Let’s talk, not in order: (1) Michelle Malkin, (2) Election 2006, (3) Election 2010, (4) Obama’s health scam.
First, let’s look at where the twig was bent. The Democratic myth of Election 2006 is that the election was about Iraq. We have always disagreed with that analysis. We believe Election 2006 was about arrogance (and incompetence and corruption). In 2006 Americans saw the same type of arrogance, incompetence, and corruption, from Republicans that Americans see in 2010 from Barack Obama and his corrupt Dimocrats.
In 2006 the Nutroots decided to run Joe Lieberman out of the U.S. Senate for his many outspoken deviations from Democratic orthodoxy. Rich self-funding Ned Lamont ran against Lieberman and won the primary. Lamont ran as an anti Iraq war candidate with the support of anti Iraq war Democrats and Nutroot websites eager to capitalize on Lamont’s self-funded campaign. Since the Lamont primary victory the Nutroots have twisted the narrative of Election 2006 to their benefit and declared Election 2006 was a referendum on the Iraq war and the need for Democrats to follow their line of thought or be defeated. But of course, Joe Lieberman won reelection though not on the Democratic Party line.
Without getting into the weeds (today) of whether or not Joe Lieberman should have been removed and the many Iraq war arguments – we do not believe that Election 2006 was specifically about the Iraq war. Frustration and anger with the floundering, incompetently run Iraq war was important, but that is not what was determinative. For example, there are little to no electoral results that year which are directly attributable to the Iraq war as the issue which swung any election. A few Iraq war veterans won election but even they did not focus their elections solely on Iraq (compare with Carolyn McCarthy when she won strictly on gun control). The exit polls confirm our view that Iraq was important but not determinative. What was determinative? We believe it was the arrogance and incompetence and corruption of the party in power.
The narrative pushed from the Democratic Left is that Election 2006 was about Iraq. This misguided analysis of Election 2006 has had deleterious effects on the Democratic Party and must be corrected. Americans will be patient with stupid wars and dumb policies but Americans will bristle and rear when hypocrisy and arrogance slap them in the face. That’s what happened in 2006 and that is what is happening now. What we are saying might be too subtle for many, but it is important. Again, Iraq was important to the results of 2006 but it was the Bush W. arrogance about Iraq which infuriated the electorate sufficiently to “throw the bums out.”
“We’ve got the basic strategy right,” Cheney told George Stephanopoulos in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on “This Week.”
October was one of the deadliest months in Iraq for U.S. troops. Cheney said that while the administration’s policy may not be popular, “This is the right thing for us to be doing.”
In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 57 percent of Americans said that the war was not worth fighting. The poll also showed President Bush’s job approval rating dropped to 37 percent, the second-lowest mark of his presidency.
Cheney said that even with pollsters predicting that Democrats would likely make gains in both houses of Congress Tuesday, voter sentiment would not influence Bush’s Iraq policy.
“It may not be popular with the public — it doesn’t matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that’s exactly what we’re doing,” Cheney said. “We’re not running for office. We’re doing what we think is right.”
“It doesn’t matter…what WE think is right… We’re doing what we think is right.” Faced with such arrogance, Americans said, ‘No, you must go because you are not listening to us.’ Americans will put up with a great deal, but don’t tell Americans you will ignore them.
In the same TV show interview, then Vice President Dick Cheney reacted to a Vanity Fair article which reported that “two of the Pentagon’s strongest supporters of the war, Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, now say they would not have supported the invasion if they had known how incompetently the administration would handle it.” This is how Cheny responded to the incompetence charge:
“Cheney said, “I haven’t seen the piece I’m not going to comment on it. I think there is no question that it is a tough war, but it is also the right thing to do,” he said. “And it is very important that we complete the mission.”
Dick Cheney did not offer any acknowledgment that things were “on the wrong track” in the country generally and in the Iraq war specifically. There was no explanation or engagement of the substantive disagreements, just an occasional publicity stunt. All Dick Cheney offered was ‘we are right and we will continue to do what we want to do and we will even ignore our own friends who criticize us.‘ Who does that sound like in 2010?
In 2006 Americans were frustrated that they were not being listened too. The Dick Cheney Republican arguments did not start four days before the election. This was an all year refusal to listen to American voters and simply keep on repeating the same arguments at publicity stunts. The secrecy and arrogance from Republicans in 2006, along with incompetence, was suffocating the American people. The American people on many policy issues (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, secret surveillance programs, secrecy, terrorism, oil, Darfur, budget cuts) were confused if not angry and frustrated and George W. Bush appeared not to be listening. The American people smacked George W. on the head and yelled ‘LISTEN to us.’
“Voters across the nation said they disapprove of the job President Bush is doing and many said their vote for Congress was to express opposition to him. A clear majority said they disapprove of the war in Iraq, and most said they do not believe it has improved the long-term security of the country.”
The Iraq policy issue was a point of contention but what voters voted on was opposition to George W. Bush. It was the arrogance of power.
“President Bush played a large role in today’s voting, as a majority of voters said he was a factor in their decision: One in five voters (22 percent) said their vote was to show support for Bush, while 36 percent said it was to express opposition. [snip]
In addition, the number of voters who said they are angry with the Bush administration has increased to 29 percent today – up from 23 percent in 2004. Another 30 percent said they were “dissatisfied but not angry,” while at the other end of the spectrum 27 percent felt “satisfied, but not enthusiastic,” and about one in 10 felt “enthusiastic.”
Over half of voters (55 percent) said the country is headed in the wrong direction and 41 percent said it is going in the right direction. Those saying the country is on the right track broke for the Republican candidates by over 50 points, while those saying the country is going in the wrong direction went solidly for the Democratic candidate in their district about 60 points.”
The exit poll numbers confirm our analysis (this one from CNN) that Iraq was not the main factor in Election 2006. It was arrogance. In 2006 voters were emotionally angry. The visceral reaction at the polls, we believe, was due to the arrogance of George W. Bush and Republicans who would not listen but thought they knew better and did not have to explain or change policy simply because the American public did not agree with them.
“When deciding which candidate to support, more voters today said political corruption (41 percent) was extremely important to their vote than said the economy (39 percent), the issue of terrorism (39 percent), the war in Iraq (36 percent), values issues (36 percent) or illegal immigration (30 percent) was extremely important.
Those saying corruption was extremely important to their vote backed the Democratic candidate in their House district by a 60 to 38 percent margin.
Economy voters favored the Democrats by 20 percentage points, and Iraq war voters backed the Democrats by over 20 points.
Republicans were favored by terrorism voters (+ 7 points) and immigration voters (+ 6 points). The largest margin comes from values voters, and this group backed the Republican candidate by 18 points.
The 2006 Election was about Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! The 2010 elections will be about Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption!
Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! doomed the Republicans in Election 2006. Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! will doom the Obama Dimocrats in 2010.
Celebrity Barack Obama and his Obama Dimocrats have already outpaced George W. Bush Republicans in the arrogance race. The argument on health care is a Cheneyesque ‘Once we pass health care Americans will love it even though they hate it now, because we know better than stupid Americans and the Tea Party activists we once derided as ‘teabaggers’ but once they whupped us at the polls we have to pretend we don’t hate them and want to snub them, and anyway we are going to ignore everyone and do what we want to do and pass whatever we want to do because we have to transfer taxpayer dollars to Big Insurance and Big PhaRma just like we transferred trillions to our Wall Street friends.’
We borrowed the title “Arrogance, Incompetence, Corruption” from tomorrow’s thrill packed article here on Big Pink. You will be reading that phrase a lot during 2010 election season.
Today we will allow ourselves to be distracted by the dreary health scam distraction. Regular readers will recall we believe Obama Dimocrats are in a lose/lose situation on the health scam. If the health scam becomes law, the American people will revolt and throw Dimocrats into the trash heap for arrogance and corruption. If the health scam does not become law, the American people will throw Dimocrats into the trash heap for incompetence and arrogance and corruption. [More on all this tomorrow.]
“Barack Obama does not know what to do to strengthen the American economy. Barack Obama does not know what to do to help the private sector create jobs. That’s why Obama distracts with schemes which will reward his friends and donors with massive transfers of wealth from the American taxpayer pocket.”
The Dimocratic lose/lose is a Republican win/win. If the massive Dimocratic majorities in the House and Senate produce nothing but the “stimulus” flood of money to the guilty, rank and file true blue Democrats will realize the Obama Dimocrats are too incompetent to govern and will therefore stay home and not vote. Republicans will run on a repeal or de-fund the Obama health scam if something passes.
It’s an Obama disaster. Barack Obama is Poison.
* * * * * *
Barack Obama finally realizes that he has to do something other than publicity stunts. Obama wants to have something anything pass the congress that he can tout as an unprecedented historic transformative earthshaking celestial choirs singing Obamagasm. To that Obamagasm end, Obama is flim-flaming once again – this time it’s House Dimocrats as targets.
Obama pretends that if the House Dimocrats pass the Senate Obamination health scam, which transfers money and people to Big Insurance companies and protects the deal Obama worked with Big PhaRma to protect Big PhaRma, he will work for an additional bill passed via “reconciliation” to “fix” the Senate bill. As if! Obama doesn’t work for anything which does not benefit him personally. House Dimocrats if they are fools can pass the Senate bill and then Obama will have an Obamagasm publicity stunt and forget about the additional “reconciliation” bill. It will be a flim-flam-flip-flop-bamboozlepaloooza-Obamagasm.
“The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who’s running for office to dry — including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn’t in effect essentially yet,” Dean said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press Radio Show.
Dean, who has clashed publicly with the White House over the healthcare proposals favored by the administration, said that by passing the bills under consideration, Democrats would essentially be conceding defeat to Republicans.
“It’s easy to campaign on repealing something if no one knows what the something is,” Dean said. “And fundamentally people don’t understand what the president’s healthcare plan is.”
“And if it passes next week and get’s signed into law the week after, we’re not going to be able to explain it to people over the din of Fox News and the Republicans,” the former Democratic party chairman added.
Oh, dear. We are in trouble when Howard Dean’s peepers are opening and he begins to agree with Big Pink. But Obama corruption and the Obamagasm goes on.
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
National Repubicans are planning to unleash a huge wave of robocalls tomorrow targeting dozens of House Dems and warning their constituents that Obama and Nancy Pelosi are plotting to “ram” their “dangerous” health reform plans through Congress.
The robocalls — the first paid media by the NRCC’s new “code red” program, which targets Dems on health care — comes after Obama told Congress to pass reform via reconciliation.
The calls are meant to spook House Dems right at the moment when the White House and Dem leaders are about to undertake a grueling effort to round up support for what’s expected to be a hair-raisingly close vote. It warns constituents that the targeted House Dem risks supporting this “dangerous” move.
“Even though a majority of the country wants them to scrap it, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are planning to ram their dangerous, out-of-control health care spending bill through Congress anyway,” the call says, according to a script provided by a GOP official.
The version targeting Dem Rep Frank Kratovil of Maryland continues:
What’s worse, Congressman Frank Kratovil might vote for it. Frank Kratovil votes with Nancy Pelosi 84% of the time and may follow her orders on this bill too. Frank Kratovil might vote for a bill that will kill jobs, raise the costs of health care, and increase taxes. Frank Kratovil should be focusing on creating jobs, yet he might be the deciding vote that causes this massive new spending bill to pass.
The calls are targeting 25 House Dimocrats who voted for Obama’s health scam the first time, along with 11 who voted “no” and four others from open seats. There are already results:
Okay, a bit more bad news for the prospects of passing the Senate bill out of the House.
Rep Frank Kratovil of Maryland, a previous No vote who was now said to be undecided, will vote No on the Senate health reform proposal, his spokesman confirms.
“He would vote against it,” the spokesman, Kevin Lawlor, says. Crucially, Kratovil would vote against the Senate bill even if there’s some kind of verbal guarantee that it would be fixed via reconciliation later, Lawlor says.
The only way Kratovil — one of the targets of a barrage of NRCC robocalls hammering the reform proposals as “dangerous” — could support the Senate bill is if it’s fixed first via reconciliation, before the House votes on it. But no one expects this to happen.
Separately, Dem Rep Kurt Schrader, a freshman in Oregon who voted Yes last time, is now unwilling to commit to supporting the Senate bill, reports The Oregonian. Schrader, too, is getting bludgeoned by the NRCC robocalls.
So where does that leave us? The math is too in flux to make any pronouncements. Bottom line: Every Dem who flips from Yes to No (as Schrader may do) must be made up for by flipping a No to Yes (as Kratovil almost certainly won’t do). Long road ahead.
Given that the proposed use of reconciliation is an illegitimate use of the procedure, the Senate GOP ought to be preparing to counter the jam down with a flood of amendments, each one of which requires an up or down vote. The prospect of thousand, or tens of thousands, or perhaps even a million amendments and the resulting spectacle of a Senate paralyzed by endless roll call counts should worry Democrats much more than Republicans as the American public doesn’t want Obamacare, and a last ditch stand to stop it via a blizzard of amendments will put the spotlight on the bill and its many flaws. It will also show a Republican leadership willing to fight to stop this radical rewrite of the rules of American medicine,
But where to get thousands and thousands of draft amendments? This is the joy of the internet. If the NRSC is on its toes, it will already be setting up a site where visitors can draft and submit their own amendments for use in the process. (The NRSC website is already accepting input on the topic.) Some of the draft amendments will be inspired and informed as experts weigh in. Some will be absurd. Some no doubt will be vulgar or obscene as trolls invade.
But the vast bulk of them would come from ordinary Americans with ideas on how to reform health care.
We need to launch a massive, coast-to-coast effort to identify and pressure the Democrats’ LARGE DONORS to put a stop to this madness.
Large political donors are vulnerable because they are people the public doesn’t know. They are business men and women. Socialites. Wealthy people who fund political campaigns largely, in most cases, because it’s fun and something to do, and they like getting pictures with presidents and senators.
The Senate’s healthcare bill would lose 12 Democratic votes in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.
Stupak, the sponsor of an amendment to the House healthcare bill which barred federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, said that 12 lawmakers who had previously supported healthcare reform legislation in the House.
“It’s accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it,” Stupak said during an appearance on MSNBC.
In order to accommodate Stupak the Dimocrats would have to pass yet another bill:
“It would have to be a separate bill, you could sidebar it to the final bill,” he said. “One bill doesn’t pass without the other. They walk down the aisle together.”
America is placing a 911 call to Hillary Clinton. We know it’s time to sober up. It’s time to put away the Hopium, the wine and the roses. It’s time for Americans to send Obama cartons of cigarettes – he’s fired up and ready to go – go away.
As we noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton understands the disaster of record U.S. budget deficits – which lead to bigger U.S. debt – which lead to bigger interest payments. To Hillary this deficit and debt are “a matter of national security” not just economics. To Hillary Clinton the financial irresponsibility and the increased reliance for Hopium dollars from nations like China are a danger and “The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever.”
The Tea Party movement, once derided by Dimocrats, is now seen as a powerful force – even by delusional Dimocrats like Nancy Pelosi. What fuels the Tea Party movement, is what fueled the 1990s Ross Perot movement – fiscal irresponsibility by the U.S. government. Bill Clinton seized that moment (his last four budgets were in balance or in surplus) and made the Democratic Party the party of fiscal responsibility. Now Hillary Clinton is poised to do the exact same seize-fortune-by-the-forelock moment.
Republicans under George W. Bush were fiscal madmen. Barack Obama’s Dimocratic Party Obamination is likewise a party of crazed spenders. Hillary Clinton’s focus on the need to “turn the clock back” is the way to the future. Hillary Clinton, in last week’s critique of “this deficit and debt”, is saying “It’s The Economy, Stupid!”
In 2012 no political party will be able to run with the promise of new programs or new spending proposals. There is simply no money left. When interest rates begin to rise significantly, as they surely will having already started to slightly rise, interest payments on the debt will balloon and make that part of the budget a cancer that feeds on the nation. Dimocrats will not only be deprived of a promise based election but they will also be deprived of a “stay the course, we are competent” election run.
The fire next time will not be promises of new programs or new spending proposals but of change back to competence and experience and vision. The fire next time will be fiscal sanity, paying the bills, the American economy, and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Hillary Clinton is fiscally responsible but that does not mean what must be done won’t be done. Hillary fights. When the health care legislation failed to pass in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton did not give up. Hillary continued to work on health care issues and legislation was passed which provided health care to children. Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama attacked Hillary. In 2008 the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur tried to drive Hillary off the bridge with lies. Here’s Fact Check:
“One of Clinton’s signature claims has come under fire from political foes, quoted by the Boston Globe, who say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance for millions of children.
We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality. [snip]
The newspaper also said that “privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming” over Clinton’s claim but didn’t name any of them. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who cosponsored the 1997 legislation that eventually led to the creation of SCHIP, was asked whether Clinton was exaggerating her role. The Globe said he wouldn’t criticize Clinton “directly” but said: “Facts are stubborn things … I think we ought to stay with the facts.”
Kennedy, of course, is now backing Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama, for the nomination. But last year, before that endorsement, he was quoted by the Associated Press as saying something quite different, which the Globe did not note in its story:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
In that same story, The AP’s Beth Fouhy concluded, “While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial.” She quoted Nick Littlefield, who had been a senior health adviser to Kennedy, as saying, “we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it.”
The AP’s assessment is backed up by others we consulted. [snip]
One of the co-authors of the plan, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, credited Mrs. Clinton for her “invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program.”
Years later, when Clinton was first running for the Senate, Kennedy’s aide Littlefield was still giving her credit. The New York Times quoted him as saying, ”She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done.” [snip]
Moreover, Hillary Clinton took a major role in translating the new law into action. [snip]
Our conclusion: Clinton is right on this one.”
Hillary Clinton fights to do what is necessary. This does not mean Hillary will be fiscally irresponsible. Hillary will get the job done and the job is jobs. Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the job done with wistful wishing and dreaming. Barack Obama must go, and Hillary Clinton has to answer the 911 call from the American people.
It’s The Economy (and Jobs), Stupid!
Hillary has a history of fighting to invest precious taxpayer dollars wisely. Yet, Hillary Clinton knows the job of the president must be to create jobs and to get the engine of American power, the economy, back to sanity. Her non-candidate message is, “It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a balanced budget, that we were on the way of paying down the debt of the United States of America.”
Fiscal sanity versus fiscal madness will be what elections for the foreseeable future will be fought over. The pompous Obama endorser Dan Gerstein gets some things right today:
The Democrats considered the $787 billion recovery package not just an essential step for saving the economy from depression, but also a first strike in White House’s “big bang” strategy. It would, by their way of thinking, build political momentum for a range of other major Obama agenda items like climate change. But for much of the public, the poorly conceived and marketed stimulus plan was the last straw in the unsettling explosion of government and debt that began with the bipartisan bailout bonanza in the waning days of the Bush administration.
Ever since that dividing line was crossed, the Democrats have seemed to be operating in a hermetically sealed political vacuum, impervious to the public’s changing post-crash priorities and diminishing tolerance for big government solutions. The complex, sector-remaking cap-and-trade bill is a perfect example. That plan may have been a tough but closeable sell in a stable economy, given the short-term sacrifices we would have to make to secure the long-term rewards. But it was a dead letter in a near-depressed economy with a mistrustful electorate prone to believe the most damning attacks about higher taxes and lost jobs. Yet the Democrats plowed ahead with a bill in the House and only stopped when Senate moderates bolted.
That was nothing, though, compared to the multi-pronged Democratic disconnect on health care. It was clear early on that the public wanted the president and Congress to focus on the economy, especially after the evidence mounted that the stimulus, whatever its disaster-preventing benefits, was not going to spur job growth any time soon. Yet the Democrats went ahead and devoted most of the last year to health care reform, which only reinforced the growing perception that Washington was still as arrogant and unresponsive as ever and that the Democrats, like their predecessors, were still out for themselves and their political aims.
It’s the economy, but Obama and his Dimocrats think it’s about Mess-iah’s diminishing cult of personality and the acolyte Dimocrats. But it’s about the economy and the voters. The damage Obama and his Dimocrats do now will last for “years to come” if not generations to come.
Most voters are impressionistic, especially independents and moderates of both parties. They look at the whole of what you have done and the how of what you have done. If Democrats ram through an unpopular trillion-dollar health care bill in this climate, with Congress’ approval rating at 15%, they may well cement their image as the worst of Washington and sever their claim on the public’s trust for years to come. Even if ObamaCare delivers over time–and if it avoids the substantial premium increases that the Massachusetts universal care system has produced–it most likely will be too little too late.
Again, consider the context. Trust in government–which has been trending substantially downward since the crash of 2008–is in tipping-point territory right now. A recent New York Times poll showed that 70% of Americans are angry or dissatisfied with how Washington is handling the people’s business; 80% said that members of Congress are more interested in pandering to special interest groups than in serving the needs of people who elected them; and 81% said members of Congress across the board deserve to be thrown out. A new CNN poll out this week goes a step further and shows that 56% of Americans now think the federal government poses a threat to their rights, with even 37% of Democrats sharing that view.
Those numbers beg the question: Would the Democrats actually be better off if their comprehensive health care bill does not pass? I tend to think so, though as I argued last week, the best course for Democrats would be to skip the all-or-nothing trap and pass a center-out bill that contains the 80% of insurance reforms on which both sides already agree. But that’s a moot point: The Democrats are going for broke (in more ways than one). The more salient question is when will the Democrats start connecting the dots–and recognize that the American people are not going to accept a government that is not willing to heed their doubts.
What happened to “jobs, jobs, jobs”? The High Church of Barack Obama, the New York Times is scratching it’s head:
By the time March arrived, President Obama was supposed to be entering his third month of the year talking about three things: jobs, jobs, jobs.
That was the plan of the White House — and the plea from many Democrats — as the unemployment rate remained frozen near 10 percent and the economy showed only hints of brightening. The administration created a “White House to Main Street” tour, giving Mr. Obama a forum to see and feel America’s pain, and offer his plan for relief.
So whatever happened to that shift from health care to the economy?
Have a cigarette, Barack. Eat some greasy food, Barack.
Democrats on midterm election ballots feel a growing sense of worry that the year is quickly ticking away. If the next chapter of the health care debate consumes the month of March, will there be time to pursue other legislation before campaigning begins in earnest?
The trip was Mr. Obama’s first to Georgia since campaigning against Hillary Rodham Clinton nearly two years ago in the presidential race. He was greeted by an editorial in The Savannah Morning News, with a headline declaring: “Welcome Mr. President: It’s about jobs.”
With Barack Obama it’s always words, words, words and now the words are “jobs, jobs, jobs”. But Obama’s words do not match Obama’s actions.
“When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American who wants to work, and is able to work, can find a job, and a job that pays a living wage,” Mr. Obama said. “That was my focus last year, and that is my focus this year.”
If we take Obama’s word that “jobs’ was last year’s “focus” and this years “focus”, the conclusion must be that a focused Obama is still not getting the “job” done. Where are the jobs? Today Obama will try again to force through the massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a system that is acknowledged by most to be broken. Obama says he is focused on “jobs” but in reality is focus is on bringing more people into a system that is broken and forcing taxpayers to pay for the punishment.
He intended to move forward whether they joined him or not, aides said, so the White House could return to its originally scheduled message of jobs, jobs, jobs.
Where are the jobs?
* * * * * *
Where’s the economy?
Judd Gregg, the Republican Barack Obama wanted for Commerce Secretary, was interviewed recently by Ed Luce (the reporter who recently rocked Washington with a “blame the staff” article on Barack Obama’s collapsing White House) believes the U.S. is near a “financial meltdown”:
“The US is heading for a debt-driven “financial meltdown” within five to seven years, according to Judd Gregg, the outgoing Republican senator for New Hampshire. [snip]
“We have had China say that they are looking for other places to put their reserves and that is probably a smart decision on their part,” said Mr Gregg, who will not seek re-election in November. “So the warning signs are pretty clear and the path is unsustainable and, at this point, unless we take different actions, unavoidable.”
But the senator, who was the most high-profile Republican invited by Barack Obama, the president, to join his administration last year, an offer Mr Gregg accepted and then turned down, said he doubted that the two parties would get together to tackle it.”
Thus far, Gregg is right that the two parties are unable or unwilling to tackle the problems the American economy faces. The American economy has 8 million manufacturing jobs and an economy with 150 million workers. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
“The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar men. It could cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a despair not seen for decades. Ultimately, it is likely to warp our politics, our culture, and the character of our society for years to come.
In 2012, the Republicans will blame Barack Obama and his self-alleged “focus on jobs” failed policies for continued joblessness. At best Barack Obama will be able to respond “I am a boob” in his own defense. The defense will be valid, but the situation will be dire.
According to the liberal Atlantic magazine, even by 2014 unemployment will only decline “a little”; average duration of unemployment last year surpassed six months; the jobless and those that have given up looking for work reached 17.4% in October; teenager unemployment reached 27%; unemployment “may already be plunging many inner cities into a kind of despair and dysfunction not seen for decades.”
Whatever alleged benefits of the Obama stimulus scam, they have come and gone (according to Obama’s economic adviser chair Christina Romer, the Federal Reserve, and Goldman Sachs). “The economy now sits in a hole more than 10 million jobs deep—that’s the number required to get back to 5 percent unemployment, the rate we had before the recession started, and one that’s been more or less typical for a generation.” Due to population growth the economy must produce about 1.5 million new jobs a year “just to keep from sinking deeper.”
“Even if the economy were to immediately begin producing 600,000 jobs a month—more than double the pace of the mid-to-late 1990s, when job growth was strong—it would take roughly two years to dig ourselves out of the hole we’re in. [snip]
The construction and finance industries, bloated by a decade-long housing bubble, are unlikely to regain their former share of the economy, and as a result many out-of-work finance professionals and construction workers won’t be able to simply pick up where they left off when growth returns—they’ll need to retrain and find new careers. (For different reasons, the same might be said of many media professionals and auto workers.)”
The bad news is long and ugly. For the Barack Obama addled young, a large chunk of that demographic, the bad news is “fun”. Stories of “funemployment” abound among the Hopium guzzler Obama young.
Many of today’s young adults seem temperamentally unprepared for the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Jean Twenge, an associate professor of psychology at San Diego State University, has carefully compared the attitudes of today’s young adults to those of previous generations when they were the same age. Using national survey data, she’s found that to an unprecedented degree, people who graduated from high school in the 2000s dislike the idea of work for work’s sake, and expect jobs and career to be tailored to their interests and lifestyle. Yet they also have much higher material expectations than previous generations, and believe financial success is extremely important. “There’s this idea that, ‘Yeah, I don’t want to work, but I’m still going to get all the stuff I want,’” Twenge told me. “It’s a generation in which every kid has been told, ‘You can be anything you want. You’re special.’”
Barack youth will have a rude wake up call. Many African-Americans will have a tough time too. The Atlantic relates these facts:
“In June 1999, the journalist Ellis Cose wrote in Newsweek that it was then “the best time ever” to be black in America. He ticked through the reasons: employment was up, murders and out-of-wedlock births down; educational attainment was rising, and poverty less common than at any time since 1967. Middle-class black couples were slowly returning to gentrifying inner-city neighborhoods. “Even for some of the most persistently unfortunate—uneducated black men between 16 and 24—jobs are opening up,” Cose wrote.”
“The best time ever to be black in America” was when “racist” Bill Clinton was in the White House. Another tough wake up call. In the age of Mess-iah Obama the White House is a bleak house:
“But many of those gains are now imperiled. Late last year, unemployment among black teens ages 16 to 19 was nearly 50 percent, and the unemployment rate for black men age 20 or older was almost 17 percent. With so few jobs available, Wilson told me, “many black males will give up and drop out of the labor market, and turn more to the underground economy. And it will be very difficult for these people”—especially those who acquire criminal records—“to reenter the labor market in any significant way.” Glen Elder, the sociologist at the University of North Carolina, who’s done field work in Baltimore, said, “At a lower level of skill, if you lose a job and don’t have fathers or brothers with jobs—if you don’t have a good social network—you get drawn back into the street. There’s a sense in the kids I’ve studied that they lost everything they had, and can’t get it back.
In New York City, 18 percent of low-income blacks and 26 percent of low-income Hispanics reported having lost their job as a result of the recession in a July survey by the Community Service Society. More still had had their hours or wages reduced. About one in seven low-income New Yorkers often skipped meals in 2009 to save money, and one in five had had the gas, electricity, or telephone turned off. Wilson argues that once neighborhoods become socially dysfunctional, it takes a long period of unbroken good times to undo the damage—and they can backslide very quickly and steeply. “One problem that has plagued the black community over the years is resignation,” Wilson said—a self-defeating “set of beliefs about what to expect from life and how to respond,” passed from parent to child. “And I think there was sort of a feeling that norms of resignation would weaken somewhat with the Obama election. But these hard economic times could reinforce some of these norms.”
A year ago, in “Who Obama Hurts Most” we wrote Obama would most hurt those who voted for him – his own deluded supporters. Those deluded supporters are the one now most in need of – Hillary Clinton.
We never worshiped Hillary Clinton. We don’t drink Hopium, even if it is Pink. It was never about Hillary. It is about us, the American people.
The American people in 2012 will dial 911. Hillary Clinton must answer. She’s our only hope.
Elect a boob, expect boobery. This time, “Try Experience – For A Real Change.”
After George W. and Barack Obama, experience might finally come back in vogue on the presidential candidate resumé. Experience could be the Hillary Clinton 2012 campaign theme yet again. But there is a deadly Barack Obama caused problem, and opportunity.
* * * * * *
When President Bill Clinton left office, with approval ratings in the mid-60s, the economy was purring and the deficit lion tamed. The debt carnivore too was in retreat. Then… we’ll let Hillary Clinton explain:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday said “outrageous” advice from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan helped create record U.S. budget deficits that put national security at risk.
Appearing before congressional panels to defend the State Department’s $52.8 billion budget request for 2011, Clinton said the massive U.S. foreign debt had sapped U.S. strength around the world.
“It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a balanced budget, that we were on the way of paying down the debt of the United States of America,” Clinton said.
“I served on the budget committee in the Senate, and I remember as vividly as if it were yesterday when we had a hearing in which Alan Greenspan came and justified increasing spending and cutting taxes, saying that we didn’t really need to pay down the debt — outrageous in my view,” she said.”
George W. Bush signed into law “a massive tax cut while spending billions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sponsoring a major expansion of the Medicare health program for seniors.” Experienced Hillary “urged lawmakers to tackle the federal budget deficit, which reached a record $1.4 trillion for the fiscal year that ended last September.”
“We have to address this deficit and the debt of the United States as a matter of national security not only as a matter of economics,” Clinton said. “I do not like to be in a position where the United States is a debtor nation to the extent that we are.”
Having to rely on foreign creditors hit “our ability to protect our security, to manage difficult problems and to show the leadership that we deserve,” she said.
“The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever,” she said. “I really honestly wish I could turn the clock back.”
Unease and outright distrust of the Federal government by a furious public due to runaway debt and deficits are the Barack Obama caused problem and opportunity. For the foreseeable future candidates for president are not going to be able to run on campaign promises which require the expenditure of vast sums of money. Barack Obama drained what little was left in the Treasury. This campaign limitation will not particularly hurt Republicans. But for anyone running with a “D” after their name the problem will be insurmountable – but not for Hillary.
* * * * * *
This morning (8:45 a.m. EST) Lynn Forester de Rothschild will appear on Fox And Friends. The discussion will center on her latest published article which ends with the following:
“Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope.”
We at Big Pink believe that in November 2010 Dimocrats must suffer devastating defeat and doom – it is the only way to wake them up to the massive Mistake In ‘08 and the need to return to the FDR/Hillary Clinton Coalition. We agree with Lynn Forester that in 2012, once Obama is out of the picture, a reassertion of responsibility and fiscal common sense must be returned to the national government on a bipartisan basis.
American power, prestige, influence and our way of life are predicated on a strong economy. For a strong economy we need jobs for Americans in America. Barack Obama does not know what to do to strengthen the American economy. Barack Obama does not know what to do to help the private sector create jobs. That’s why Obama distracts with schemes which will reward his friends and donors with massive transfers of wealth from the American taxpayer pocket.
In 2012 the issue will be the economy. Other than President Bill Clinton himself, no one better understands “It’s the economy, stupid!” than Hillary Clinton.
The Republicans know the economy will be the issue in 2012. Mitch Daniels who won a big Indiana victory in 2008 when Democrats won big just about everywhere, is the latest favorite flavor of the day for Republicans. Mitch Daniels will run on the economy:
“If the country has soured on a charismatic orator who brought glamour but little executive experience to the presidency, the thinking goes, then Daniels could provide the antidote.
“Do we want a president that’s pretty, or do we want one who can get the job done?” is how Anne Hathaway, a former Republican National Committee chief of staff who is now back in her native Indiana, puts it.
At 60, Daniels’s résumé is exhaustive: He’s a Princeton-educated former Senate chief of staff-turned political operative-turned think tank chief-turned Fortune 500 executive-turned White House budget director-turned two-term governor. [snip]
He has cut spending, cut taxes, leased the state’s toll road to a private company for billions and expanded health insurance and prescription drug access in a market-friendly way. The result is an approval rating of 70 percent, according to one recent survey, placing him among the country’s most popular governors. [snip]
Top party strategists say that characteristic would enable Daniels to fill at least three spaces in the Republican primary.
First, there’s the obvious: He’s the charismatically challenged opposite of Obama. And recent presidential history reveals an electorate that tends to elect presidents with the traits contrary to the outgoing chief executive.
But because of his record and background, he would offer more substantive contrasts, too.
“He’s a budget deficit hawk, but he’s also the interesting reformer,” said one of the Republican Party’s most influential officials, who insisted on anonymity to avoid being seen as taking sides.
Supporters think Daniels can appeal to voters who are fed up with what they see as excessive government spending as well as those who want a candidate who has actually delivered policy results that extend beyond reducing red ink.”
Whether it is Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, or Mike Huckabee, in 2012 there is only one real and true Democrat who can win – Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is poison already and after November Obama will be poison unbottled. Barack Obama must be driven out of the race so competence and experience can make a return and so that Democrats realize we must return to the winning FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition.
* * * * * *
March is National Women’s History Month. “The overarching theme for March 2010 is Writing Women Back into History.” Barack Obama and the Democratic “leadership” along with a colluding Big Media tried to write Hillary Clinton out of history. Instead, Hillary Clinton supporters will write Obama, the Democratic “leadership”, and Big Media a ticket to oblivion.
Big Media deserves a punishing death as miserable as Dimocratic death is deserved this November. For both, Death appears to be sharpening the scythe. As noted yesterday, Keith Olbermann is close to a well deserved demise. Doom, Death, and Destruction cannot come too soon for these creeps as far as we are concerned.
In 2008 we witnessed thatBig Media has become a self-interested political party in all but name (we’ll have more on this tomorrow in our Hillary Clinton 2012 article). In 2007’s Big Media Party we discussed why we refer to “mainstream media” as “Big Media” and in November 1, 2007’s The Real Danger we wrote this about the debate in which Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Tim Russert joined in a concerted attack on Hillary Clinton:
The real danger for Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Team and Hillary supporters is that after Tuesday night’s debate there is now a template for attacking Hillary. Big Media, the debate “moderators” – Russert in particular, and other candidates for the Democratic Party nomination attacked Hillary in a united probably coordinated manner.
Our counterattack has to be clearheaded and aware that the announced primary campaign opponents are not the only nor the most dangerous opponents. Any doubts in the Clinton campaign or the Hillary Team or among Hillary supporters that Big Media (Russert and Matthews in particular) and/or Big Blogs are our friends or allies or fair must be rejected. Any question that Obama and Edwards’ personal attacks against Hillary are anything but personal attacks have to be quickly rejected. (Edwards and Obama are not questioning Hillary policies, they are questioning her honesty. Further the silly attacks on electability from candidates polling less than half of what Hillary is polling is ridiculous.)
By the time of that debate John Edwards had already reached out for a deal to Obama so the attacks were, if not completely coordinated, at the very least part of a “gentleman’s agreement”.
As Obama’s boobery becomes manifest even to his Big Media acolytes, as Obama’s boobery threatens the very existence of Obama’s acolytes, Big Media outlets are trying to wiggle out of the hole Big Media put us all in. Only now as we approach Spring 2010 does Big Media question its role in election coverage. The truth is much worse however. Big Media Party interests were protected by Big Media coverage during the presidential campaigns of 2007/2008.
Big Media will only grudgingly concede there was a problem and dips a toe in the water with a discussion of John Edwards:
“Over the past few weeks, the world has learned quite enough about John Edwards – from the lies he told in trying to cover up an adulterous affair to the compulsive vanity that left some people close to him questioning his judgment and even his grip on reality.
Democrats who seriously considered making Edwards the party’s 2008 presidential nominee could be forgiven for asking: Now you tell us?
The revelations about Edwards, contained in two best-selling books, have undermined one of the favorite conceits of political journalism, that the intensive scrutiny given candidates by reporters during a presidential campaign is an excellent filter to determine who is fit for the White House.
While the media “usually does well” in vetting candidates, said presidential historian Michael Beschloss, “Edwards is a good case” in which it didn’t.”
Other than rare instances (such as this one) Big Media wanted stooge Barack Obama elected – and succeeded in getting the boob the job. Big Media purposely failed to vet Barack Obama and the excuses now ring hollow:
“And that failure is worrisome in a changed political world where politicians – be they Barack Obama or Sarah Palin – can burst upon the national stage and seemingly overnight become candidates for higher office.
The media, according to Beschloss, now has “a much bigger responsibility than it used to.” In the past, he said, the political establishment “would usually have known the candidate for a long time, and if there were big problems, they probably would have known about those, and tried to make sure those people wouldn’t be nominated.”
That did not happen with Edwards, even though as a Senator he had run for president once before, in 2004, ended up on the Democratic ticket as John Kerry’s running mate, and was a known quantity to many top Democrats.
The Politico article has many excuses as to why Big Media failed to vet John Edwards, most notably the publication of the book “Game Change”. Edwards’ staffers are blamed for not carrying out threats to leak the truth about Edwards to Big Media outlets. The stories about John Edwards published by the National Enquirer were ignored by Big Media. Now Big Media blowhards (Marc Ambinder comes to mind) want to dump the blame on self-interested staffers for not telling the truth.
“The failure to follow up aggressively on the reporting by the National Enquirer, which has nominated itself for a Pulitzer Prize for its Edwards coverage, has served as fodder for conservatives and others convinced the media has a double standard when it comes to vetting Democrats and Republicans.
“I feel sorry for the liberals who were duped by Edwards,” said Cliff Kincaid editor of the right-leaning watchdog organization Accuracy in Media. “They were the real victims of the failure to vet Edwards.”
Kincaid’s comment assists Big Media by limiting the critique to a left versus right continuum. Big Media targeted Hillary Clinton with much more venom than Big Media former favorite John McCain. Only Sarah Palin received Hillary Clinton style rapist coverage.
The Edwards sex scandal was not the story. The real Edwards scandals were his repeated and hypocritical “I was wrong” excuses. Hypocrite Edwards was a Big Media favorite so he was allowed to rewrite history with impunity. Sex was not the story, but it is the excuse Big Media uses to confuse.
Big Media focused on haircut stories (which we correctly reported at the time were planted by Obama slime agents) and hedge fund stories, but ignored the “I was wrong” hypocrisies. Now Big Media is focused on “blame the staff”.
Big Media will distort the truth. The truth is Big Media is a political party in all but name and the Big Media Party is a sexist and misogynist bunch – just like the Democratic Left.
Yesterday, Jamie Stiehm discussed the real story of 2008. Big Media and the Democratic establishment wanted their stooge elected and they all worked together to get “the girl” out:
“Hold on, thought I, before shelving two early 2010 books about the 2008 presidential election. There’s something to be read and said in the pages of “Game Change” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin that somehow got lost in translation, even by the authors themselves.
And in “Notes From the Cracked Ceiling,” author Anne E. Kornblut makes the case that the national electorate isn’t ready for a woman president, judging by her own coverage of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for The Washington Post.”
“Actually, it may be the Washington elected class that’s most resistant to a gender game change — meaning in the 2008 drama, Clinton’s own fellow senators. In “Game Change,” the U.S. Senate comes across as the highest glass ceiling of all. The boys club — or gentlemen’s club — that Clinton worked hard to join essentially turned on her early in the game and may have blackballed her chances. The same key members within the club befriended and encouraged Sen. Barack Obama, giving his candidacy a tremendous back-channel boost in the beginning.
The Democratic Party establishment along with Big Media wanted to not only deny Hillary Clinton the nomination, but to destroy her as a political force, forever.
As we wrote, Big Media covered up the obvious. For instance:
Junior Senator John Kerry would not have privately endorsed Obama before the Iowa vote without the approval of Ted Kennedy. We have previously written about Ted Kennedy’s motivations for endorsing Obama. We pegged Ted Kennedy as the Barzini of the Obama campaign. All the talk about Kennedy being angry at Hillary for crediting Lyndon Johnson, not JFK, for civil rights laws, is just a bunch of lies. Ted and Barack wanted to destroy Bill and Hillary and they wanted to do so by calling them racists to remove them as an electoral political force – forever.
“A simple truth lies in plain view, like Poe’s purloined letter, across these two tomes. To wit, let’s not assume it’s the national electorate that’s so unready for a female president. A fired-up Clinton was catching on pretty good toward the end, winning major primaries in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. But the upper echelons of the political establishment, which she had reason to believe were on her side, had other ideas. “They” decided she was too divisive, even as she competed well in the field.
To a man, many of Clinton’s friends and allies in the Senate reached out to the talented but untested freshman senator from Illinois, urging Barack Obama to run for president. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York was one of these; so was Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Highly respected Tom Daschle, a former majority leader, urged Obama to seize the moment and promised to advise him. For the most part, these conversations were held in private in “a conspiracy of whispers,” as Heilemann and Halperin put it. When the late Sen. Edward Kennedy went public with a full-throated roar of endorsement, then the extent of Obama’s support by the clubby Senate Democrats became clear.”
That’s old news to Big Pink readers, but the Hopium guzzlers, some of them still lighting incense and making excuses for Barack Obama, will find it a shock that they are shock troops for the corrupt establishment of a corrupt party.
“For Obama, that was almost as sweet as winning the Iowa caucuses. But for Clinton, it was finding out that “friends” can make the most insidious foes of all.
Was it a betrayal, as the authors call it, by Clinton’s Senate colleagues? Perhaps, but it wasn’t just politics as usual.
It sure wasn’t politics as usual – is was sexism and misogyny and the Big Media and Big Money power leveraged to elect a stooge.
Once respected, E.J. Dionne now thinks Obama should apologize to Hillary Clinton. But E.J. Dionne is a Big Media creep who does not apologize to Hillary Clinton for his attacks on her and his praise of stooge Obama and Obama’s lies and distortions of Hillary policy positions. Dionne and his Big Media colleagues won’t apologize to Hillary Clinton because they succeeded in their mission. Now Dionne wants an Obama apology to Hillary without accepting his share of the blame:
“A suggestion to the president: Tonight, please call Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and apologize for all the bad things you said about her mandate proposal during the campaign. She was right about this issue. You should tell her so.”
And we cannot discuss Big Media without discussing the dumb cousin, Hollywood. As Deadenders reminds us, the “creative clueless” were busy fluffing Obama and discussing dinosaurs during the election season. Now the “creative clueless are “disappointed” with establishment stooge Obama.
Damn them all. Death to Big Media! Death to the “creative clueless”. Damn them all.
The coastal South American country of Chile suffered an earthquake in the early morning hours today. As usual Hillary Clinton is on the job. Actually Hillary was on South American patrol way before the earthquake. Yesterday, before the quake struck this report appeared:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit five Latin American nations next week, seeking to foster relationships with some newly elected leaders and cement ties with others.
Hillary Clinton was scheduled to visit Uruguay, Argentina (they have a woman President), then Chile.
Clinton will bid farewell to President Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s popular leader who will be leaving with high approval ratings for steering her country through the global economic downturn and promoting progressive social reforms. Under Chile’s constitutional term limits, a president cannot run for a second consecutive term.
Oh right, Chile has a woman President too. After Chile, it’s on to Brazil, Costa Rica (”which elected its first female president this month”), and the final stop in Guatemala. South America, maligned as having a “macho culture”, elects women throughout the continent. What does the electoral history of South America say about the big neighbor to the North, us?
* * * * * *
Remember in early April 2007 when Don Imus on MSNBC attacked some young women basketball players with his “nappy headed hos” comment? The attack on women was quickly turned into a mostly racist remark. All the women on the basketball team were women. Not all the women on the basketball team were black. But it became a racial issue, not so much a sexist and misogyny issue.
Jackson: “It’s not just Imus making a statement but when people like you appear on the show and Tim Russert and, and, and McCain and Harold Ford, you give, you’ve given credence to the show.“
Jackson then went in for the kill:
Gregory: “I’m sorry, Reverend Jackson, I just have to interrupt you here. I’m sorry, be very precise in what you are saying.”
Jackson: “All right.”
Gregory: “You are saying from, what, 3:00 to 12, because we do have African Americans who work at this company who are on MSNBC and NBC and I don’t want to detract from your point because you are entitled to make it, but I think you need to be accurate.”
Jackson: “All right. Name- Name- Name- Name- Name me a host of an MSNBC show.”
Gregory: “We’ve gone through this before. We did this a few days ago on the air. Alison Stewart is an African American host on MSNBC.”
Jackson: “So, does she host, does she host between 3:00 and 12?
Alison who?
After Imus was fired MSNBC promised reform. Joe Scarborough took over the time slot and for a short while there was a black sidekick by the name of John Ridley. Ridley has long been gone.
We mention this history because the Tea Party movement has long been under attack, just like Hillary supporters, as being racists. The Tea Party people hit back. They hit back with a video invitation to a meeting in Dallas today:
A tea party group is criticizing Keith Olbermann for suggesting the conservative grassroots organizations lack diversity, challenging the MSNBC host to attend an anti-tax rally on Saturday.
A 90-second web video posted on Monday by the Dallas Tea Party rebuts the liberal “Countdown” host’s attacks on the groups during his show.
“Let me ask all of you who attend these things, how many black faces do you see at these events?” Olbermann says during a clip highlighted in the video.
“Well, Keith, we see a whole lot more at our events than we see at MSNBC,” a narrator responds, as the video cuts to an image of the network’s mostly white lineup.
What happened to the black faces on MSNBC promise? It’s gone the way of all MSNBC apologies – like David Shuster’s Bald Spot.
Joe Scarborough is often praised as “Hillary friendly”. But woman friendly? Think again.
SCARBOROUGH: Have you seen Fred Thompson’s wife?
CRAWFORD: Oh, yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: You think she, you think she works the pole?
Not a good moment for the generally reliable good guy Craig Crawford either.
MATTHEWS: But isn’t that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well. Elisabeth, you’re always thinking about these things.
BUMILLER: It’s Golda Meir, it’s Margaret Thatcher. I mean, we all remember these women. I, you know, I think we can get there.
MATTHEWS: But we’ve got Patton and John Wayne on our side
And of course there was the day when old Imus met the the latest Imus and discussed the “horny monster”:
IMUS: Can she be elected president?
MATTHEWS: You know, somewhere out in the Atlantic Ocean, I think there might be a giant, green, ugly, horny monster. A gigantic, gigantic monster of anti-Hillary, an anti-woman Hillary, anti-liberal woman Hillary, some real ferocious beast out there that says no matter what happens between now and Election Day, they’re not going to let her win. There’s men, some women, are just not going to let this woman, this woman win the presidency. I don’t know whether that monster’s out there. All men I meet are afraid to talk like that. You only hear criticism of Hillary from smart, college-educated women. They’re the ones that always have a problem with her now.
But something tells me this country hasn’t changed that dramatically. You know, a friend of mine pointed out the other day that we let African-Americans vote starting in the 1860s, at least under the law. It took us until the 1920s to let women vote. It’s easier for men to accept a black guy as president than a woman president, I think, historically.
So why’s everybody so happy about Hillary? Have we changed overnight? And that’s what I can’t get in my head. If we have changed overnight, that’s a big development. If we haven’t, we haven’t talked about it yet. But there’s something out there about having a woman president – it’s huge — and nobody wants to talk about it. Just the idea of a woman president. And nobody’s argued it. It’s always — it’s all this politically correct, careful discussion. And yet it’s there, and nobody’s debating it.
MSNBC and NBC eventually went to war against Hillary Clinton and the very idea of a woman president. South America’s “macho” men have elected women and the “horny” monster tsunami did not appear. It is in America, at NBC and MSNBC that the horny monster reigns. The horny green monster is in technicolor. It is on MSNBC.
Something important happened yesterday in the Hillary Clinton For President 2012 campaign. But that development will have to wait to be discussed (maybe tomorrow, maybe Sunday, for sure next week). Today is Friday and Friday is news dump day and get the garbage out day. The Friday news dump and get-out-the-garbage day this week started on Thursday. Under cover of the Barack Obama Health Summit Publicity Stunt, lots of dirty deeds started the Friday Dump Day Follies – on Thursday.
* * * * * *
Remember when we Democrats used to wear those cute buttons that said things like “This is not a Patriot Act”? We wore those to protest George W. Bush and the passage of the Patriot Act. Many of our compatriots at the time demonstrated passionately against the Patriot Act.We Democrats were angry and protested on issues such as privacy rights. Democratic leaders denounced George W. Bush and the Republicans and their “tyrannies”. Oh how we Democrats protested and stomped our feet and swore never ending hatred of what we denounced as the improperly named “Patriot Act”.
Yesterday, by a voice vote (which requires unanimous consent, meaning not a single Dimocrat objected to approve without having to record the vote so Senators could be held accountable) the overwhelmingly Dimocratic U.S. Senate voted to extend the Patriot Act.
In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act. The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.
We must have missed the outraged protests from organizations such as Move-On and the defense bar of lawyers who yelled when it was Republicans passing the Patriot Act. Next time anyone, including Hillary supporters, says we must vote for those that are “with us” on the issues, tell them to stick it up their Patriot Act.
Let’s take a few moments today to laugh, mock, and fully deride Gay fools. Here at Big Pink we support civil rights for Gay-Americans. We wrote many, many articles warning Gay Americans about Barack Obama. But, just as with Black people and White people, some Gay people are the lowest of the low. We won’t “mince” our words in politically correct language. We will denounce, mock, totally spew disgust at Gay fools. And there are many Gay fools (just as their are many straight fools, black fools, white fools and fools everywhere. There are even “April Fools” every month of the year.). We won’t conduct a therapy session for Gay fools here, we intend to slap them awake.
We wrote “Women, Gays, Jews: Wake Up!” in June 2009. We quoted James Pietrangelo II, a Gay man who is no fool. Pietrangelo is worthy of respect, not only as a human being (everyone deserves that level of respect, even fools and gay fools) but because he understands the problem and is not afraid to tell the truth to Gay fools (via Time magazine):
“He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.
Gay-Americans are the targets of a particular hatred from Obama. That hatred is sometimes passive-aggressive. That hatred is sometimes disguised with sweet words. That hatred is sometimes overt. Because the hatred at times has been so overt Gay-Americans are the among the first to wake up from their Hopium addled state.
Last night Obama delivered a degenerate campaign speech. Consider the idiot Gay-Americans who voted for Obama and continue to give the boob and his Dimocrats money. When it is to squeeze money from Gay-Americans Obama employs direct, declarative language: “I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.”
Last night however, Gay-Americans got this campaign promise kinda, sorta: “This year I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
That was it. Gay-Americans who foolishly trust Obama to actually repeal the law they hate, better get to parsing Obama’s words. Obama is not going to do anything you Gay fools. Obama, one year in, will possibly “work” with Congress/military to, in a thousand years, repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. “Work” to Obama means the speech he gave last night. His efforts are already over. Keep giving him money you fools.
Gay people who trust Obama are fools deserving of all the misery he delivers. Straight people who trust Obama are fools deserving of all the misery he delivers. Ditto, black people, ditto white people, ditto all colors of people and all mixtures of people. All genders, all ages, all religions, all political affiliations, all geographies – you are fools deserving of all the misery delivered to you by Obama if you trust Obama.
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 chiefs of the US Army and Air Force also expressed doubts about lifting the ban at congressional hearings this week, saying they were concerned about putting the military under further strain in the midst of two wars.
But Conway went further, making it clear he opposed lifting the ban that requires gay service members to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion from the military.
Gay fools will pray to Gay hater Barack Obama and sing “Someday My Prince Will Come” or the plaintive gay hopes anthem “Somewhere” from West Side Story. Gay fools will have plenty of time to sing because Obama is not going to do anything for them.
Sally Quinn’s column of finger bowls will no longer be printed in the Washington Post but will be pixeled online. Quinn holds a special place here at Big Pink and we have discussed her manymanymany times.
Obama loving Newsweeklost $28.1 million last year. The Obama love does not sell – at any price. Newsweek’s troubles might be an one time accounting problem, after all, the nation’s bird cages still need papering.
Obama will focus on pushing his health scam because he does not know what to do about the economy and how to bring back jobs. That’s why Obama distracts. Distraction is the flim-flam man’s stock in trade. “Watch the birdee!’ fools, while Obama picks your pockets.
Unlike Obama, his health scam is not for sale – at any price. Americans do not want this clunker. This clunker is like an Edsel. Americans do not want to pay cash for this clunker.
Obama supporters desperate for a rationale to continue the Hopium guzzling note that some items in the Obama health scam are popular and therefore the Obama health scam should be made the law of the land. Today we will instruct these Hopium guzzlers on the Edsel.
The Edsel was a car Ford Motor Company did a great deal of polling on, asking consumers “What would you like in a car?” before designing it. The Edsel was a dream car full of items consumers wanted, but “the word “Edsel” has become synonymous with failure.” Wikipedia has some of the Edsel history:
“The Edsel was introduced amidst considerable publicity on “E Day”—September 4, 1957. It was promoted by a top-rated television special, The Edsel Show, on October 13, but it was not enough to counter the adverse public reaction to the car’s styling and conventional build. For months, Ford had been circulating rumours that led people to expect an entirely new kind of car, when in reality, the Edsel shared its bodywork with other Ford models.”
Obama himself is an Edsel – he is not who he said in his books, he is. The Obama health scam is an Edsel too:
There is no single reason why the Edsel failed, and failed so spectacularly. Popular culture often faults the car’s styling. Consumer Reports cited poor workmanship. Marketing experts hold the Edsel up as a supreme example of corporate America’s failure to understand American people. Business analysts cite the weak internal support for the product inside Ford’s executive offices. According to author and Edsel scholar Jan Deutsch, the Edsel was “the wrong car at the wrong time.“
Do we need to draw clearer similarities between the Edsel and Obama’s health scam? A spectacular failure, bad styling, poor workmanship, “failure to understand American people, weak internal support, the wrong car health plan at the wrong time. More similarities:
The prerelease advertising campaign touted the car as having “more YOU ideas“, and the teaser advertisements in magazines only revealed glimpses of the car through a highly blurred lens or wrapped in paper or under tarps. Edsels were shipped to the dealerships undercover and remained wrapped on the dealer lots.
But the public also had a hard time understanding what the Edsel was, mostly because Ford made the mistake of pricing the Edsel within Mercury’s market price segment. [snip]
Not only was the Edsel competing against its own sister divisions, but model for model, people did not understand what the car was supposed to be—a step up or a step below the Mercury.
After its introduction to the public, the Edsel did not live up to its overblown hype, even though it did have many new features, such as self-adjusting rear brakes and automatic lubrication. While consumer focus groups had said these and other features would make the “E” car attractive to them as car buyers, the cost of the cars outstripped what the public was willing to pay. When many potential buyers saw the base price tag, they simply left the dealership, and others were frightened by the price for a fully loaded top-of-the-line model.
We’ve made many comparisons of Obama as “New Coke”. As Dimocrats face disaster in November 2010 many begin to see we were right about the “New Coke” analogy. Edsel Obama and the Edsel which is the Obama health scam have not lived “up to its overblown hype.” The Edsel Obama Edsel plan also “outstripped what the public was willing to pay.” And there is this:
One of the external forces working against the Edsel was the onset of the recession in late 1957.
Reconciliation is Obama’s “An Edsel in every garage” demand. American consumers and voters do not want Edsel Obama or his Edsel scam.
Republicans were ready and Obama fell into the trap. Yesterday, before the publicity stunt, this video was released by Republican allies:
Republicans pretended to be afraid of Obama’s vaunted, but not deserved, masterful Mess-iah style abilities. But it was a trap. Why are Republicans wisely participating in these Obama scams? Because every day that Obama annoys the American public with this more than dead health scam is another day there is no focus (another recently broken Obama promise) on jobs and the economy. “Let’s keep on talking about something that is not going to happen and waste more time, Barack” say the Republicans. Dimocrats, ever willing to be bamboozled, continue to play Obama’s game. Dimocrats will pay in November.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama has a “Plan B”. That “Plan B” will fail too. The used car salesman tried to sell an Edsel and now he wants to try to sell another clunker – the consumer will walk out of the dealership.
Barack Obama will continue his publicity stunts to distract Americans from the fact that he has done nothing and will continue to do nothing – other than big Wednesday night lavish spending on parties, sleeve removers for Michelle, and vacations.
Update II: Exactly two years ago, today, a real leader spoke the truth and was attacked for telling the truth by Big Media and the Big Media darling and the Big Media darling’s Hopium guzzlers:
—————————————————————————————
Update: Good thing Hillary Clinton is far away from this Mess-iah mess:
—————————————————————————————-
It’s days like today, that confirm how correct our analysis has been and continues to be. We have written very little about “health care” strategy and issues after the primary elections because we know meaningful health care reform died in Denver in August 2008. We have instead focused on the ceaseless flim-flams and incompetence, and inexperience, and outright boobery of Barack Obama in order to force Barack Obama out of office and make room for a certain plucky blond lady who is ready on Day 1.
On a day like today the flim-flam is blatant, the boobery in flagrante delicto. The flim-flam confidence game is dependent on big promises (”Hope! Change!”) and rush rush talk. When a flim-flam confidence man inevitably gets in trouble the strategy is bigger promises, even faster rush-rush “buy it now in the next minute or the deal goes away”.
We are therefore not surprised that the Obama Chicago Thugs chose today to release an “Exclusive” to the always willing-to-be-used Politico. The “Exclusive” is a devoid-of-news flim-flam about how the “White House privately plots 2012 campaign run“. Don’t waste your time reading the full article, it has no news, and no insight. It does end with this hilarious paragraph:
The themes for Obama’s campaign are not yet chosen, but a top adviser said not to expect a radical surprise: “He knows who he is.“
We know who he is too: a flim-flam thug from Chicago who has never done anything for anyone other than himself his entire life.
While there is no news in the Politico stenography session, what is news is the appearance of such a story. As we wrote, it is no surprise to us because flim-flam confidence men when in trouble promise bigger and faster. The publication of the reelection article is the pimp exploiting his “ho” with promises of eventual marriage and children and a house with a white picket fence. There will be no marriage, but the wedding promise is bigger, faster, than the lucrative-for-the-pimp business relationship.
Our job for now is to continue to expose the pimp and educate the “ho”. In other words, our job for now is to get rid of Obama and make way for the plucky blond lady.
* * * * * *
Generally a reelection bid is a time to tout success in the first election term. But for Barack Obama, who ran for president with an utter lack of experience, the reelection bid will be a time to revel in the phenomenal failure of the first term. Elected with massive majorities not seen in generations by the Republicans in the House of Representatives and with a filibuster busting 60 vote super-majority in the U.S. Senate, Obama has produced little to nothing – other than massive transfers of wealth from the American taxpayers to irresponsible speculators and the wealthy. The Obama health scam too is a massive transfer of wealth to the Big Insurance and Big PhaRma companies. What to do? Promise bigger, faster.
The latest Obama scam is the publicity stunt summit scheduled for tomorrow along with a bigger faster corollary scam that somehow “reconciliation” is the answer to force through the scam. We wrote a rather definitive article about the “reconciliation” process back in July of 2009 called “Obama’s Bluff”. Think of today’s article as an update to reconfirm what we wrote in July 2009.
Since we wrote “Obama’s Bluff” there have been many articles written about the “reconciliation” rules. The Hill quoted the former Senate parliamentarian on why the process is not “suited” to healthcare reform.
“The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) outside the upper chamber this morning. “That’s the only way that works.”
I pointed out that House leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has repeatedly insisted they won’t take a flier on a reconciliation package–that they will only pass the Senate bill after the smaller side-car reconciliation bill has been all wrapped up.
“Fine, then it’s dead,” Conrad said.”
The Obama loving New Republic in January 2010 published another confirmation of what we wrote last year. It’s a comprehensive article which discusses the current ploys and plots and effectively comes to the same conclusions we did a year ago. The article discusses how “When it comes to enacting laws and then later amending those laws, it doesn’t matter in what order Congress passes bills. All that matters is the order in which the president signs those bills into law.” The article then discusses what we wrote about a year ago, in a New Republic fashion:
“But the problems with reconciliation are legion. [snip]
The process is not as quick as some have made it out to be. In order to qualify for reconciliation, three committees in the House and two committees in the Senate have to mark up provisions within their jurisdiction. Since there are no time limits on committee markups, these would last until recalcitrant Republicans drop from exhaustion and stop offering amendments. Then the committees in each chamber have to give their work product to the Budget Committees, which are then required to hold their own markups of the bill (amendment-free, this time) and report reconciliation bills to the chamber without substantive change (after waiting two extra calendar days in the House to allow Republicans to file minority views). Under the budget resolution, each committee’s portion of the bill must lead to a net reduction of the deficit of at least $1 billion over five years.[snip]
But in the Senate, once the bill gets reported, any grouping of 41 senators can knock out any provision in the reported bill that a) has no budgetary impact (or which has a budgetary impact that is only incidental to the policy provision), b) increases the deficit by any amount over a five-year or ten-year period, c) ups the deficit by more than $10 billion in any one year before 2014 unless fully offset over a five-year period, or d) makes any change to title II of the Social Security Act. And of particular importance to a massive and open-ended bill like health care, the Senate’s PAYGO rule requires 60 votes for any provision that would increase the deficit by more than $5 billion in any ten-year period going all the way out to the year 2059. (You read that correctly: 2059.) This is why so many provisions in reconciliation bills have to “sunset” and expire after ten years.”
It would be entirely irresponsible to create a health plan that would potentially collapse and end in ten years. The uncertainty alone would likely lead to increased health costs. There is also the problem of 41 Republican senators able to knock out non-germane provisions. There is also the amendment problem:
“But in the Senate, while the Budget Act caps the total debate time on a reconciliation bill and all related amendments and motions at 20 hours, the authors of the Budget Act who drafted this provision back in 1974 neglected to limit the number of amendments that can be offered.
This leads to perhaps the Senate’s most stupefying activity (in a chamber chock full of stupefying activity)–“vote-a-rama.” At the conclusion of the 20 hours of debate, senators can still offer an unlimited number of amendments, which must then be voted on immediately, without debate. And by “unlimited,” I mean it is never less than dozens but could easily stretch into the hundreds. The Senate usually gets unanimous consent to shorten the time for roll call votes from the usual 15-plus minutes down to two minutes each, but that requires unanimous consent, which has been lacking on anything having to do with health care. As political scientist (and my old college professor) Walter Oleszek says, the Senate basically only has two rules: unanimous consent and exhaustion. So Republicans can keep offering amendments and forcing roll call votes until they are physically no longer able to do so. (This is why the Majority Leader prefers to schedule a reconciliation bill or budget resolution right before the Senate is supposed to take a long vacation–to give the minority an incentive to cut the vote-a-rama short and go home. The next scheduled Senate recess is the week of President’s Day, so the most logical time to schedule the reconciliation bill for the Senate floor would be the few days leading up to Friday, February 12.)”
February 12 has already come and gone, so perhaps Obama will prove he is the Mess-iah by scheduling an Easter vote.
Other problems then loom large:
“Once the House and Senate pass a bill, it would have to go to House-Senate conference (the Budget Act appears to make no provision for ping-ponging a reconciliation bill). And under a new Senate rule, nothing can be added to that conference report that was not already in either the House or Senate bill, or such provision would require 60 votes in the Senate as well. But the debate on that conference report in the Senate is limited to ten hours, after which there is a final passage vote by a simple majority.
So reconciliation would give the minority party in the Senate a chance to force a separate roll call vote on every line of the bill. The requirement that every single provision in a reconciliation bill have budgetary impact means that the bill cannot address regulatory issues, consumer protection issues, or items like abortion. The open-ended limitations on deficit increases sharply curtail any additional spending in the bill and mean that most changes made by reconciliation that affect spending and revenues must expire in ten years. And the requirement that congressional committees hold a new two-stage markup process, combined with the usual (if time-limited) floor consideration and conference processes, means that using reconciliation would occupy all of Congress’s attention until late February, at a time when legislators are anxious to shift their public focus away from health care and back to the economy.”
Yesterday’s article The Democratic Civil War – One Side Must Die was the prelude to a series of articles we begin today. After reading yesterday’s article, several commentors and emailers asked us, “what should we do now?”, “what steps need to be taken?” By way of response, Hillary supporters are in Winter quarters, meaning we are in a preparatory phase.
For now the job is to remain organized and reach out to as many rank and file Democrats (the innocent dupes who voted for the “D” not necessarily the “O”) as are in our networks. We also must continue to encourage and expand the network of Hillary supporter blogs that did not exist when Big Pink was all alone. And, more than follow and react to the day’s events we must keep the history of what happened in the long 2008 election cycle alive. We must put that history into context and articulate the intellectual reasoning of what and why we fight.
Yesterday we quoted the reprehensible and worldview enemy, Katha Pollit. Pollit wrote an unscrupulous defense of Barack Obama and employed the “he’s doing the best he can” defense we discussed on February 8, with the additional “it’s the best anyone (including Hillary Clinton) can do” corollary defense (along with a surrender-to-sexism-and-misogyny ploy masked as a fake feminism fur wrapped in deception).
Today we will address, not the historic, demographic coalition destroying Mistake In ‘08, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Let’s start with the, hated by Big Media and Hopium guzzlers, advertisement that so effectively shattered the establishment myth that Obama was ready to run anything bigger than a 711 convenience store.
After more than a year watching Obama perform his publicity stunts starting with the bungled oath of office on Day 1, the 3:00 A.M. advertisement rings truer than ever. But the Katha Pollits and the Left Talkers and assorted deceivers want to pretend that Obama and Hillary are the same and that a President Hillary Clinton would be, in their Hopium Hallucinations, as bowing and corrupt and incompetent as Barack Obama proves to be every day.
Every day proves that Barack Obama either lied to the American public about what he would do and how he would do it – or else his world view is so warped and distorted that he is forced to backtrack on every fake promise whether it is the uniter-not-divider nonsense, the never-gonna-happen end of Guantanamo/Gay Marriage Ban/Don’t Ask Don’t Tell/Health care reform/Immigration reform/Cap and Trade/Financial Reform/Electoral transformation and the receding oceans.
So obvious are Barack Obama’s faults that former fluffers are scouring the employment advertisements in order to find Boob Barack a job he is better suited for. We do not think he is suited to run a low traffic 711 convenience store, for the very reasons former Obama fluffers search for a new job for the Mess-iah. Jeffrey Rosen thinks Obama is suited to a job at the Supreme Court, though we are sure that the same non-accomplishment and self-promotion and non-existent work habits would make him a disaster at any job that requires brains and hard work. Rosen:
“He’s too detached and cerebral. Too deferential to Congress. Too willing to compromise. And he’s too much of a law professor and not enough of a commander in chief, as Sarah Palin recently admonished.” [snip]
Though Obama has struggled to find his footing in the White House, his education, temperament and experience make him ideally suited to lead the liberal wing of the court, especially at a time when a narrow conservative majority seems increasingly intent on challenging progressive economic reforms for the first time since the New Deal. Obama is clearly eager to take on the four truly conservative justices — Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — as his State of the Union smackdown suggests. But as president, he’s constrained by that pesky separation of powers. So what better way to engage the fight than to join the bench?
Rosen must be smoking Hopium because otherwise he would know that Obama on the Supreme Court would do what Obama always does – give others the hard work, orchestrate publicity stunts for himself and only himself, and do whatever it takes to become rich personally and avoid fighting those who might benefit him. In short, Barack Obama on the high court would be the ventriloquist dummy for whatever majority exists at the moment. Far from fighting Scalia, Roberts, Alito, or Thomas, Barack Obama would bow to power and prove once again that he simply cannot be trusted – by anyone – friend or foe.
Rosen even has a dream scenario for getting Obama out of 1600 Pennsylvania:
“It would be unusual, but not difficult, for Obama to get himself on the Supreme Court. He could nominate himself to replace John Paul Stevens, for example, or he could gamble and promise Hillary Rodham Clinton that he won’t run for reelection in 2012 in exchange for a pledge of appointment to the next vacancy.”
For those that need translation from the lofty language of D.C. elites, Rosen is very politely saying “get out” to Barack Obama and “forgive us and save us Hillary Clinton.” Rosen also delivers this not too polite slap, though drenched in honey: “It’s surprising but true that the least successful presidents are often the most judicious, while the most successful justices are the most pragmatic.” That’s Rosen’s elite way of saying “Barack, you are a loser.”
Rosen is not alone in politely stating that Obama is a Boob and Hillary is desperately needed by America if we are to survive as a recognizable nation and world power. Eleanor Clift also recognizes the differences between President Hillary Clinton and the current boob:
“Disillusioned Democrats concluded Obama spent too much time chasing bipartisanship, and the yearlong horse trading and backroom dealmaking squandered the mandate he had from the voters. The fractious Democratic majority would only have acted on its own if Obama had cracked the whip. But he signaled early on that he could be rolled when he ceded too much power to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in putting together the stimulus bill.
If Hillary had been elected, would she have done things differently? Having been burned once with health-care reform, she probably would have approached it more gingerly, and she wouldn’t have felt indebted to Kennedy. Those who know her say she would never have given up that much control to Congress, not so much for ideological or philosophical reasons, but simply because she’s a more controlling personality than Obama. And she certainly wouldn’t have wasted any time seeking bipartisanship. She would have accepted today’s polarizing politics as a fact of life, something to be conquered, not changed.”
Hillary Clinton is a fighter who has over the years worked to reach common ground even with the most hate filled of Hillary haters. Hillary does try to reach common ground, but Hillary will also be able and willing to fight. Hillary will fight, even the scoundrels who run the Senate and the House. That’s why the Democratic establishment went after Hillary, in secret, with a 2×4 and made sure Obama was gifted the nomination. Now the Dimocratic establishment sees the loss of elections and the loss of their big offices and perks and they know only Hillary can save them. But Hillary won’t save them now. They must die a swift political death.
“During the Democratic primaries, I often felt that I was on Jupiter. My fellow Democrats rejected qualities in Hillary Clinton that are essential to a successful presidency.
When Clinton claimed she had more experience than Obama, Democrats either denied this reality or said that experience does not matter. They insisted that “ideas matter more” or that “Lincoln did not have experience either.” Instead of experience, they preferred a “fresh face.”
When Clinton said she was a fighter (explicitly embracing a “Rocky” theme), Democrats turned this into a bad thing, accusing Clinton of negative campaigning. Obama said that Clinton only knew how to fight, but that he would bring together the American people. Democrats wanted a “unifier” rather than a “fighter.”
Well, I think it is time for people to evaluate their choices. From where I sit, I believe we could use a healthy dose of fighting and experience in the White House. What do you think?
On issues ranging from healthcare, anti-terrorism tactics, war, and crime, President Obama seems committed to making deals with moderates and conservatives, rather than fighting for the values of the Democratic Party. Or, is the failure to fight an official value of the Democratic Party? “
How bad is the boob in the White House? Charles Blow, an Obama fluffer, sees the problem even as he makes excuses and fans more false Hope for the weak, simpering, delusional Barack Obama:
“President Obama wanted to change Washington. It changed … for the worse. And it’s now holding his agenda hostage. The question is: How much is he willing to change himself in order to save it? [snip]
Over the same period, his job approval ratings have dropped to new lows for him, and according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Thursday, the gap between those who trust him and the Democrats to handle major issues versus those who trust Republicans to do so has narrowed to nearly nothing.
And perhaps most worrisome, according to a January report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Obama’s image among the all-important independents as a “strong leader” and a president “able to get things done” took the biggest slides of all his character traits measured.”
Even the repulsive Hillary haters and Obama lovers like Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson begin to see Obama slip and slide and deceive and lie. Obama’s inexperience slip is showing.
Foreign leaders and prominent political analysts and publications sneer and snort at the boobery of Barack Obama:
“President Obama sounded a bit like a weary air traffic controller on Aug. 10, when he was quizzed during a three-way summit with leaders from Mexico and Canada about a promised overhaul of U.S. immigration laws.
“I’ve got a lot on my plate, and it’s very important for us to sequence these big initiatives in a way where they don’t all just crash at the same time,” the president said in response to a reporter’s question.”
Guess what Barack – they’re all crashing at the same time. You are a corrupt boob.
“While then Sen. Barack Obama was considering running for president, his advisor and friend David Axelrod worried in 2006 that Obama would have to toughen up for a White House campaign. Axelrod told Obama that he was thin skinned and he wondered if Obama could take the punches that would come in a presidential campagin.
“You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don’t relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched,” Axelrod wrote in a memo.
Axelrod’s strategy memo to Obama is revealed in “The Battle for America 2008,” a new book by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson about the 2008 presidential campaigns.
Obama’s charmed political career came in part because of puffy, fluffy non-critical press coverage. Axelrod fretted about how Obama would do in the rough and tumble of a campaign.
‘It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch.’”
Axelrod also predicted how the Hillary Clinton campaign would attack Obama:
“Her goal will be twofold: to suggest that she has the beef, while we offer only sizzle; and that she is not about the past but the future. But for all her advantages, she is not a healing figure. As much as she tacks to the right, she will have a hard time escaping the well-formulated perceptions of her among swing voters as a left-wing ideologue.”
Much of what Axelrod stated was self-serving and protective of his meal ticket. But as we know, Hillary always was about a long lasting and winning coalition for the entire Democratic Party – Hillary was about the future. Obama was about himself. Obama fought hard only when it was for self promotion. When Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America” was the headline Barack Obama said he could not abandon Wright. When Wright said Obama was a deceptive politician (”And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks was somehow political posturing.” “I don’t think that he showed much concern for me.”) only then did Obama dump the Reverend on his ass.
“Obama, The Great Pretender, was upset because mean ol’ Wright exposed Obama’s lies and because Wright showed “disrespect” for Obama and his pretentious campaign. It wasn’t God Damn America that irked Obama. It was mean ol’ Wright not respecting the new Messiah.”
And yes it was here at Big Pink in May 5, 2007 where you read “When Sizzle Meets Fizzle” an echo of the then secret Axelrod memorandum.
Here at Big Pink we believe the likely scenario for a Hillary Clinton presidential run is that we chase Barack Obama out of a re-election bid (if not out of the White House before his term is up) and only then will Hillary Clinton run. The way to run Barack Obama out of a re-election bid is to make sure the Dimocrats who gifted him the nomination suffer devastating defeats and doom and death. Only then will the return of the FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition be possible and desirable. We will never return to the Democratic Party until it is purged fully from the intelligencia idiots and self-serving “leadership” which gifted Obama the nomination of the once great Democratic Party and cared not a whit that an inexperienced boob and stooge would lead to catastrophic hurt for America.
“If the Democrats lose the House, they can blame Nancy, Harry and Obama. [snip]
Beyond that, Obama will likely not be able to make a Clinton comeback. Obama couldn’t get his radical agenda passed even though the Democrats controlled the Senate and House because he lacks the necessary skills to build consensus and govern. His leadership deficiencies mean that he won’t fare any better in a divided government.
In the face of such Carter-like difficulties, the Democrats will have to ask themselves: Should we place our 2012 Congressional election fate in the hands of Obama? Many will say yes – enough could well say no because . . .
(a) Obama will have not done much for them. Keep in mind that Obama was rushed into the Presidency. He didn’t have a long career of helping other Democrats around the country. [snip] Obama’s campaigning for candidates has not been successful either – just ask Governor Corzine and Senator Coakley. Indeed, moderate Democrats are telling him to stay away in 2010. All-in-all, don’t expect too many to bleed for Obama in 2012 – to the contrary, many will prefer to try to stop the bleeding they are suffering at his hands.”
And here is the important kicker which we agree with:
(b) “Hillary Will Have Better Ratings Than Obama. The Clintons are no dummies. They knew Obama would fail. So, in anticipation, Hillary simultaneously (a) burnished her foreign policy credentials as Secretary of State, and (b) distanced herself from the domestic problems of the Democrats and her approval ratings have risen accordingly – even if she had no major successes. Brilliant by comparison to Obama.
She can also correctly say: “I Told You So – he wasn’t ready and I certainly am.”
The Democrats, or enough them, won’t want to give up the White House in 2012. Carter was a one term President – Johnson not much more than that. Their only two-term President was a Clinton – and enough Democrats will urge this Clinton to run in 2012 hoping for another electoral first – a female President.”
Hillary Clinton supporters are in Winter quarters. But we continue to bust myths and drill every day. We continue to grow our numbers and expand our presence. Spring is coming. We must be ready.
We will be ready on Day 1 when the trumpet sounds.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
Because we want to share our ideas and experiences, our common goals, and nonpartisan solutions to the challenges that we face - and there are no limits to what we can achieve when we do.
And because we want to keep working for a better future for every child, from every family – a world in which no limits is not just our goal, but a reality!
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."
