 2008 if you said you were not racist but that Obama was simply unprepared to be president? The response was “well, Obama is the first black man that has a real chance to be president so you must be a racist”. We’ll have a lot more on this in coming weeks as too.

    The third prong of Hillary 2016 will be a pivot to the center based on experience and ability, This pivot will only come after the nominating convention in 2016. Only at that point will Hillary begin to tell some of the truth and begin to separate herself from the abominable Barack Obama and his policies. This too is a huge strategic fail. It will be too little too late.

    In 2013 we made our views known as to what we believe the Hillary strategy should be in The Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess so we won’t beat a dead donkey on this.

    We also opposed the much too early announcement of Hillary 2016:

    Barack Obama and his protection squads want Hillary to announce early in order to take the heat of scrutiny off him and onto Hillary. Obama and his minions also know that the earlier Hillary announces the more she will have to attach herself to Obama’s disastrous policies.

    The paycheck hungry also want Hillary to announce early. For them it’s not about her, it’s about their paychecks and plumping up their bank accounts.

    Impatient Hillary supporters also want Hillary to announce early. That is an insufficient and injurious reason to announce.

    We hear the extra foolish reason given that, well, Hillary needs to get a campaign in place in order to answer attacks on her. This is entirely wrong.

    We haven’t seen the fruits of an effective Hillary 2016 campaign counterattack, have you? We have seen Lanny Davis, David Brock, and assorted others not associated nor paid by Hillary 2016 fight back but they are not the armada of direct response sold as the reason to crank up the campaign snowplow in spring. Why is this?

    Earlier we referred to Hillary as a blind-deaf drunk caught in a forest. Hillary’s blindness and deafness are self-afflicted. The eyes and ears of a candidate and her campaign are based on polls. Hillary has chosen for her campaign the Obama pollster Joel Benenson. Benenson’s chief interest is Obama protection not Hillary election. Hillary cannot see nor hear what her pollster won’t show or tell her. Hillary is effectively blind and deaf which renders her dumb. If you thought Mark Penn was a problem in 2008, compared to Benenson pollster Penn is a treasure.

    For all intents and purposes Hillary has become The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua. Hillary is trapped in a strategic mess of her own making. It will take Bill Clinton level skill to get Hillary out of the mess she is in. Fortunately Hillary, like Bill, is a Perils of Pauline type character who is able to loosen her bonds before the train rolls over her. With President Bill Clinton half the fun was watching as the latter day Tom Sawyer got himself into trouble then get out of trouble and come out smiling. With Hillary… well we saw Hillary come to life in 2008 after the disaster of Iowa.

    For Hillary her current problems of emails and Clinton Foundation fundraising are minor. When we addressed the “email scandal” we wrote that Hillary had effectively lanced the boil. Today, Stephen Hayes, the very smart journalist on Fox News, wondered about whether the latest Hillary “scandal” would continue in the headlines because, he noted, the email scandal died down after the Hillary press conference at the U.N. There are lessons on all this for Republicans.

    We do not blame Republicans for their attacks on Hillary on any of these matters. They are the opposition party and they should with vigor and regularity attack their perceived political opponent which at this point they see as Hillary. We think that is a mistake. We think their opponent is Obama, but that is their decision and mistake to make.

    In 2008 the Republican candidate was attacked in subtle and not so subtle ways as a doddering old man (we defended McCain because it was unfair and we saw this would come back to bite). Republicans did not attack Obama for this instead the Shield Maiden is the target of their ire. Republicans are attacking “old” Hillary the same way Obama attacked “old” McCain. Hillary is a friend of McCain as McCain is a friend of Hillary but Hillary will unfairly pay the price for Obama’s sins.

    In 2012 the Republican candidate was attacked in subtle and not so subtle ways because of his wealth (we defended Romney on this score as well for the same reasons we defended McCain). Republicans did not attack Obama for this or for his ties to Rezko or Obama’s stock dealings or Michelle’s patient dumping job. Once again the Shield Maiden is the target of Republican ire. Once again Hillary will pay the price for Obama’s sins.

    Obama and his thugs attacked Mitt Romney for his honorable ties to Bain Capital. Now the smart Powerline writes about Hillary Clinton’s bane:

    We have already discussed one of the three cases Chozick highlights. It involves Frank Giustra, a major donor to the Foundation. As reported by the Times, Schweizer presents Giustra’s case as an instance in which large cash donations coincided with shifts in State Department that favored the donor — namely, a free trade agreement with Colombia that benefited Giustra’s investments in that nation. Previously, Clinton had opposed such an agreement.

    Another example cited by Chozick involved more than $1 million in payments to Bill Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department. The third involves development projects apparently awarded to a donor in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010.

    Let’s discuss Giustra and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. The allegation is that Hillary was against the Colombian Free Trade Agreement then Frank Giustra gave a large donation to the Clinton Foundation and corrupt Hillary corruptly changed her position.

    It is absolutely true that Hillary was a long term opponent of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement who changed her position in favor of it. [Note: today we scheduled for a discussion of the TPP but instead we wrote this article. We’ll publish our article on the TPP soon.]

    So, as so many articles allege, or suspect, or hint, or insinuate, or wonder, did Hillary corruptly approve the Colombian Free Trade Agreement? Here’s Politico on Giustra and the Columbian Free Trade Agreement:

    While stopping short of a direct accusation, the chapter, entitled “Rainforest Riches,” implies there was a blurred line between Bill Clinton’s charity work and Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department — ultimately leading to her support of the trade deal. But Schweizer presents little evidence that Clinton’s support of the trade deal was directly linked to Guistra’s contributions or to his close relationship with Bill Clinton. [snip]

    Her support for the deal came only after she joined the Obama administration, when key worker protections were added to the package,” spokesman Brian Fallon said. “By that point, the agreement was an administration-wide priority, and then-Secretary Clinton’s statements in support of the deal reflected the administration’s position.” [snip]

    Giustra, who sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation, issued his own statement Thursday.

    “Other media outlets have insinuated that I influenced the decision by the U.S. to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. At one point, I was an investor in Pacific Rubiales, a Colombian energy company. I sold my shares in Pacific Rubiales several years before the U.S.?Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which, I will note, was approved by several U.S. agencies and the White House. To theorize that I had anything to do with that is sheer conjecture.”

    We’ll translate the above for you: the Shield Maiden gets fu*ked again. Hillary was not the one who approved the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. The State Department was one of many executive branch departments and agencies that did Obama’s bidding. Obama lied in 2008, again, when he said,

    The Illinois senator said he would oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement “because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.

    Obama, as president broke the promise that he made in 2008 then forced Hillary to break her promise. Obama lied and Hillary is his Shield Maiden. Obama gets away with his lies and Hillary gets fu*ked, and not in a good way. Are you beginning to see a pattern?

    What’s ironic in all this is that the defense from all sides is that it is “nuts” to think that Obama would do Hillary any favors. Here’s Axelrod:

    “Haven’t read book attacking Clintons,” he tweeted Monday, “But if, as reported it charges that Obama Admin moved Colombia FTA to reward CGI donor, that’s nuts!

    It’s nuts because everyone knows Obama hates Hillary and Hillary hates Obama. So Obama doing something to help Hillary and Bill raise Foundation money is nuts indeed. They hate each other.

    We think Republicans make a big mistake in getting themselves ensnared in all this nonsense. Republicans think they have a destroy Hillary strategy that will work, finally, this time. But as we have written before and will write again the best Republican strategy against Hillary is to attach Hillary to Obama. For Hillary the best strategy is to distance herself from Obama. Both Republicans and Hillary are mindless:

    Hwc, “For now, it may make sense to just drive her negatives through the roof, preparing the battlefield, so to speak.”

    We view that as wasting ammunition against a hardened fortress.

    It’s not only that the Republicans waste their ammunition on emails and CGI funding chases and other “scandals” but consider the cost. Republicans paint themselves as the same old bunch who just attack and the “drive up negatives” party. The problem for them is they drive up negatives about themselves as well. While they try to “define” Hillary they also define themselves.

    Again, consider the cost. As you point out, Hillary made some policy statements this week that are very useful to Republicans. But what are they talking about? We’re hearing about funding and emails and precious little on policy. Are they preparing the battlefield on economic policy for the general election? No. They’re chasing wild geese.

    Republican strategy should be to use policy to force Hillary closer and closer to Obama and the DailyKooks. Obama goons will not want any deviation from Obama by Hillary. Then Republicans can use this video evidence against Hillary when she is forced to pivot against Obama in the general election.

    Republicans should talk about the policy statements Hillary makes and let the New York Times and Washington Post waste digital ink on emails and funding. The New York Times (read that pig Frank Bruni and garbage scow Dowd) hates Hillary more than any Republican or any conservative. Anyone who does not understand that has no clue about 2016.

    Hillary’s problem is with the Obama left and Big Media. Fox News and Republicans are not her problem. That’s the lesson of 2008 Hillary has not digested nor devised a strategy against other than appeasement of the left. Again, it is why we suggested Hillary wait much much longer to announce, until it was too late for the left to mount a challenge.

    We don’t think much of this Clinton Funding “scandal” nor the email “scandal”. Why? Because we’ve seen it all before and it always ends up the same way.

    For those inclined to give credit or have apprehension about the latest scandal filled book about the Clintons let’s explain how we think it was written. For those that have done opposition research the methodology was simple. First, get a list of big Clinton Foundation donors. Second, take those names and find out what business deals they have engaged in or any trouble they have ever gotten themselves into. Third, connect dots no matter how distant. Fourth, publish a smear that “raises questions” or “alleges” or “raises eyebrows or suspicions”. Hey, we saw that done to Mitt Romney. Now we see it done to the Shield Maiden who does not learn.

    John Podhoretz is now attacking Hillary as the 1% the way that Obama attacked Romney. Mitt Romney is also attacking the Shield Maiden in a way he never had the guts to attack lying scumbag Obama. On the UraniumOne deal Romney alleges “bribery”. That it was a company that represented companies that eventually were brought up by a Russian company is missed by the once business savvy Romney.

    Instead of discussing Obama practically giving Iran nuclear weapons we are discussing this nonsense. We don’t blame Romney nor Republicans for beating up on the Shield Maiden while they have lacked the stuff to fight Obama. They’re the opposition political party and they are doing what they should be doing albeit stupidly. The big problem for Hillary remains the left.

    The Kook left that hates Hillary and movement conservatives and activist Republicans are now explaining that the author of the anti-Hillary book is a good guy because after all his next book will go after Jeb Bush. That’s hardly a selling point for anyone with brains. So the book’s author hates Bush and Clinton just like the left and a lot of the right, so we are not impressed with that argument.

    The left is also citing the New Yorker‘s Jonathan Chait and his nasty article as indicative that the latest book against Hillary has merit heretofore never seen before. But let’s get real about Chait and the Kook left that hates Hillary. Chait does not want Hillary. Chait’s article is just the left with their lies lying in wait. Chait himself somewhat admits it:

    In the eyes of my Democratic strategist, this damning critique “gives a VERY strong retort to the argument that the New Yorker said they were going to push… which is that this is a Fox News/Koch brothers-pushed story.”

    “Now one of the biggest liberal voices at a big liberal mag is calling them out in the harshest terms possible makes that argument nul and void,” he wrote.

    Chait is more modest: “It’s really overestimating my influence to suggest something I wrote changes things,” he said Thursday. “Look, reporters are going to ask about this, I doubt the campaign’s response will be shaped by my piece in any way.”

    However, he later added: “I’m sure they don’t like having a liberal criticize them. It might, in some very marginal way, help open up more space for a Democratic challenger.”

    Those last nine words.

    For the ObamaRoids there is no running away from Preparation H. They want a kook challenger against Hillary but whether Hillary wins or loses they will lose. The best they can do is take themselves down with the party they have destroyed. In every scenario they will lose whether they know it or not. The day of the Obama cult is coming to an end.

    For Hillary 2008 supporters who are disappointed and disgusted with Hillary for her association with the corrupt Obama we remind them that the fight right now is for the heart and soul of both parties. The Republicans have to decide whether to nominate an establishment Republican or someone they and the country can trust. For what once was the Democratic Party the question is whether to resurrect the sane Democratic Party of FDR/Kennedy/Clinton or to let the Kooks keep control.

    We need two honest and functioning political parties with their various views of government (and yes it is two parties if you read and fully understand court decisions such as Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party) so that the people can decide which governing philosophy is best for them. When the governing party fails the people can turn to the opposition party. In 2016 both political parties must stand for change because the American people can’t stand any more of the mess we are in because of Obama.

    For Hillary the email and funding “scandals” are devastating because they highlight a degree of dishonesty at the heart of the Hillary Clinton campaign. But the dishonesty is not one of corruption.

    The dishonesty of Hillary Clinton 2016 is that she is entirely different from Barack Obama in character and experience – but she is trying to hide that glaring fact. If Hilary wants to win – LET HILLARY BE HILLARY. Cast off the Shield Maiden‘s cloak.


    Is Alison Grimes A Racist???

    We’ll explain why this is important in our last two paragraphs. For now we declare this election season we must expose, uproot and remove racists. That will be our self appointed task for 2014. No one else has our courage so we will do it.

    What qualifies us for our noble anti-racist task? We ourselves have ceaselessly been dubbed “RACISTS!” for support of Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama. We therefore are experts in what constitutes a “racist” in the minds of Big Media and the crackpot left. We will now hold to these standards in our crusade (that’s a racist Islamaphobe word) against RACISTS and RACISM wherever it is found.

    Already we have bagged a big one: Alison Lundgren Grimes!

    As everyone knows if you deny the divinity of Messiah Obama you are a racist. If you are now or ever have supported anyone who ran against Barack Obama you are a racist. If you do not fully embrace Barack Obama you are a racist. Gwyneth Paltrow is not a racist.

    We know she is not a racist because she fully embraces Barack Obama. We know that because of the latest words from Gwyneth Paltrow to Obama: You’re very handsome and you should have all the power you need for your agenda. Gwyneth wants to give Barack Obama all the powers of godhood so she is not a racist:

    You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly,” the actress, singer and food writer gushed after introducing Obama to several hundred supporters seated on white fold-out chairs in the lush backyard of her home in the movie star haven of Brentwood, a neighborhood in Los Angeles.

    In a not-so-subtle reference to her “conscious uncoupling” earlier this year from husband Chris Martin, Paltrow said it was a “profound honor” to have Obama in the home she shares with Apple and Moses, her two children with the Coldplay lead vocalist. [snip]

    In a brief introduction punctuated by “ums,” Paltrow declared herself to be one of Obama’s biggest fans and said he’s an “incredible role model.”

    I am one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest, and have been since the inception of your campaign,” she said, adding that she thinks both of his campaigns and his presidency will be one of the most important and most scrutinized of all time.

    Paltrow noted the approaching Nov. 4 midterm elections in which Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. She called it a “critical time” for Democrats and seemed to urge everyone to vote. “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass,” she said.

    If you are immobilized with disgust or even raised an eyebrow, smirked, giggled, or consider Paltrow anything like a dumbass Hollywood whore so stupid that she can’t admit Barack Obama is “worst pResident ever” as well as a totalitarian Hitler youth mom – you are a racist and we have bagged your racist ass too.

    If you find this 2009 video of our Hollywood betters taking THE PLEDGE in any way creepy or disgusting or downright Hollyweird and the actors in this video an “abomination” of rich hypocrites then you are indeed and without dispute – A RACIST:


    The racists at TMZ are racists without a doubt:

    The idiocy of Hollywood was in full bloom Thursday night when Gwyneth Paltrow turned an already-embarrassing Hollywood fundraiser into “The Dating Game.”

    Paltrow — who hosted the event at her Brentwood home — gushed as she introduced President Obama, “You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly.”

    She then showed utter ignorance about, and contempt for, the Constitution and separation of powers — the basic tenets of our government — by saying, “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

    It’s the latest example of how demeaning it has become for Presidents to act like circus animals — performing for crowds that will feed them … in this case, feed them with money to line political coffers.

    It’s revolting that celebrities and other rich people feel such a need for self-importance — contributing money but ONLY if they can have their picture taken with the president and tell their friends they had dinner with him. If they’re so committed to him, just send him a check and let him stay in Washington and do his job.

    Fact is … it has little to do with Obama. It’s about how the celebrity circus has sullied the Presidency of the United States.

    If you think it is Barack Obama who is the head clown in the circus that has sullied the presidency – you are a racist.

    But what about racist Alison Grimes? Let’s not forget to detail her racism.

    By now you have surely heard that Alison Grimes denies the divinity of Barack Obama. This racist candidate for senate in Kentucky is willing to take the money raised by the black man but then in her racist state of Kentucky, which Hillary Clinton won in the 2008 primaries by something like 40 points, RACIST GRIMES won’t even admit she voted for the divine ONE.

    Alison Grimes is a racist who will not campaign with the black man. Alison Grimes is in full racist dog whistle mode. RACIST GRIMES signals to her racist Kentucky voters that she too is a racist that will not be seen by the side of the holy black man who carries all our burdens. RACIST RACIST RACIST GRIMES.

    She’s a racist alright:

    RACIST GRIMES can prove us wrong. RACIST GRIMES can welcome the divine Barack, Der Führer Obama to campaign proudly at her side up and down Kentucky. IF ALISON GRIMES IS NOT A RACIST SHE WILL CAMPAIGN WITH BARACK OBAMA. IF ALISON GRIMES DOES NOT CAMPAIGN WITH BARACK OBAMA SHE IS A RACIST!

    Not a racist Chuckie Todd helps us expose RACIST GRIMES:

    “Kentuckians expect her to cast a tough vote on anything?” Todd asked, barely concealing his disdain. “Is she ever going to answer a tough question on anything? You want to be a U.S. senator?

    “If you can’t say, if you can’t find a way to stand behind your party’s president — you can disagree with him — but you can’t answer that basic question?” he added incredulously. “I think she disqualified herself. I really do.”

    Alison Grimes has disqualified herself from the senate. She is a RACIST. She will not campaign with Barack Obama. She will not campaign for Obama’s policies. Barack Obama himself has declared this November 2014 election to be a vote for or against (RACISTS!) his policies but Alison Grimes the RACIST dares defy the black man.


    We weep when we see RACISM so flagrant and perfumed like a saloon hussy in an old West gold fever mining town.

    From now on anyone who will not campaign and pledge their lives, honor and devotions to Barack Obama is and forever will be known as a RACIST.

    What say you about Jeanne Shaheen?

    Stay out of New Hampshire, Barack!

    Shaheen to MSNBC on whether or a not a campaign visit by Obama would be helpful “Well, the president is dealing with a lot of crises in the world right now. And I think it’s important for him to continue to address what’s happening with ISIS, to continue to address the Ebola scare. And so, I expect him to be in Washington.”

    In other words, thanks, Barry. But no thanks! But then, Shaheen is hardly alone in ducking the unpopular president.



    We must expose and rid ourselves of the RACISTS.

    Wendy Davis is running for governor of Texas. She has an excuse for why she will not campaign with Barack Obama because her campaign is focused on state issues mostly. We don’t have the evidence that Davis is a racist. But there is some evidence that Davis hates the disabled as she slams her wheelchair bound opponent in this ad.

    Because we are measured in our words and non-provocative we will not say outright that Wendy Davis is a racist or hates the disabled. The Barack Obama campaign of 2008 and 2012 would have instantly proclaimed Davis to hate the disabled and to be racist if she was a Republican. But good ol’ Wendy is an Obama Dimocrat.

    Because we do have the evidence we will continue to denounce any Dimocrat who will not campaign alongside Barack Obama as a RACIST. We hope everyone, Republicans included help us stamp out this scourge every time a RACIST Dimocrat refuses to campaign with Der Fuhrer Barack Obama.

    Some Barack Obama supporters who hate us might voice some suspicions as to why we are so very gung-ho against RACISM in this 2014 election. We will explain.

    Barack Obama has made it clear that these November 2014 elections are a vote on his policies. Imagine what happens to Barack Obama and his policies if Obama Dimocrats lose in November 2014. It will be a complete rejection of Barack Obama’s policies that Republicans will point to in every dispute that arises in the next two years.

    We wouldn’t want that to happen? Would we?


    Barack Obama’s Purposeful Destruction Of America

    Update: Here’s the video we mock/discuss at the end of our article. Joe Scarborough: Obama saying he has no strategy against ISIS is a tactic straight out of “The Art of War”.


    We have been too kind and generous towards Barack Obama. Our generosity has been in our assumption that it is not Barack Obama’s willful purpose to do everything he can to destroy the United States of America. With every day that passes this assumption appears less rational.

    We’ve made these same arguments and caveats before. In March of this year while discussing Russia and Ukraine we stated that it is possible that Barack Obama’s actions are motivated by a desire to do America harm. When we first started to broach the possibility of willful treachery against America we generally gave greater credence to the “boob” aspect of Barack Obama.

    But after Barack Obama’s conduct this week the scales tip from boobery to malevolent treachery. The argument can be made, if one is watching the sideshow not the center ring, that it is sheer stupidity for Obama to say and do the things he says and does. But that level of stupidity beggars imagination.

    To us Barack Obama’s comments appeared to be a green light to terrorists, Putin, China, all the world’s bad actors, to do their worst because Barack Obama would protect them from the United States and any harm. It was Barack Obama distracting the United States, its military, and American allies and their armies to chase their tails like circus pets instead of baring teeth as watchdogs in the burglar-shielding night.

    Years ago we postulated that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president
    because his world view is not congruent with reality. It later became clear to us and obvious to any with eyes open that Barack Obama was busy destroying America with Obama’s treacherous policy of “managed decline”.

    How else to explain what was going on? As the Russian bear gobbled up Crimea and targeted Ukraine Barack Obama chose that perilous moment to announce the American military was shrinking to pre-World War II levels. We wrote “It was brilliant timing if the intent was to signal weakness to Russia at a critical tipping point in the Ukraine and world-wide.

    Early this year when the Russian bear raised its claws against Ukraine Barack Obama said it was not a Russian invasion but an “uncontested arrival”. On the last Thursday in August Barack Obama declared the Russian invasion was not an invasion but an “ongoing incursion”.

    As to Syria and ISIS the Obama strategy is to inform terrorists via a high visibility press conference from the White House that they have a green light to carry out their nefarious plots because Barack Obama’s strategy is to be without a strategy to stop them. It was a green light to terrorists and malefactors worldwide:


    Couldn’t he have come up with something on the back of the scorecard between the fourth and fifth holes?

    ISIS, which did not spend the month of August golfing, has a strategy. They’ve announced it. And as Obama’s own advisors have made clear, ISIS means business.

    “Chatter” picked up from the bad guys is growing about a possible attack. Britain has raised it’s threat level. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says the “threat matrix” is as bad as he’s ever seen it.

    Other world leaders are focused on the job, returned from vacations, terror alerts to terror alerted police issued. Obama is back to the playgrounds of the rich to raise money and cavort. “I wonder what you think about the optics of the president, from that podium yesterday, does not have a strategy to deal with ISIS in serious military, and then next day, without that strategy, goes out and raises campaign money?

    It’s a bit too late for Big Media outlets that protect Obama to realize that Obama is doing real harm to the country. Instead the focus for many in Big Media is to tell Obama he damages the Obama “brand”. That was the tack from Politico, WaPo, ABC: This “no strategy” comment will do serious damage.

    We worry for the country. Big Media outlets worry about Obama. Even the supposedly “critical” outlets are focused less on the damage of Obama treachery against America than Obama’s damage to Obama:

    As with all gaffes, the worst ones are the ones that confirm people’s pre-existing suspicions or fit into an easy narrative. That’s why “47 percent” stung Mitt Romney so much, and its why “don’t have a strategy” hurts Obama today.

    Polls have increasingly shown that Americans view Obama as a weak commander in chief without much direction or heft t0 his foreign policy. The latest is a Pew Research Center survey, released shortly before Obama’s errant statement Thursday, that showed 54 percent of Americans say he’s “not tough enough” when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

    The damage Barack Obama does every day to America must be the focus. Even the House Intelligence Committee Chairman who is a Republican does not understand the problem. Here is what he said about Obama’s lack of strategy:

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers did not mince words Thursday, slamming President Barack Obama for an “odd” news conference during which the president said, “We do not have a strategy” to deter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

    “It was an odd press conference at the very best, but to have a press conference to say we don’t have a strategy was really shocking given the severity of the threat. That’s what’s so concerning to me,” Rogers (R-Mich.) told Wolf Blitzer on CNN.

    “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said from the White House press briefing room Thursday afternoon.

    Blizter said White House aides have clarified Obama’s remarks to say the president meant a strategy specifically targeting ISIL in Syria, before asking Rogers if he was “happy with that.”

    “Well, I’m not OK with it, and it just confirmed what we’ve been talking about really for almost two years: There has been no real strategy,” the congressman said. “I mean this just tells you how far we have to go and I’m just not sure the severity of the problem has really sunk in to the administration just yet. Clearly, that’s what that told me today.”

    Mike Rodgers must begin to realize that for Barack Obama not having a strategy is the strategy. No strategy against America’s enemies is quite possibly what Barack Obama is up to. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But give us a better explanation. Boobery? This is so far beyond stupidity… well, no one entity is that stupid. Even paramecium have more of a survival intelligence than that.

    Josh Gerstein’s explanation likewise does not suffice:

    President Barack Obama tried to get himself a bit more political space Thursday to make a decision about whether to expand the U.S military campaign against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, but in so doing he may have dealt himself a significant political blow by suggesting that his policy on the issue is adrift.

    “We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said as he took questions from reporters in the White House briefing room.

    Instead of concocting silly reasons about why Obama announced to the world’s thugs that it is open season on an unprepared America as well as worrying about Obama’s damage to Obama, Gerstein should consider that maybe Obama’s purpose is to damage America. It’s a crazy proposition but it makes more sense than Gerstein’s.

    As crazy as some will say our explanation for Barack Obama is, can anyone dispute that Joe Scarborough’s explanation for Barack Obama’s behavior is even crazier?:

    Just last week, when even Politico writers were horrified that Obama had once again gone golfing immediately after (and I mean minutes after) announcing how very concerned he was about the beheading of James Foley, Joe Scarborough offered the counterintuitive spin that Obama was actually broadcasting his strength via this maneuver.

    Scarborough’s takeaway was that IS must look at this Golfin’ Genghis Khan, this Saladin of the Seven Iron, this Mulligan MacArthur, this Desert Fox of the Sandtraps, and tremble, for they must be saying to themselves, “Wow, we killed a guy and he just went golfing. Well, that is one cold bastard.”

    No he really spun it that way — that Obama signaled himself to be “one cold bastard,” veins filled with ice water, and not the sort of man you should trifle with.

    By putting.

    Well, one day after Obama announces to the world that “We have no strategy” to deal with IS, Scarborough’s pretty sure this also proves what an incredible leader we have in Obama.

    Scarborough actually claims that announcing “We have no strategy” is a technique torn from the pages of Sun Tzu’s Art of War.

    That’s crazy cray-cray. That’s one for Dumb White People. Nutso. As crazy as Andrew Sullivan and Obama’s black face saving the world.

    America is in very real danger and very dangerous trouble. Barack Obama is having the time of his life vacationing, fundraising, golfing. Maybe Barack Obama’s good times and America’s bad times are connected. Maybe that’s the Obama strategy.


    Get Over 2008 Big Pink! – Campaign Finance Edition

    We’re constantly implored/commanded by the Obama cult to “get over 2008“. But we know our Alinsky Rule #4 and we promised at the end of 2008 to hold Barack Obama’s stinking feet to the fire. Think of us as Banquo’s ghost with a red hot poker to shove up the ass of Obama acolytes.

    What we find particularly galling however, is that the whine to “get over 2008” comes from the same people and Big Media institutions that bemoan the Koch brothers and weep about the need for “campaign finance reform“. What Obama supporters mean by “campaign finance reform” is that the other side stop fundraising so that Obama supporters can keep buying/stealing elections.

    The hypocrisy of Obama cultists who demand we “get over 2008” was further exposed this week thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in a major campaign finance case. Oddly, the hypocrisy of Obama supporters was exposed by a pretty good article from the Obama cult website DailyBeast. Stuart Stevens at DailyBeast made a very good policy case for not getting over 2008:

    When Obama rejected federal funding for presidential campaigns before his first term, he changed campaigning as we knew it, with candidates on both sides shifting their focus from what’s important (votes! dialogues! press!) to what’s not (money! money! money!). [snip]

    Campaign finance is a complicated, vexing issue. There are freedom of speech issues which are legitimate and compelling with a fierce disparity of opinions on the proper solutions. But for over thirty years we had one positive reform that both parties embraced and maintained: federal funding of presidential elections. That ended in 2008 when Barack Obama became the first nominee since Watergate to reject federal financing.

    Hey! that happened in 2008! Obama cultists don’t want to remember that it is Obama that lied and it was Obama they let get away with his lies. That’s the DailyBeast talking, not good ol’ Big Pink. That pig Barack Obama destroyed campaign finance reform:

    “Let’s look at the history.

    After Watergate, a series of reform campaign finance measures were passed. For the first time in US history, a system was established to fund presidential campaigns with tax dollars. [snip]

    The same legislation provided for a partial federal funding mechanism for the presidential primaries. [snip]

    This system of federal funding and limits held for both primaries and the general election lasted until 1996, when Steve Forbes running in the Republican primary for President rejected federal funding to self-finance his primary campaign. On the Democratic side, the same happened in 2004 when Howard Dean realized he could raise a lot of money on the Internet and therefore rejected federal funding for the primary. It was probably a mistake as it gave permission to John Kerry, married to a billionaire, to spend personal funds. Kerry did, outspending Dean and quickly won.”

    Well isn’t that special? Capitalist tool Steve Forbes and tool/fool Howard Dean broke the public finance system aided and abetted by John Kerry. It wasn’t evil Bill Clinton or corporatist evil Hillary Clinton that broke the system but rather the ‘Dimocratic wing of the Dimocratic party’ Howie and ketchup king weenie John Kerry. Who would’a guessed? According to Big Media it is those evil Clintons raising money in Lincoln’s bedroom that are the cause for all the calamities of campaign finance. Enter the DailyBeast which informs the Obama cult that it was Howie that began to kill the system they whine about.

    But it was another beast, a beast that walks on hind legs, a beast from Chicago, that finally chewed the public finance system to death – IN 2008! The beast is called Barack Obama:

    “But Kerry still accepted federal funding and limits for his general election, as had every candidate from 1976 until 2008. In the 2004 campaign, Kerry and Bush each received $74.6 million for the general election.

    In 2008, Barack Obama, of course, pledged to accept federal funding if he were the nominee. At the time, Hillary was the fundraising juggernaut and it was assumed no progressive candidate could be the first to reject federal funding in a general election. As David Plouffe detailed in his book, The Audacity To Win, the campaign had committed in writing to stay in the federal system. “It was declarative, and it was unquestionably stated we’d be in no matter what the GOP nominee did.”

    But Obama and his campaign realized they could raise a lot of money. A lot of money. “I thought if we opted out of the system,” Plouffe wrote, “We could enjoy a significant financial advantage over McCain.”

    So they did what no campaign had done since Watergate: They rejected Federal funding and campaign spending limits. In a classic Obama touch, he announced the decision not to accept federal funding in a video that claimed, “I support a robust system of public financing of elections.”

    Get over 2008!!!???!!! It’s a year that lives in campaign finance Big Media infamy.

    How could that dog chewing carnivorous beast Barack Obama get away with such monstrous acts??? How???? How???? How indeed?:

    “The Obama campaign knew they would face criticism in the media. But they were betting that Obama’s special appeal to the media would allow them to get away with it. They were right. The New York Times and Washington Post wrote weak editorials slapping Barack Obama on the wrist; meanwhile the Obama campaign went on to raise historic levels of money. Much is made of their small dollar contribution, but over 20 percent came from a single source: Wall Street, breaking all records.”

    Get over 2008? Get over 2008? We’ll never get over 2008! We’ll remember 2008 for eternity and shove our red hot poker up your hypocritical asses so far you’ll see Game of Thrones episodes in holographic 3D!

    Meanwhile, as treacherous liar Barack Obama was aided and abetted in his crimes by Big Media and the hypocrite horde of Obama cultists, John McCain was living up to his ideals:

    “Meanwhile John McCain, long a champion of campaign finance reform, stayed in the system. He received $84 million and stuck to the limits. By Election Day, Barack Obama had raised $750 million. The Obama campaign smothered McCain in money.

    Today many people, including some in the media, have a tendency to confuse Obama’s decision to reject Federal limits with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that opened the door to corporate dollars in Superpacs. The two are completely unrelated. The Citizens United came two years after Obama rejected federal funding.

    The history of campaign finance reform demonstrates that once a voluntarily imposed limit is broken, it is very difficult to go back. For 2012, Obama announced early that he would continue to reject Federal funding. To avoid the financial mismatch that faced John McCain, every Republican said they’d do the same. The system was dead.

    The DailyBeast article further notes that the system that Obama spawned in the same way his father spawned him almost insures that incumbent presidents will always win reelection. That’s because a president can amass billions from now on while the opposition party will exhaust it’s finances in primaries. Of course, this scenario can be avoided with a super-rich opposition candidate that self-finances. This means that thanks to Barack Obama 2008 a super-rich candidate is empowered. And we’re supposed to get over 2008?

    In addition, because of Obama 2008, which we are supposed to “get over”, the wealthy donor primary is more important than ever:

    “A strong candidate who has grass roots appeal but lacks an ability to attract major donors can now be attacked for that weakness as a potentially disqualifying factor. “We can’t nominate a candidate who doesn’t have what it takes to raise a billion dollars from April to November” is a legitimate concern for both parties focused on winning in November.

    Everybody hates money in politics. Candidates hate to raise it, most donors would rather not give it and there is almost universal agreement that our system is crazy. Still, it continues and just gets worse. Federal funding of presidential campaigns with spending limits was one of the last great reforms keeping some sanity in the system.”

    Big Media and the Obama cult pigs that snort and yelp because we won’t forget 2008 or let 2008 be forgotten are the culprits, not the Koch brothers, not the Supreme Court, not Republicans. It is Barack Obama, Big Media and Obama voters that are to blame for the state of campaign finance reform:

    When Barack Obama announced he was thinking of breaking the system, there should have been a much stronger reaction from those invested in good government. The Commission on Presidential Debates should have announced they would not allow any candidate who rejected spending limits in the debates. The New York Times and Washington Post should have called it disqualifying for a nominee. That would have signaled the pain was too great for anyone, even Barack Obama, to undo the Watergate reform. [snip]

    The new, post-Obama system requires candidates to spend upwards of 60 percent of their time raising money deep into September and October. That takes them away from voters, away from the press, away from every dialogue we value in our campaign system.”

    The Obama hypocrites that want us to “get over 2008” can go f*ck themselves. We’ll provide the red hot poker.


    Some Answers: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, And The Nomination Fight For 2016, Part II

    Update: [note: we posted this update Sunday night but for some reason it did not take.]

    Sixty Minutes anyone? We don’t watch hostage tapes so we won’t watch this either.

    We know that both Hillary and the Obamination are saying “let by-gones be by-gones and we are all over that 2008 reality”. We also know that they will say that at first, right after 2008’s Obama race-baiting, it was difficult to forgive and forget but now they are best of friends. Can any of this be true? Even if it does, we remember, and we do not forgive being called racists nor any of the other Obama/DailyKooks ugliness.

    Is any of this lovey dovey real? Well, we remember the Hillary/Obama kiss of 2008 and it was as phony then as it is phony now. What we wrote in 2008 applies equally to today:

    “Not since Michael Jackson kissed Lisa-Marie Presley has there been a more tortured embrace.

    Michael Jackson/Lisa-Marie legally united for publicity – they untied themselves soon thereafter.”


    As we document below, Barack Obama will do his utmost to make sure Hillary Clinton never becomes the 2016 nominee. Hillary’s tough and ugly job is to dance with demons until the time comes to cut their throats. We’ll play Cary Grant to notorious Ingrid Bergman and not like a minute of it.

    So why the show? The Obamination needs Hillary’s hard poll numbers to overcome his flaccid droop. Hillary needs to gull Obama’s Hopium Guzzlers into complacency until we can take over the DNC again, squash the DailyKooks, and begin from there to restore America to sanity.


    Want to know about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Read on as we get real.

    We live in Borgia Italy but too many Obama opponents who are usually smart continue to insist we are in 21st century America. We live in the Age of Fake but too many Obama opponents who are usually perceptive try to fit the world into their notion of truth. It’s so sad it’s laughable.

    In 2008 at the Obama inauguration Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman, among others, pretended to play live music. We briefly wrote about that flim-flam in the context that it was another small example of the much greater Obama “Age of Fake”.

    Comes inauguration day 2012 and all the talk is about Beyonce and the Marine Band lip synching songs. Somehow lost to Obama opponents, particularly those belonging to the party very smart Republican Governor Bobby Jindal correctly calls “the stupid party”, is the real lip synching scandal.

    The real lip synching scandal is not Beyonce but the Senate and House Republicans at the Kabuki theater experience some fools expected to be about Benghazi.

    Benghazi??? Isn’t that the place Mitt Romney completely ignored at the alleged foreign policy debate during last year’s presidential election? Benghazi was ignored when it mattered but somehow it is supposed to matter now.

    Somehow, according to these dullards who sought to resurrect Benghazi as some kind of issue, fear of Benghazi led Hillary Clinton to hide under hospital beds faking illness for months. At least that silly notion is put to rest. Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton cannot smash irksome ‘interrogators without a clue’ had only to watch Hillary go up against Senate and House Republicans “leaders”.

    Before and after Hillary’s appearance we read all sorts of comments about all sorts of evidence that proves Hillary Clinton is a liar. Well, it that is true why wasn’t any of this incredible proof utilized to destroy Hillary? Here, take a look at what even Hillary haters (please note the worst Hillary haters are not on Fox News but on the left as we will discuss below) on Fox News had to say:

    Note that in the video Jon Stewart says that there are serious questions about what happened in Benghazi and we deserve answers. We agree.

    Is Benghazi important? You betcha. Should Republicans have attempted to “grill” Hillary. Yes.

    But, as we will have to expound upon in another article coming real soon, questions about Benghazi have to be made relevant to what is happening NOW. “What difference at this point does it make?” is entirely correct. Cartoonist Ramirez on the “difference” might be funny but not the clue Republicans need to get.

    Hint for Republicans that want to uncover what happened in Benghazi not act like fools: the nomination of John Kerry, the appointment of Denis McDonough, Egypt, F-16s, the coordinated attacks on Hillary by Barack Obama over foreign policy.

    That article, made clear the Obama secret war against Hillary Clinton. But for the dullards who cannot accept the fact that the America they knew is no longer, that we live in Borgia Italy where palace intrigues and shadow boxing reign, all these dullards see is Hillary Clinton (along with Bill) and Barack Obama arm in arm walking happily along. These dullards are wrong.

    It’s easy for dullards to see Hillary, Bill, and Barack as one corrupt whole. But that is shadowbox analysis and you do not win boxing shadows. For Republicans to win, or Obama opponents to win it is imperative to see beyond the shadows and tackle the shadow making machinery and players.

    What do we mean by all this? We mean that most Republicans, conservatives, and otherwise sane Obama opponents assume Hillary Clinton will be the next nominee of the Obama Dimocrat party and that Barack Obama will do everything to get Hillary the nomination because (a) he owes his reelection to Bill Clinton’s oratorical skills and Hillary Clinton’s silence; (b) some sort of deal was worked out with Bill to secure Hillary the nomination and the presidency. This is all wrong.

    Barack Obama and his minions will do everything in their power to destroy Hillary Clinton and make sure she does not get the nomination in 2016 let alone the presidency.

    There is no way that the crazed Obama left is going to go back to the hated paradigm of clinton-bush-clinton-bush interrupted by Obama for clinton-bush years. The crazed left minions might think they love Hillary Clinton now, but wait until their overlords decide they will oppose Hillary and the minions will fall back into the Hillary hate line.

    The crazed Obama left is not going to have Hillary Clinton, THE CLINTONS, be the culmination of their revolution by having Hillary inherit the mantle of Obama. The left might be crazed but it is not stupid and the leadership of the totalitarian Obama left is not about to surrender its power to Hillary and Bill and Terry and the hated DLC.

    The crazed left is happy that Bill Clinton made some smart calculations in backing Obama. Loathe his decision or not Bill Clinton saw what many of us saw: Romney was a weak candidate unable because of RomneyCare to effectively attack ObamaCare from the get-go; and Romney would not go for the jujular and do what was necessary to take down Obama.

    Bill Clinton made some smart calculations to survive and take the party back from Obama but he might have been too smart for his own good. Bill better have some other tricks up his sleeve because as we always have written:

    “Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”

    The crazed left is not happy that Obama had to go to “racist” Bill Clinton and that Hillary Clinton is now more popular than their beloved Barack. The crazed left is looking for a candidate and a way to get rid of the Clintons and thanks to Barack Obama they think they have found the answer.

    This past week the announcement of the Obama campaign organization’s new role was announced. Many within the Obama Dimocratic party are baffled and exposing the divisions within the party. But the answer to many questions about why this new organization has been formed is very simple: this latest version of the Obama campaign is the way to keep Hillary away from the nomination in 2016 and to keep Obama in control of the abomination he now owns:

    Dem officials fret over new Obama nonprofit

    Some key Democrats worry that President Obama’s new Organizing for Action group will marginalize the traditional party apparatus, cannibalizing dollars and volunteers while making it harder to elect down-ballot candidates.

    State party leaders grumbled Tuesday at the Democratic National Committee’s meeting in Washington about a lack of detail on how exactly the new tax-exempt advocacy organization will work.

    “It’s still a big question mark right now,” said Minnesota Democratic chairman Ken Martin. “We were told before the end of this campaign that all of that [the Obama campaign machinery] would fold into state parties. Now we’re being told something different, which is they’re going to set up this 501(c)(4).” [snip]

    “I’m not a dummy,” he said. “I understand post-Citizens United the necessity to set up vehicles for different types of money to flow, but the reality is you can’t strip the party bare and expect in four years that we’re going to be able to pick up the pieces and get a Democrat elected president if you’ve completely stopped building capacity within the party.”

    Contrary to his protestations, Martin is a dummy. Obama intends to keep control of the party and that means good bye Hillary. The answer is staring them right in the face but they refuse to see, or rather they refuse to admit to themselves, what Obama is up to:

    “People are very concerned. They don’t know where it will lead,” said North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman David Parker. “The concerns vary. Nothing in particular, and everything in general. … There’s always a question of what does a successful reelection campaign do after the show is over. Is there another play to be involved with? Or what? And we’re in the ‘or what’ stage?”

    “I would love to know,” he added. “It’s like the three wise men come to [King] Herod, and Herod says, ‘Well, this is really cool. After you find the baby Jesus, come back and tell me where he is so that I too may go worship,’” Parker added. “Now, was he acting in good faith or did he kill all the children in Bethlehem? I don’t know how the story ends.” [snip]

    “Essentially, it’s an end run around the DNC and state parties,” said a third state chairman. “For the long-term health of our party, I don’t think it is the way to go. I don’t think fighting for donors is the way to do it. … We’ve won five of the last six popular votes in the general elections, so something’s working.

    “The simple truth of the matter is that OFA 4.0, or whatever it is now, is not going to work to elect our local legislators,” the chairman added. “It’s not going to work to elect our local governors. It’s going to work to push the president’s agenda. I come from a state where the president’s not very popular. My elected Democrats are not always going to line up with him, and getting the activists all juiced up over it doesn’t help elect Democrats.” [snip]

    Behind the scenes, though, the new incarnation of OFA will undoubtedly diminish the DNC’s relevance and overshadow Wasserman Schultz. Many insiders believe Obama’s decision to allow her to stay on as chairman for another term suggests a lack of interest in the party as much as a vote of confidence in her leadership.”

    It’s all about Obama guys. It’s about Obama retaining a death grasp on the party. It’s all about keeping Hillary away from the nomination and the presidency.

    Only now do we read about the past tensions and the present and future tensions that result from the Obama cult control:

    “DNC members said they were caught off guard when the leaders of the president’s reelection team announced Obama for America was morphing into Organizing for Action (OFA), a nonprofit group that can take unlimited “soft money” donations.

    The group will be spearheaded by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina and advocate for Obama’s policies by mobilizing the millions-strong list of grassroots supporters built by the campaign.

    While the new group will seek to go toe to toe with GOP outside groups like Crossroads GPS, some Democrats aren’t pleased that Obama didn’t fold his powerful grassroots operation back into the DNC. [snip]

    We’re not quite clear on what exactly OFA is going to be doing. We saw an email [announcement] just like everyone else saw an email the other day,” Kanoyton said. “I had no advance warning. [snip]

    There has been some tension between the DNC and OFA in the past — even when OFA was technically operating as a part of the broader Democratic Party apparatus — with fights over sharing resources and prioritizing issues.

    Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), an outgoing DNC vice chairman, said he’d found out about the change to the Obama organization from young staffers of his who were on OFA’s mailing list.”

    About that mailing list and other assets of the Obama campaign:

    “The tech team behind the 2012 Obama campaign has probably received more attention than any political programmers in history. A so-called “dream team of engineers from Facebook, Google and Twitter [who] built the software that drove Barack Obama’s reelection” were extolled in the press for bringing Silicon Valley strategies like Agile development to the normally hidebound process of a political campaign. In the post mortems that followed Obama’s victory, many credited the superiority of the Democrats’ tech team and its famous Narwhal platform, in contrast to the failure of Mitt Romney’s digital efforts, with mobilizing the vote and winning crucial swing states.

    But in the aftermath of the election, a stark divide has emerged between political operatives and the techies who worked side-by-side. At issue is the code created during the Obama for America (OFA) 2012 campaign: the digital architecture behind the campaign’s website, its system for collecting donations, its email operation, and its mobile app. When the campaign ended, these programmers wanted to put their work back into the coding community for other developers to study and improve upon. Politicians in the Democratic party felt otherwise, arguing that sharing the tech would give away a key advantage to the Republicans. Three months after the election, the data and software is still tightly controlled by the president and his campaign staff, with the fate of the code still largely undecided. It’s a choice the OFA developers warn could not only squander the digital advantage the Democrats now hold, but also severely impact their ability to recruit top tech talent in the future.

    If the code OFA built was put on ice at the DNC until 2016, it would become effectively worthless. “None of that will be useful in four years, technology moves too fast,” said Ryan. [snip]

    While the campaign and winning the election were fulfilling for these developers, Ryan isn’t planning a return to politics. The aftermath has jaded him. “I think it just reiterates the fact that change won’t come from Washington,” says Ryan. “If techies want change, we have to do it from the outside.

    It’s all about Obama guys. It’s a cult the cult leader intends to keep for himself. Barack Obama now has the apparatus to ignore the DNC. All Barack needs now is a candidate or a willing dupe.

    There are rumors of a lantern jawed Michelle Obama throwing her garish self into the ring. We believe Martin O’Malley will be the crazed left candidate for the DailyKooks (after Montana’s clownish Brian Schweitzer is filtered out). Barack Obama is keeping his own clown close to the vest:

    Obama Is Boosting Biden’s 2016 Prospects

    In case you haven’t noticed, President Obama and his vaunted PR machine are orchestrating a full-court press to boost the presidential stock of his loyal vice president, Joe Biden.

    It is not clear whether Biden will seek the Oval Office next time — he will be 73 years old when 2016 rolls around. But just in case, the political foundation is carefully being laid and the public expectation is being buttressed by White House strategists, and dutifully documented by the media.

    “Biden stokes talk of presidential campaign in 2016,” said a headline in Sunday’s Washington Examiner.

    Since the Obama-Biden re-election in November, the loquacious vice president has been all over the place, doing everything from the ceremonial (attending the Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia) to the monumental: leading a high-profile presidential task force on gun violence that will make recommendations to Obama on Tuesday.

    Thanks to the president putting him in charge, rather than someone such as the FBI director or a prominent jurist, the work of the task force — a big deal since the Newtown, Conn., shootings last month — has given the vice president a lot of face time on television. He met last week, amid much media hoopla and commentary, with groups such as the NRA, video-game executives and representatives of the entertainment industry.

    In addition to all that, Biden found time to negotiate an eleventh-hour “fiscal-cliff” compromise deal with Senate Republicans, visit devastated New Jersey in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, lead the official U.S. delegation to the inauguration of Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto, and meet or phone a bevy of world leaders including Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, European Parliament President Martin Schulz, and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.”

    Swearing in new members of the U.S. Senate, shopping at Costco (co-founded owned by an Obama bundler), planned Sandy Hook publicity stunts with families of the dead, Ezra Klein incense lightings, Barack calling him his “extraordinary” vice president and providing him lots of assignments are some of the Barack-to-Biden love. It’s a dead fish message:

    “Perhaps the president is sending a message to Hillary Clinton that he will not automatically back her if she decides to run in 2016. With Biden in the field, Obama has a ready excuse as to why he can’t endorse the early front-runner. To be sure, Clinton has been a loyal secretary of state. But Biden’s loyalty has been second to none, and Clinton was Obama’s strongest and bitterest rival for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

    Moreover, her recent health problems might compromise her presidential prospects. Though younger than Biden, she still would be 69 shortly before Election Day 2016.”

    It used to be that Hillary’s age would be the line of attack against her by the crazed left. Now it will not be her age, because she is younger than Biden, it will be her health. You know the health problems that many dolts derided as a fig leaf for cowardice.

    But is Biden running? The Washington Post thinks so:

    “One thing became abundantly clear during the past several days of inauguration festivities in Washington, D.C.: Joe Biden is running for president in 2016.

    Ok, Biden isn’t technically in the race. (Technically, there isn’t a race yet either.) And, of course, minds can change between now and 2016. But, Biden is doing everything that someone who is planning to run would do. Everything. [snip]

    * Biden — with Beau, a major rising star in both Delaware and nationally, in tow — not only stopped by the Iowa State Society’s inaugural ball on Saturday night but also delivered this gem of a line: “I am proud to be president of the United States, but I am prouder to be Barack — I mean, excuse me.” [snip]

    * Biden invited New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan to attend his private swearing-in for a second term on Sunday at the vice presidential residence. [snip]

    * Biden was in full Biden mode during the inaugural parade on Monday, working the crowd in a way that had “Vote for Me!” written all over it.”

    Republican/conservative Hotair sees the Biden hot air as a 2016 prep too and quotes CNN’s report of private sit-downs with DNC delegates.

    Politico thinks Biden is gunning for the top spot in 2016 too:

    “Joe Biden ‘intoxicated’ by 2016 run

    Joe Biden summoned more than 200 Democratic insiders to the vice presidential residence Sunday night to chat about the 2012 triumph — but many walked away convinced his rising 2016 ambitions were the real intent of the long, intimate night.

    “I took a look at who was there,” said longtime New Hampshire state Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, “and said to myself, ‘There’s no question he’s thinking about the future.’ ”

    He’s intoxicated by the idea, and it’s impossible not to be intoxicated by the idea,” said a Democrat close to the White House. And the intoxication is hardly new. Officials working on the Obama-Biden campaign last year were struck by how the vice president always seemed to have one eye on a run, including aggressively courting the president’s donors. Obama aides at times had to actively steer Biden to places where he was needed — like Pennsylvania — because he kept asking to be deployed to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states. [snip]

    A Democrat close to both Biden and Clinton said it is extremely unlikely that they would challenge each other. “They’re both going to build up teams and see how it goes,” the Democrat said. “One of them will fade away, as it becomes more obvious which one of them should be the standard-bearer for the Obama legacy. I can’t see them both announcing for president. But both of them will have teams that try to get to that.”

    It always will come down to Hillary and the will she won’t she question. Politico continues somewhat along the lines of what we see:

    “Here’s a little intrigue that only Obama knows the answer to: Will the president really want a Clinton to replace him after spending eight years redirecting the party away from the centrism of Bill Clinton? After all, it was Clinton who declared the era of Big Government is over. And it was Obama, in his second inaugural speech, who declared it very much back on.

    Obama would rather be succeeded by a Biden type than a Clinton type,” a prominent Democrat told us. But the same Democrat went on to say that if Hillary Clinton were running, she would be running on the Obama legacy, not her husband’s.

    The crazed left will never trust that Hillary is “running on the Obama legacy.” The crazed left hates Hillary and won’t believe her on this issue once Obama puts out the word that his man is not a woman. We are in Borgia Italy and so we have to continue to watch as Hillary moves in the shadow world to determine what we will do in the general election. For the nomination we will strongly back Hillary Clinton if only to spite the Obama left.

    Back to Politico and Biden:

    “Biden’s most revealing move may have been to hold a little-discussed Sunday night party at the vice president’s mansion. He invited about 200 Democratic insiders over to his home and the guest list included some of the most influential figures in national and early-state Democratic politics.

    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, NAACP head Ben Jealous, Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon all were in attendance.

    But what really raised eyebrows among the attendees were just how many Democrats from the traditional first nominating states made the trek to the Naval Observatory.

    There were big names such as South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat and a Palmetto State powerhouse, but also lesser-known activists.”

    Hillary hater and race-baiter Jim Clyburn will assist Barack Obama to make sure Hillary Clinton never gets the nomination in 2016.

    Stu Rothenberg thinks Biden is gunning for the top job too:

    “The 2016 Presidential Race Begins Today

    After recent work on congressional deals, Biden looks like a more serious contender in 2016, if he chooses to run. [snip]

    After Clinton and Biden, the list becomes more speculative. New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley are seen as ambitious and interested. Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer probably should be on the list as well.

    Cuomo’s oratorical skills and access to New York state’s Democratic dollars can’t be ignored, and while O’Malley didn’t exactly set the world on fire at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, his state has put up good numbers on education and his very liberal views could be appealing to Democrats. Schweitzer has a folksy quality that many like, though I have felt for years that he tries way too hard.”

    We believe Biden is merely a stop Hillary candidate and a place for Barack Obama to hang his hat. Eventually it will be Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland an Hopium guzzler extraordinaire who will become the darling of the crazed left. If O’Malley can gin up sufficient support then Barack will back him as the best stop Hillary candidate.

    Already O’Malley has gun control laws prepared as the way to signal he wants the nomination:

    “HUSTLING TO keep pace with New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is preparing to lay out his own package of tough new gun laws in the aftermath of December’s bloodbath at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Many Republicans, in thrall to the gun lobby, have scoffed at both governors as intent more on burnishing their viability as presidential candidates in 2016 than on halting gun violence.”

    It will be O’Malley or some other Hopium guzzling loon who will get the crazed left vote. For those that doubt the left will attack Hillary, just read Michael Kinsley’s early January article Hillary Clinton’s Ego Trips.

    John Kraushaar has a smart article that notes the gun control issue won’t help O’Malley or Cuomo in 2016 while noting that it might help get attention at least:

    “The bigger question is whether Cuomo and O’Malley merit the first-tier presidential stature they’ve been receiving lately. I’ve written about how thin the Democratic presidential bench looks for 2016, sans Hillary, with a bunch of secondary politicians looking to punch above their weight class. Desperate to build their national stature and fill a vacuum, they’re looking to grab at national issues to please the base ahead of a presidential run.

    O’Malley (after dispatching Schweitzer) will be the candidate of the loon left. Biden will be the placeholder for those wanting to stop Hillary from getting the nomination. Barack Obama will orchestrate the next nomination in the same way that Reid, Ted Kennedy and Pelosi orchestrated Obama’s gifted nomination.

    But, but, but, Hillary will appear with Obama on Sunday, skeptics will retort. Well, Obama wants to get some of that Hillary luster near him to help his poll numbers and maybe borrow one of Hillary’s ovaries for the coming fights with congress and the courts.

    For her part Hillary will try to co-opt Obama supporters with her appearance as she leaves government service for now. What??? You don’t like the idea of Hillary Clinton making moves out of political motivation? You used to like Hillary but you want the “truth” and a “principled stand” – for her to blast Obama in Congress and on TV – and because that prancing unicorn is not in your stocking you now hate Hillary? Maybe you’ll be happier with Michelle Obama as the next nominee of the party with a closet full of race baiting tricks to wear.


    Harlequins And Proglodytes: Not Benghazi Security, Not The Laughs And Smirks – The Real Deep Harm Joe Biden Did To Barack Obama

    Update: As we note in the main article, the DailyKooks cheered Biden but there is a lot of damage to Obama. Additional hurt via Biden comes from Romney knowing exactly how Obama will defend himself on the Libya Fibya and other assorted diasters.

    One of Biden’s tactics: lie. A history of Chuckles the Clown’s own private Idaho, er, history of Xtreme wrestling with the truth for Obama to emulate at the Hofstra Halloween Horror Penultimate October Debate tomorrow night will help Romney prepare for his responses. Serial lies are the Chicago Way which gives Joe Biden ward heeler status in the windy city.

    For those worried about Obama suffering as he tries to save his ill deserved Nobel Prize job, fear not. The American taxpayer is making sure Obama Preps for Debate in Splendor. The pillows of the imperial wastrel are fluffed and you are paying for the pillows and the fluffers.

    More good news? Obama raised an amazing $181 million last month but Romney drops his own number on Hofstra Halloween Horror eve. Romney, RNC raise $170 million in September. The important number: Romney/RNC have $191 million cash on hand.

    Thanks to Powerline for the “pick” of Big Pink today.


    Joe Biden injured Barack Obama in a likely lethal way last week. That’s because Joe Biden decisively forced Barack Obama to do something that will prove fatal.

    In 2004, as we campaigned during the Democratic Party nomination battle, we recall the first Democratic Party debate in New Hampshire. At that event the candidates in contention for the nomination organized supporters with signs, unions, chants, and all the usual paraphernalia and techniques to attract voters to the candidate championed.

    At that event in 2004 everyone had fun. But one candidate’s supporters had a great deal of fun. Think Kooch. Dennis Kucinich.

    In 2004 Kucinich did not have a chance to win the nomination but his supporters believed lightning could strike and “The Kooch” win it all. Towards that end, outside that 2004 debate, the Kucinich partisans appeared. We kid you not. They wore huge, colorful harlequin hats – literally with bells on. They had clown makeup on, drum circles, flutes, recorders, feathers, whooping and hollering. The question we asked, with a wink in one eye and tongue in the cheek to one particularly giddy and happy Kooch supporter was, “You know the aim is to get votes, right?” With a goofy grin the Kooch supporter smiled.

    That’s what the Chuckles the Clown performance at the Danville Debate Debacle reminded us of – supporters of the Kooch in harlequin hats not thinking for one instant of the voters but only of how much fun they were having.

    In 2012 the harlequins, joined by the Proglodytes are back. This time though their candidate has the nomination and is running for reelection. It’s not the Kooch. It’s the Clown from Chicago.

    Chicago Clown

    Prior to last week’s Danville Debate Debacle there was a question as to what Barack Obama would do Tuesday at the Town Hall debate – featuring a star turn by Candy Crowley. There were two choices, two courses, for Obama to choose from.

    Option 1: In order to stem the hemorrhaging of confidence, caused by the Denver Debate Disaster, Barack Obama had to placate the Obama Hopium Guzzlers, emotionally devastated as they watched Mitt Romney lay waste to their tin plate rusted calf.

    Option 2: Ignore the temper tantrums and emotional fragility of the DailyKook base in favor of winning the necessary-for-a-win political independents/swing voters.

    Joe Biden’s clown performance last week settled the question as to what Barack Obama now must do, what Obama is forced to do. It’s the corner Chuckles the Clown Joe Biden has painted Barack Obama into.

    Because of Joe Biden option 2 is no longer an option. Barack Obama now has been boxed in by Biden into an Option 1 coffin.

    * * * * * *

    Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic declared the Danville Debate Debacle the tonic the proglodyte left desperately needed although about those pesky/necessary swing voters? – Cohn was not sure about the debate’s effect on them:

    “Tonight Democrats got the show they wanted—and President Obama may have gotten the boost he needed. [snip]

    I don’t know how it played with the public as a whole and I don’t imagine it influenced swing voters one way or the other.”

    Joan Walsh, at Salon put on her harlequin hat, the one with bells, and joined the drum circle: “The pearl-clutchers might have the vapors, but Democrats are revived by Biden’s aggressive performance, in contrast with his boss’s listless one.”

    Those are the two more rational examples of the reaction to Chuckles the Clown’s Danville Debate Debacle from the proglodyte left.

    The proglodyte left will demand that Obama this Tuesday act as aggressively as Chuckles the Clown. It being a town hall style debate supposedly populated by undecided voters (although Gallup is choosing the participants and the audience so don’t hold your breath if after the legal assault from the Obama campaign/government every participant is an Obama supporter) this strategy will not be the wisest. Independent voters, swing voters supposedly don’t like “attacks”. They say they want a focus on the issues.

    Whether or not the independent voters and swing voters genuinely prefer “issues” over “attacks” we don’t know (we are dubious). But the audience in the town hall will likely react negatively if there are too many attacks from Obama. The DailyKooks won’t care. The DailyKooks want attacks and Chuckles the Clown performances from the Clown from Chicago.

    Barack Obama is a boob in general and a boob in debates particularly no matter how much or how little he studies up. Hillary beat him repeatedly and even the hapless John McCain did well against Obama even as McCain tied his own hands by keeping away from Obama’s personal life and history.

    After the Denver Debate Disaster we are sure Mitt Romney will do well on Tuesday. Romney’s performance has already helped him with independents/swing voters. Romney will have answers for the Obama attacks which will come because Obama does not want to talk about what he would do in a second term. If Obama brings up the “47%” Romney can bring up the “bitter” and the “clinging”. On issue after issue Romney has the upper hand because most Americans hate what Obama has done whether it is ObamaCare or the wasted “stimulus” scam money. And that’s just domestic policy.

    On foreign policy Mitt Romney cam ask Obama “where were you and what did you do?”:

    “After David Axelrod’s repeated assurances this morning on Fox News Sunday that “there isn’t anybody on this planet” who feels a greater sense of responsibility for our diplomats than this President, Chris Wallace asked how soon after the Benghazi attacks the President actually met with his national security team.

    Wallace followed up on Axelrod’s non-answer by asking whether the President managed to squeeze in a meeting with the National Security Council before jetting off to Las Vegas for a campaign rally. Given Axelrod’s inability to produce a straightforward answer to the questions, it’s pretty clear the answer is “no.”

    Mitt Romney has a lot of questions to ask Barack Obama all of which concern the lives of Americans. Barack Obama has a lot of attacks against Mitt Romney which the harlequins and proglodytes will demand and cheer.

    On Tuesday Mitt Romney will speak about jobs and the economy. Barack Obama will launch personal attacks – Americans be damned.


    Obama Discovers America, America Discovers Barack Obama And Mitt Romney

    Update: More poll numbers coming in with Mittmentum numbers (and it is now less than 30 days until E-Day). Guess who has the numbers? Romney up 2 in new national poll from … Daily Kos? Yup, the DailyKooks are the source of the latest Mittment8m numbers.

    DailyKooks are not alone. As we detail below and here, Mittmentum is everywhere: Romney takes lead in Rasmussen swing-state tracking poll, 49/46; Plus, ARG puts Romney up 1 in Ohio – with a D+9 sample. As Stewie would say, “Say whaaaat?


    This is a no whine zone. This is a gloat zone as well. Let’s gloat.

    Remember Andrew Sullivan? He’s that snake that lives in the Slytherin bathrooms. Sullivan is a reptile who fell to his knees in 2008 to worship Barack Obama in the silliest schoolgirl crush since Olive Oyl took a liking for lumbering Popeye.

    Now Sullivan, today’s headline at Drudge, is worried sick for his lovey-poo:

    Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?

    The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

    Romney’s favorables are above Obama’s now. Yes, you read that right. Romney’s favorables are higher than Obama’s right now. That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall? Over in one night [snip]

    Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.

    That poor reptile (we mean Sullivan). It’s sad when reality takes a bite out of your fat ass. Sullivan is in tears. We here at Big Pink are in tears too – tears of joy!. On Denver Debate Disaster Night we wrote what we repeated the day after: “Last night the country saw the Obama we saw in 2008.

    Reptile Sullivan saw a golden calf in 2008. We saw a corrupt, rusted Chicago calf. No one should read or listen to someone like Sullivan who was so wrong. We’re posting about him today simply to gloat:

    “How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? [snip]

    Too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve.

    Hey, we thought calling Obama “arrogant” was racist? We thought Sullivan believed in hope and change”? Sullivan is hopeless though as he thinks up schemes to salvage his rusted calf:

    “A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves.

    I’ve never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. [snip]

    I’m trying to see a silver lining. But when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it’s hard to see how a president and his party recover.”

    To further depress Sullivan these developments in favor of Mitt Romney are taking place even as early voting is in full swing in many states. The news and the polls are all bad news for Sullivan, the DailyKooks and Barack Obama.

    It’s not just a singular poll that is bad news for Obama. More polls: Romney now within three points in Michigan, two in Pennsylvania. The Battleground poll in the field before the Obama Denver Debate Disaster had more devastating news for Barack. Wait until the post debate numbers show up and we might start to see open windows in Chicago with Hopium Guzzlers jumping off the ledge.

    If the polls are not enough to ensure Mittmentum the news is certain to hurt Obama 29 days and counting until Election Day proper. There is a hideous fundraising scandal which must be investigated at some point, hopefully during the Romney administration. This Obama fundraising Watergate but worse scandal will likely show hundreds of millions of illegally raised funds in 2008 and 2012. The Obama thugs in charge of this fundraising illegality (which here at Big Pink we yelled about in 2008 to no avail) must be sent to the most dangerous prisons to be found in America.

    Then there is the Benghazi Libya disaster that is every day exposed as more and more lies. We want an investigation. We want Romney to make it a central critique at the last debate which will concentrate on foreign policy. Yesterday Mitt Romney began to outline his foreign policy vision but on October 22 he will have to expose Barack Obama’s foreign policy delusions and failures.

    Obama’s failures are not restricted to domestic policy. Obama’s failures extend to the foreign policy fields and there he has taken a toll on lives. As we have written before we want Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to provide testimony to Congress about the Benghazi Libya September 11, 2012 terrorist attack and we think she will come out smelling like a rose. The recent news is that the day after September 11, 2012 an Under Secretary of State told Congress the attack was a terrorist attack. The culprit here is Barack Obama and his thwart Hillary Clinton appointee – Susan Rice.

    Most troubling to Sullivan and his fellow Hopium Guzzlers has to be the emergence of Mitt Romney the really good candidate. We’ve insulted Mitt Romney repeatedly here (along with just about every Republican candidate running for president this year) and we can shamelessly state that we have never been impressed with Romney. But last Wednesday that changed.

    Mitt Romney in Denver was simply outstanding. Romney displayed a Hillaryesque ability to cite facts and figures along with a Bill Clintonesque talent to explain in a clear manner what he intends to do as president and who he is as a man.

    What a great deal of analysis about the Denver debate last Wednesday misses is how great Mitt Romney was. It wasn’t so much that Obama was the lumbering, arrogant boob that he usually is. It was that Mitt Romney was very good, outstanding. Even if Obama would have been “on” that night, Romney would have kicked his ass.

    When we read or hear that Obama did not mention the 47% comment or Obama did not do this or that and why oh why didn’t Obama say these things – we have an obvious answer: Obama knew better. Obama knew it would not have helped. Obama did not want to fight because he knew no matter what he threw at Romney, Romney would have hit it out of the ballpark.

    Obama likely figured the best thing to do was to make the debate as uneventful as possible so that Big Media would say “nothing happened in Denver”. Unfortunately for Obama a lot of Americas cared enough to watch. Unfortunately for Obama the Denver debate featured a split screen with tens of millions of Americans watching Obama, the member of the Choom gang, smoke his reelection away.

    The effect of all this news and Denver Debate Disaster for Obama is that now the blinders are coming off from many faces. The Obama America discovered last Wednesday is the Obama we saw in 2008. Now some are reassessing 2008. WaPo’s Chris Cillizza wonders: Is Candidate Obama … overrated?:

    “It’s amazing what happens when the emperor is exposed as having no clothes, eh? Suddenly, the media begin asking questions that everyone else asked four years ago about a man who hadn’t even completed one term as Senator and who had no executive experience, running in a distinctly anti-Republican political environment. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post wonders whether Barack Obama has always been as mediocre a candidate as he was last Wednesday night in the debate: [snip]

    Well, we’re finding out more about how Team Obama shattered those fundraising records, too. But Cillizza is wrong about the question being “unimaginable”; plenty of us “imagined” it at the time, and not just about Obama as a candidate. He was easily the least-experienced major-party nominee in decades, with no military, business, or executive experience prior to his candidacy. The only elections he won were in a heavily Democratic region — Chicago — and against Alan Keyes in his one statewide race in 2004. Obama had never distinguished himself as a legislative leader. His only real claim to fame was that he wrote two memoirs and gave a great speech at the 2004 Democratic convention.

    In fact, not only were many of us “imagining” that question, we were pointing out Obama’s flaws and foibles on the campaign trail, most of which the press ignored in favor of the Obama narrative of Hope and Change.”

    Obama was a treacherous corrupt boob in 2008. Barack Obama is a treacherous corrupt boob in 2012 – only worse and more dangerous. He must be removed from power and shipped off to Chicago or Sing-Sing or a latter day Alcatraz. More and more Americans realize today what we knew years ago.

    As more Americans sober up and see the treacherous corrupt boob for what he is the Hopium Guzzlers will feign amazement and shock. Andrew Sullivan, who thinks he is a keen observer, missed seening the obvious. Sullivan has a lot of excuses and worries now. But Andrew Sullivan’s real complaint is that finally America discovered Barack Obama to be what he is. America did not like what it saw.

    What is even more important is that Barack Obama discovered America. Obama banged his head right into the reality rock that America is sick of his adjective heavy bromides and pooped platitudes.

    Like a walnut crushed by a truck Obama is a broken shell of a man. He was always a shell of illusions and delusions but now that shell is broken. Barack Obama is broken and once he is gone American can begin to be fixed and healed.


    Obama Strategy: Debt And Deficits At Home To Buy Catastrophe Abroad

    Update: Until Mitt Romney realizes his enemy is Big Media first and foremost he will remain on defense. JournoListers killed the Jeremiah Wright story and stated that the reason to do so was to protect their stooge Barack Obama. Mitt Romney has no JournoListers protecting him. That’s why stories like this happen and have to be explained.

    Explanations won’t suffice as long as feral Big Media remains at large. The story from Romney: Obama’s 47% of the electorate is dependent on government will be exploited to block news about the September 11, 2012 attack Obama could have prevented. The professor has it right:

    “There is no doubt that this was an Obama campaign operation, and likely we will see more such tapes dribbled out a week at a time. The team which obtained sealed divorce records of rivals certainly can plant donors at private fundraisers.

    Don’t fall for pronouncements that Romney’s campaign now is over. Such pronouncements now come weekly by a media seeking a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether it was the insane overreaction to Romney’s comments on Libya or the declaration that the polling showed Romney had lost, every week there will be a new meme circulated.

    Stay focused, and motivated.”

    It took Big Media at least a year to confirm what we reported years earlier – that it was Obama that planted the Edwards $400 haircut story. That was nothing compared to what Big Media intends to do to Mitt Romney. To know what is happening today, don’t read the day’s headlines – read The Innocent Charles Manson.


    See, what we’re suggesting is very easy to do and does not need embellishment. We’re not pushing a complicated recipe, just something a short order cook can prepare. For example, short order cook Michelle Bachmann accomplishes at least half of what we suggested in one easy soundbite:

    “And President Obama needs to get his priorities straight. What he needs to do is cancel his planned interview with David Letterman, cancel his meeting with Beyonce, cancel his meeting with Jay Z, and instead agree to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, because you see, America and Israel have a commonality of interests,” Bachmann said.”

    Add another component of our suggestion – the threat of continuous pummeling of Obama until he accedes to such a meeting — and 100% of what we suggested is done. Of course we said this should happen on the afternoon of September 11, 2012 so it is already a bit late.

    We sometimes think the Romney campaign should shut down, fire everybody, and just read what we write and do what we say they should do. Mind, we’ve written effusively at times about the Romney campaign and we’ve even had nice things to say about Mitt Romney himself. But pretty much as soon as we write something nice about Romney or his campaign we almost immediately have to refudiate ourselves. They’re just so stupid.

    Barack Obama is the Romney campaign opponent and there is even a question as to who is winning? How stupid can the Romney campaign be? The Romney campaign, as even its best friends agree, is a stupid campaign. Stupid is as stupid does.

    But be of good cheer Romney supporters. If the Romney campaign is stupid, which it is, is there anything dumber, stupider, more contemptible than a true believing Obama supporter? The answer is “No”. True believer Obama supporters are by definition “imbeciles“.

    We know we are being generous when we diagnose true believing Obama supporters as imbeciles, there is a lower level measurement of intelligence after all, but these imbeciles, we hear, are usually toilet trained so we give them props. But still they are truly stupid and therefore difficult to argue with.

    Don’t confuse them with facts. They loves themselves the Obama so much they cannot accept anything but that their “man” is in for a sure fire winning. Try telling these imbeciles that there are polls which have had Mitt Romney leading Obama, then losing to Obama (in the wake of the conventions), and now Romney leading Obama yet again. They are oblivious. These latter day Pauline Kaels reject reality for their own dirty bubbles.

    “The clearest example of the bizarrely naive quality of hermetic liberal provincialism was attributed to the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael almost 40 years ago, and has been discussed in right-wing circles ever since. It went something like this: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Several years ago, I went on an admittedly desultory search for the original quote and was unable to locate it.

    On Friday, on the New Yorker’s website, the magazine’s film editor Richard Brody offers what may be the first accurate version of the quote I’ve ever seen (I’m assuming it’s accurate because it comes from the New Yorker itself): “Pauline Kael famously commented, after the 1972 Presidential election, ‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.’”

    Obviously, the paraphrase is far juicier than the original, but actually, if you think about it, the version quoted by Brody is even worse, as it indicates that Kael was actually acknowledging her provincialism (“I live in a rather special world”) and from its perch expressing her distaste for the unwashed masses with whom she sometimes had to share a movie theater. What this indicates is that, even then, liberal provincialism was as proud of its provincialism as any Babbitt.”

    That was 40 years ago and what once could be classified as “liberal provincialism” has to be reclassified as imbecility. Pauline Kael did not have Reagan’s campaign to reference or any of the past 40 years to inform her. But these Obama imbeciles have the past 40 years and yet they bitterly cling to their Kaelian notions.

    We can understand mocking Romney. We have mocked him. But we also understand what Romney is up to. We don’t like the gamble, we think there was an easier path, but we know what Romney is up to:

    “The Barack Obama campaign has run on the model of 2004. In that year an unpopular incumbent ran a base election and squeaked through to a victory.

    The Mitt Romney campaign sees 1980 as their model year. In that year a Republican challenger to an incumbent president trailed or was close to the president for many months until at the very last moment, at a debate, the challenger proved his worthiness and broke the race wide open to a comfortable victory.

    If you look at these two models after the events of September 11, 2012, the 1980 model appears to be the one most congruent with the current political situation. That is what scares the Obama Hopium Guzzling Big Media and other Obama acolytes. That is why the response to Mitt Romney’s mild critique of Barack Obama has been so brutal.”

    Mitt Romney right now is not really campaigning. Paul Ryan is campaigning, but Mitt Romney is fundraising. Mitt Romney is hoarding cash, like Alberich in Nibelheim.

    Mitt Romney is raising cash so that after the debate on October 3 he can raise hell for Obama. Somehow the Obama imbeciles don’t see that.

    Mitt Romney has a very simple strategy. First raise lots of money, much more money than Barack Obama (all the while knowing that the pro Romney SuperPacs will spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Obama SuperPacs). While raising the cash just stay within winning distance of Barack Obama in the polls or if possible ahead.

    Second, wait until all Americans are paying attention to politics and the presidential race, a period signaled by the debates. While waiting for the debates, heighten the probability of good debate performances by preparing for the debates. Romney has already had several debate preparation sessions and he comes fresh from a full primary campaign season of debates with people such as Newt Gingrich.

    Finally, unfurl the flag, let the air war which many of us thought would commence soon after the end of the Obama convention) finally begin. To employ World War II terminology (apologies in advance especially since it is the beginning of the Jewish High Holy days), the sitzkreig becomes the blitzkrieg.

    Barack Obama’s strategy is essentially to squeak out a win even if that makes governing an impossibility. Obama’s hopes are based on micro-targeting and data mining. The very expensive data based campaign was a big waste of money until Romney made a very stupid decision which made rational the Obama data mining efforts:

    “If you realize that statement #1 is truer than ever and you also believe that this election will be an election of smear and fear, distract and distort, divide and conquer, corruption and complicity, consider yourself smart – you’ve been paying attention.”

    Barack Obama will utilize all that data mining to slice and dice the electorate and smear and slime Mitt Romney. It’s ugly and leads to future impotence in governing. But don’t tell that to the Obama imbeciles, they’re drinking a potent new formula of Hopium.

    That Hopium embalms the latter day Pauline Kael’s with new resolve to ignore reality. Obama’s failed strategy to use foreign policy to beat Romney is in flames, but the Hopium Guzzlers do not care.

    The Hopium Guzzlers, like Kael generations ago, know what they know. They hate polls but love the polls they love. We’ve issued many warnings about when and how to read polls. Lately polls were raised to icon status by the Hopium Guzzlers. But not all polls:

    “Voters are fairly evenly divided as to which candidate they trust more to handle events in the Middle East: 48% say Obama, 45% Romney. Unaffiliated voters have a slight preference for Romney. By an overwhelming 72% to 15% margin, voters believe it is more important to guarantee freedom of speech rather than making sure nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures. Half (51%) think it’s likely the government of Libya was involved in the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens 
    and other Americans.

    As of this morning, only seven percent (7%) of voters rate national security issues as the most important in Election 2012. [snip]

    Most voters continue to favor repeal of the president’s health care law. [snip]

    In Virginia  and Ohio, Obama leads by a point. In Florida,  the president is up two. Romney has edged back into the lead in Missouri and is up six in North Carolina.

    Results such as these should give no side encouragement to loudly proclaim they know what will happen on election day 2012. Four years ago today, the financial crisis hit and John McCain’s large post convention bounce ended. The Obama Hopium Guzzlers continue to believe it was their brilliant campaign and their Mess-iah that won that campaign – but the rational know it was the financial collapse and exhaustion with George W. Bush that wrote the election day results.

    Mitt Romney still understands that “It’s the economy, stupid.” That’s why new Romney ads focus on economy, deficit:

    The Obama policy can be summarized as Debt And Deficits At Home To Buy Catastrophe Abroad. Don’t tell the Hopium Guzzlers that. They’re planning the Obama second inaugural. How stupid is that?