So much of what we have written about for years is on the front pages that it is an LSD-style flashback to watch the news these days. Whether it is news about Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama in the White House, or blasts from the past election of 2008 “news”, more and more of what we have written is confirmed by Big Media these days. We’ll discuss in our next article the Hillary’s Hit List report which misses what really went on with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Claire McCaskill and other assorted scum and why they are on the top ten of the “hit list”.
While Republicans from other potential 2016 campaigns temporarily enjoy the travails of Chris Christie (until they get in the sights of Big Media shotguns), the same outlets writing about Hillary’s Hit List (yes, we mean the Politico co-author) only want to talk about the Republican divide and coming nomination fight. But does anyone think that we have at all been wrong when we write that Barack Obama and his thugs will do what they have to do to keep control of the party and destroy Hillary - or that when/if Hillary Clinton becomes the party nominee the blood bath at the DNC will drench Georgetown and other neighborhoods? As a taste of our next article compare what Politico writes today to what we wrote about a year ago. Here’s today’s Politico take:
“Years later, they would joke among themselves in harsh terms about the fates of folks they felt had betrayed them. “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” one said to another. “Ted Kennedy,” the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, “dead.”
“LANNY DAVIS today makes us smile and makes the Hopium Guzzlers tremble. The Hopium-laced blood will flow in rivers down the corridors of the DNC if and when Hillary Clinton gets the nomination in 2016. Donna Brazille, the DailyKooks, Judas Richardson, certain Kennedys, and everyone else who sided with Barack Obama over Hillary in 2008 will be disemboweled.
The blood will flow. We haven’t forgotten, Lanny hasn’t forgotten, the racebaiting of 2008. Bill and Hillary have to play a different game, but who thinks they have forgotten?”
Ariel Sharon lived and governed to keep alive the idea and the state of Israel. In a world that wanted and still wants Israel to commit suicide by adoption of policies that would kill it, a defiant Ariel Sharon saw his duty to save Israel and he did it. Ariel Sharon did not worry about his “brand”. Sharon well knew his actions were not welcome in a world that desired elixirs of hope rather than the cold bath of reality.
Ariel Sharon was the last of a generation of leaders that helped create in 1948 the state of Israel, a state that had for so long disappeared from the roster of world nations. Via Wikipedia, a brief, select history of that man that became the eleventh Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon:
“Sharon was a commander in the Israeli Army from its creation in 1948. As a paratrooper and then an officer, he participated prominently in the 1948 War of Independence, becoming a platoon commander in the Alexandroni Brigade and taking part in many battles, including Operation Ben Nun Alef. He was an instrumental figure in the creation of Unit 101, and the Retribution operations, as well as in the 1956 Suez Crisis, the Six-Day War of 1967, the War of Attrition, and the Yom-Kippur War of 1973. As Minister of Defense, he directed the 1982 Lebanon War.
Sharon was considered the greatest field commander in Israel’s history, and one of the country’s greatest ever military strategists. After his assault of the Sinai in the Six-Day War and his encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army in the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli public nicknamed him “The King of Israel,” and “The Lion of God”, a pun on his given name.”
Ariel Sharon was a great military strategist. But Sharon’s finest hour of leadership and courage came about because he was a brilliant political strategist.
The obese, grey haired, pasty Sharon looked over the landscape and saw trouble. A young, brilliant, charismatic, hard working, American president was determined to bring peace to the region through creation of a Palestinian state and a “two state solution”. President Bill Clinton thought his legacy would be a lasting Middle East peace. It was rumored that Bill Clinton was so immersed in maps and geography of Israel and the surrounding areas that he would trade one boulder for another boulder as he tried to reshape Israel and the region.
If it wasn’t for the recalcitrance of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat (a hostile recalcitrance that continues unto today) it is likely that Bill Clinton would have succeeded. President Clinton would have gained a well earned, well deserved legacy item for the history books (and probably his legacy item would have been adorned with a glittering Nobel Peace Prize, at a time when that award required monumental achievement). The vast majority of the world wanted President Clinton to succeed. Who didn’t want peace in our time?
President Bill Clinton had as a partner a distinguished Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, hoping a two state solution and peace could be achieved. President Bill Clinton and Ehud Barack proposed a fair and just solution and had a fair chance to achieve a lasting peace. But there was one flaw, one fly in the ointment, one necessary participant who was not participating in good faith.
Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian leadership did not really want peace. What they wanted was the destruction of Israel. Ariel Sharon saw this clearly but how could he prove it? How could Ariel Sharon expose the Arafat rejection of a genuine peace? It was an election season as Prime Minister Barak and President Bill Clinton continued to try to convince Arafat to climb on board the peace train so any statement from Ariel Sharon denouncing Arafat would have been seen as so much election season bombast.
“As part of his election campaign in September 2000, Sharon, then leader of the opposition party, led a Jewish delegation to the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is part of the compound that Jews call the Temple Mount and is considered the third holiest site in Islam. The visit, which was aimed at emphasizing the Jewish claim to the holy place, sparked outrage among the Palestinians who called it a deliberate provocation.
The day after Sharon’s visit, following Friday prayers, large riots broke out around the Old City of Jerusalem. In the following days, demonstrations erupted across the West Bank and Gaza.
Many mark Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount as the start of the Second Intifada and the end of the peace process. An estimated 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis were killed in the violence that did not end until 2005.”
Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was not the start of the Second Intifada. It was the start of a growing realization that the Palestinians did not want a genuine peace but rather a territorial entity from which to attack Israel with the intent of destroying Israel. And yes it was a deliberate provocation which could have backfired on Sharon. But Sharon’s dramatic ploy worked because it proved Sharon was right about Palestinian intentions.
Imagine the reverse consequences if the Palestinians had welcomed the Sharon visit. Sharon claimed his visit was not a provocation because Sharon believed that provocation was in the eyes of the beholder. Sharon would have lost the election and Ehud Barack reelected and a Palestinian state would eventually be birthed IF the Palestinians had only had the decency and good intentions of welcoming Ariel Sharon. But that is not what happened:
“Tightly guarded by an Israeli security cordon, Ariel Sharon, the right-wing Israeli opposition leader, led a group of Israeli legislators onto the bitterly contested Temple Mount today to assert Jewish claims there, setting off a stone-throwing clash that left several Palestinians and more than two dozen policemen injured.
The violence spread later to the streets of East Jerusalem and to the West Bank town of Ramallah, where six Palestinians were reportedly hurt as Israeli soldiers fired rubber-coated bullets and protesters hurled rocks and firebombs.
”I brought a message of peace,” Mr. Sharon said after a one-hour tour that Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, condemned as a ”dangerous action” against Muslim holy sites.
The complex, known to Muslims as Haram al Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary, contains Al Aksa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, sacred shrines of Islam. It is revered by Jews as the site of the First and Second Temples as well as the place where Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son, Isaac. A dispute about sovereignty over the area, in Jerusalem’s walled Old City, has created an impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
”I believe that Jews and Arabs can live together,” Mr. Sharon declared as stones and rubber-coated bullets flew at the holy site. ”It was no provocation whatsoever,” he said of his visit. ”It’s our right. Arabs have the right to visit everywhere in the Land of Israel, and Jews have the right to visit every place in the Land of Israel.” Injured Palestinians and police officers were carried off on stretchers minutes after the visit ended.”
Ariel Sharon was right. The world was angry that he exposed delusions and lit the dark corners of reality. If the Palestinians ever gained control of any portion of Jerusalem, Jews would lose all rights to attend the sites they wished to attend. Under Israeli control all people had the rights of access to holy sites. But Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount demonstrated what the future would be like for Jews and non-Muslims in the holy land:
“Mr. Sharon’s tour was meant to assert Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount, but the vast security operation organized for the visit suggested that he had anything but free access to the compound, which is effectively run by Islamic officials.
Mr. Sharon entered as a police helicopter clattered overheard and a thousand armed policemen were positioned in and around the Temple Mount, including antiterror squads and ranks of riot officers carrying clubs, helmets and plastic shields. Throughout the tour, Mr. Sharon was ringed tightly by agents of the Shin Bet security service.
Faisal Husseini, the top Palestinian official in Jerusalem, said that the extraordinary police deployment belied Israeli claims of sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which was captured along with the rest of East Jerusalem in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. ”Israel has no sovereignty here,’‘ Mr. Husseini said. ”They have military might, they have the power of occupation, but not sovereignty.”
Mr. Sharon went into the compound through a gate used by tourists above the Western Wall, a remnant of a wall that surrounded the ancient temple plaza. His head was barely visible in the crush of security men and police officers around him. Inside, police officers kept Palestinians behind barriers as Mr. Sharon and his entourage walked around, pausing to listen to explanations by an Israeli archaeologist.
Scuffles broke out when a few hundred Palestinian youths shouting ”God is great!” and ”With soul and blood we will redeem you, Al Aksa!” surged against police lines in an attempt to reach Mr. Sharon. Palestinian officials and Israeli Arab lawmakers who were with the crowd said that they were pushed and beaten.
As Mr. Sharon left, dozens of youths hurled stones, chairs and metal objects at the police, who responded with rubber-coated bullets and riot sticks. At least four Palestinians were later reported to have been treated for injuries.
Mr. Sharon was trailed by Israeli Arab legislators who shouted ”Murderer, get out!” and ”Al Aksa is Palestinian!” [snip]
Mr. Sharon’s visit was ”a direct attempt to derail the peace process and an attempt to inflame the whole region,” Mr. Husseini said.
Peace efforts were further shadowed by an overnight bombing in the Gaza Strip that killed an Israeli soldier and wounded another. Two roadside charges were detonated near an army-escorted convoy of cars heading for the Israeli settlement of Netzarim.
Despite the unrest and injuries in Jerusalem, Mr. Sharon said, his visit had been worthwhile.
”I’m sorry about the casualties, and I wish the wounded a speedy recovery, but a Jew in Israel has the right to visit the Temple Mount,” he said. ”The Temple Mount is still in our hands.”
In one masterstroke, one that was almost universally deplored, Ariel Sharon demonstrated that the proposed “peace” was in reality appeasement that would have deadly consequences to Israel and the greater region if not the world. Eventually President Bill Clinton would confront Arafat and blame him for the failure to achieve a just and lasting peace.
Had the Palestinian leadership and people welcomed their visitor, Ariel Sharon would not have become Prime Minister and a Palestinian state seeking peace in good faith would have been born – a long time ago. But Ariel Sharon was elected and the Palestinians still do not have leadership that will bargain in good faith and with the majority support to win a peace and a homeland.
“For decades, Arab Christians were considered part of Israel’s sizable Palestinian minority, which comprises both Muslims and Christians and makes up about a fifth of the country’s citizens, according to the Israeli government.
But now, an informal grass-roots movement, prompted in part by the persecution of Christians elsewhere in the region since the Arab Spring, wants to cooperate more closely with Israeli Jewish society—which could mean a historic change in attitude toward the Jewish state. “Israel is my country, and I want to defend it,” says Henry Zaher, an 18-year-old Christian from the village of Reineh who was visiting Nazareth. “The Jewish state is good for us.”
The Christian share of Israel’s population has decreased over the years—from 2.5% in 1950 to 1.6% today, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics—because of migration and a low birthrate. Of Israel’s 8 million citizens, about 130,000 are Arabic-speaking Christians (mostly Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox), and 1.3 million are Arab Muslims.
In some ways, Christians in Israel more closely resemble their Jewish neighbors than their Muslim ones, says Amnon Ramon, a lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a specialist on Christians in Israel at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. [snip]
As a minority within a minority, Christians in Israel have historically been in a bind. Fear of being considered traitors often drove them to proclaim their full support for the Palestinian cause. Muslim Israeli leaders say that all Palestinians are siblings and deny any Christian-Muslim rift. But in mixed Muslim-Christian cities such as Nazareth, many Christians say they feel outnumbered and insecure.
“There is a lot of fear among Christians from Muslim reprisals,” says Dr. Ramon. “In the presence of a Muslim student in one of my classes, a Christian student will never say the same things he would say were the Muslim student not there.”
“Many Christians think like me, but they keep silent,” says the Rev. Gabriel Naddaf, who backs greater Christian integration into the Jewish state. “They are simply too afraid.” In his home in Nazareth, overlooking the fertile hills of the Galilee, the 40-year-old former spokesman of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem is tall and charismatic, dressed in a spotless black cassock. “Israel is my country,” he says. “We enjoy the Israeli democracy and have to respect it and fight for it.” [snip]
“We were dragged into a conflict that wasn’t ours,” says Father Naddaf. “Israel takes care of us, and if not Israel, who will defend us? We love this country, and we see the army as a first step in becoming more integrated with the state.” [snip]
“We are not mercenaries,” says Mr. Khaloul, who served as a captain in an IDF paratrooper brigade. “We want to defend this country together with the Jews. We see what is happening these days to Christians around us—in Iraq, Syria and Egypt.”
Since the Arab revolutions began in Tunisia in 2011, many Christians in the region have felt isolated and jittery. Coptic churches have been attacked in Egypt, and at least 26 Iraqis leaving a Catholic church in Baghdad on Christmas Day were killed by a car bomb. Islamists continue to threaten to enforce Shariah law wherever they gain control.“
These Christian groups are learning the lesson Ariel Sharon taught at the dawn of the new century.
Ariel Sharon did not worry about his “brand” he cared about policy and what was best for his country no matter that the world hated him for bringing the harsh light of truth instead of gauzy hopey feely. The world needs leadership. America needs leadership. We hope that all American leaders learn the lessons from Ariel Sharon’s finest leadership hour.
We held a contest in the earlier comments section for the Chris Christie Bridgegate Theme Song. We think the obvious winner is Bridge Over Troubled Water but we’re open to new entrants in this most important joust – just nominate them in the comments.
We think it is also time for a Hillary Clinton 2016 Theme Song contest. [Count the seconds for BuzzFeed and others to muck with this most important international effort that will make the oceans rise and bring the planet to high heels.]
The nominees are:
This first contestant comes from the Hillary Haters still steamed about how Hillary skated by the Benghazi hearing (we warned them beforehand that congressional Republicans can’t organize a two song contest and that Hillary would beat them with ease. We wrote only a select committee or special prosecutor would work but, no surprise, they didn’t listen. Our only surprise about the Benghazi hearing was that Hillary wore green, not big pink or Celestial Choirs stinging yellow). The Haters want this song to represent the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, which we like because, well, Dinah, Doh:
Our second contestant from the Hillary Clinton pink walled triumphalism palace (currently under construction) is a poke in the, um, eye to the haters and those advising humility. Don’t you let nothing, nothing stand in your way:
From temporary Duck Dynasty exile this song for Mrs. Kay from Phil Robertson who maybe is taking a sly slap at Hillary. We’ll keep it in anyway as contestant #3:
Well, after that no apologies no limits confession of a pagan metaphysical 2016 election campaign strategy with patented New Orleans rattler-viper-sperm-incense and all sorts of other JuJu walk on gilded splinters voodoo Salem power – let’s go all the way with #6 via Frank:
Our eighth and final contestant before the comments section weighs in is our nominee from 2008. They did not listen to us in 2008 and we know what happened. Will they listen in 2012? Listen up (ignore the typos):
Potential theme songs for other potential candidates in 2016 also welcome. Barack Obama themes such as “I’m A Loser” also welcome. Let a thousand chords be plucked.
Politicians are rarely gifted an opportunity as Chris Christie now has. To turn liabilities (“he’s a bully”) into strengths (“he fights for me”) is a magic moment. It’s not only “I feel your pain” but “I will cause pain to those that hurt you.” If Christie was a lightweight politician he would try to turn “bridgegate” into Kelly “Bridgetgate” thereby running away from his big opportunity by instead choosing to shift the blame onto an aide in the style of Barack Obama. But after today’s Hillary Clinton style very long press conference it looks to us as if Chris Christie sees his opportunity and he is going to squeeze his big ass right through that big frame.
* * * * * *
Years ago during one of the trumped up scandals, Hillary Clinton put on a pink Chanel dress (that explins the color of this website) and answered questions for a long time. Hillary drained the boil and from then on she could deftly respond that she had answered all those questions earlier and her interrogators could read the transcript. If Hillary decides to run in 2016 she will likely do the same thing on Benghazi. By then Benghazi will be further in the past and Hillary will drain what remaining blood the controversy holds with another pink Chanel presser.
Years ago when Linda Tripp got Monica on the front pages Bill Clinton read the polls produced for him by Dick Morris. Morris told Bill that if Clinton told the absolute truth about Monica Lewinsky he was a goner not a boner. Bill wisely played for time. Finally, when forced to by judicial process and at a time better for his prospects of survival Bill admitted he was not entirely truthful in his earlier denials.
Deflecting from scandals until a more propitious is a survival technique that often is successful. When sex or personal foibles are the issue the likelihood of success by the delay tactic increase exponentially.
Barack Obama has other paths he takes to survive. First and foremost Barack Obama has allies yell “RACISM”. For many years the race-baiting survival technique has been successful for Obama.
Today Christie began to display how he will handle scandal. Christie immediately fired his trusted aide Bridget Kelly. If he follows up as we suggest, Chris Christie has set up the pool table for 2016 in a way that he will be able to sink all the balls, win the nomination and then the presidency.
Today Christie expressed remorse for what happened. Christie appeared remorseful as well. Christie answered questions for more than two hours in this sullen manner. Christie fired one top aide. Christie began to punish other aides as well. This was all well and good. But what should Chris Christie do next?
What Chris Christie should do next is unleash the inner Kraken. Chris Christie should become a bully. Chris Christie should now go from remorse to rage. Christ Christie should go volcanic.
What Chris Christie aides did was to torment citizens crossing the George Washington Bridge with vengeful lane closings in order to punish the Democratic Mayor of Fort Lee New Jersey for not endorsing Christie for Governor. Christie aides purposefully targeted the citizens of New York and New Jersey driving across the GWB in the same way a Roman emperor would torment slaves in the arena. This is what Chris Christie has to become enraged about. This is what Chris Christie must scream and shout about as if he was a gorilla denied bananas.
In America the people rule. In America public officials are servants of the people. The president of the United States is not a king. Congressional representatives are not viceroys for the people to bow to. In America the people are in charge, the people are sovereign – elected officials and their hirelings are but scum on the bottom of our shoes.
Chris Christie, if he wants to run and win for president in 2016, must become the Tribune of the populace. Unleash the Kraken. Explode with rage. Be a bully sitting and squashing the aides that attacked the people. FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE WITH SAMPSON RAGE.
Chris Christie today took the first step. Remorse. The next step is RAGE. Chris Christie should not only express rage but feel rage because government officials attacked the people. If Chris Christie does this he wins the nomination and the presidency in 2016.
If Chris Christie follows our advice he can attack Barack Obama for holding no one to account for all the failures foreign and domestic. In 2014 Christie can campaign for welcoming Republicans in every district and state, collect chits and 2016 endorsements, as the protector of the people. “Compare Barack Obama to Me” Christie can then say. “I hold hired public officials accountable” Christie can then say. “Barack Obama blames the staff but keeps them on the job – I hold the staff accountable and fire them when they do wrong.”
If Chris Christie follows our advice he can attack Hillary Clinton before and after any Benghazi press conference she holds. “I did not concoct an “Accountability Review Board” I fired those responsible” Christie can say.
If Chris Christie follows our advice he can campaign across the country on the issue of accountability and management as well as “putting people first” even when that means having to fire and bully his own closest friends and advisers.
Americans know that good management is not about mistakes happening or bad things being done. Good management is doing the right thing to correct course not run a perfect tourist jaunt. When John F. Kennedy took responsibility for the death dealing boobery of the Bay of Pigs disaster he became a hero for simply accepting responsibility. The idiocy of a secret beach invasion during a full moon was forgotten because JFK took charge and accepted responsibility for the massive cold war failure. JFK at the time said that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan (read that transcript and see how contrary to revisionist history and propaganda JFK attempted the deflect strategy then finally took responsibility when all else failed) and he was not only mostly forgiven but admired. Chris Christie can learn from that leadership crisis episode.
The American people are turning their backs on both major parties. More and more Americans consider themselves “independents”. This is because Americans crave a government that is honest, humble, and effective. A candidate that is seen as defending the American people instead of their cronies and donors will be a hero hoisted to the presidency. Chris Christie could easily become Christ Christie politically.
Chris Christie is thisclose to the presidency. The populist fury of a righteously indignant nation will raise Christie to the highest office in the land. Already some polls have him even beating Hillary Clinton. Those polls are important in that they help him get money and allies for a presidential run. If Christie can turn this aides attack on the people into a defense of the people by himself personally no other Republican will be able to match his “accountability” rhetoric in 2016. If Hillary does not become the “change” candidate (as we repeatedly advise) Chris Christie now has that golden opportunity hot potato in his lap.
All the above presupposes that Chris Christie is telling the truth. But if Chris Christie is lying, if Chris Christie knew his aides attacked the people then everything changes. If Christie is lying Christie can lose the lap-band and park himself at a McDonalds counter scarfing down all the Happy Meals he wants because the only place he is going is the toilet.
Update: Bad show ol’ sport! Republican(?) Senator Jeff Flake lives up to his name. Flake thinks Bob Gates’ new book giving Obama the ol’ Backpfeifengesicht is “Extraordinarily bad timing, and form”. Really??? It’s no surprise that the White House disputes Gates memoir claims but even those dolts have not yet called it “bad form”. Soon though, Gates will be called a racist by someone allied to the Obama occupied White House. The Gates of Hell are open.
For us, today’s Big Article is about tomorrow and written by pollster Andrew Kohut. Our regular readers won’t be surprised by Kohut because they read our version of the article some time back. This is wisdom we wrote in April of last year:
“We are sure Hillary Clinton will make a decision on seeking the presidency in 2016 after the 2014 elections which will be a referendum on ObamaCares’ corruptions. After November 2014 it will be time to decide on 2016 for the tribes on all sides.
Over the years even some Hillary Clinton supporters from 2008 are too angry with the corruptions of Barack Obama to support Hillary Clinton now. When they look at Hillary, they see Barack. And it is a maddening sight. [snip]
In 2016 the greatest threat to Hillary Clinton is once again Barack Obama – and his legacy of weakness and profligacy. Tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama and she loses. [snip]
What will matter in 2016 is the “center”. If Hillary stays in the center she wins. Hillary spent four years as far from Barack Obama as air travel made possible so she still can make it a convincing argument. If the Republican candidate seizes the center, he or she wins. In either case what matters is that the country win.”
There’s no question that Hillary Clinton would make a formidable presidential candidate. She routinely polls as America’s most admired figure, and voters gave her high marks during her tenure as the country’s top diplomat. But Hillary Clinton has a potential problem. His name is Barack Obama.
While she had to contend with “Clinton fatigue” in 2008, “Obama fatigue” is her potential stumbling block this time. Should dissatisfaction with the state of the nation and disapproval of Obama persist as 2016 approaches, the former secretary of state may well struggle to position herself as an agent of change.“
“Domestically, Barack Obama is a big stink too. The Obama stink will get worse as failure takes hold and will not turn to perfume by 2016.
Hillary Clinton should position herself as the candidate of “CHANGE!”. Repeat the positions taken in 2008 and note how wise that course would have been. Declare it is “time for a change” to effective leadership and unite the white working class with her campaign for change. Let Joe Biden be the “stay the course” candidate aboard the Titanic. Hillary Clinton 2016 could easily be the lot less scary candidate of “time for a change” which is the default on every Republican 2016 bumper sticker. But cutesie-wutsie won’t get the gold. Yet that muddled message mess is the course Hillary Clinton 2016 is on.”
“If Obama’s polling troubles persist as 2016 approaches, Clinton might have a problem with voters who want change. Other presidential candidates have had hard going when voters were dissatisfied with the times and/or their bosses. [snip]
More importantly for 2016, Clinton is especially popular among those who will pick the next nominee. Among Democrats and Independents who lean Democratic, fully 82 percent of the base holds a favorable view of her, and as many as 38 percent say they have a very favorable view of the former first lady. She is best regarded by women, liberals, older people and more affluent Democrats—the same constituencies that nearly won her the nomination in 2008.
Here’s the potential problem: Demographics notwithstanding, views of Clinton among Democrats correlate strongly with views of Obama. No fewer than 71 percent of Democrats who hold a highly favorable view of Obama feel the same way about Clinton. And the converse is true: Democrats who are unenthusiastic about the president are also unenthusiastic about Clinton—just 29 percent rate her very favorably.
And Clinton faces another potential challenge: the desire for change that divides the Democratic base between populists and centrists, given that she was married to one centrist Democratic president and worked for another. The appeal of populism among Democrats in 2016 cannot be discounted. Sixty percent of Democrats continue to say their finances are not in good shape, even as many of them see the stock market and real estate values having recovered. Little wonder that a September Pew survey found 62 percent of Democrats saying that regulation of financial organizations has not gone far enough, compared with just 32 percent of Republicans who hold that view.”
That math is what paralyzes Hillary Clinton 2016. The fear is that telling the truth and slamming Barack Obama will turn off Barack Obama supporters she will need for the nomination fight. This fear leads to the quicksand bog that drowns candidates. How else to explain the strong Clinton presence at the Bill DeBlasio inauguration?
At first the idea of the Clintons attending the DeBlasio inauguration made sense. After all why not throw the DailyKooks a bone and appear with DeBlasio? At first the idea of being seen with DeBlasio as a Kook sedative and lead them to at least accept the idea of Hillary Clinton 2016 and not fight it seems sensible. But they are not DailyKooks for nothing. At some point the DailyKooks and allies will agitate and then attack to “force Hillary to the left”. The DailyKooks and other assorted nuts have already begun pounding the drums in the deep which will eventually lead to all out attacks against Hillary.
Once the idea of the Clintons attending the DeBlasio inauguration is fully considered however it was not a smart thing to do. Already Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is leading the charge to lower taxes in New York State while now Mayor DeBlasio is leading a nationwide coalition to raise taxes in New York City. Because the city of New York requires the state of New York to approve higher taxes the battle of Cuomo versus DeBlasio will soon be joined. What will the Clintons do then? Anyone recall the mess Hillary Clinton talked herself into during the 2008 debates when she tried to politically protect Governor Andrew Cuomo on driver licenses for illegal aliens?
“Because of the ongoing internal debate at Hillary Clinton 2016 we have been advised to hit harder, tougher. We’ve been told the time is now to lambaste Hillary Clinton 2016 with critiques of what must be done and not to be too polite or too kind. There are many in the Hillary Clinton 2016 discussions who agree with us and they need ammunition and our voices as the informal strategy deliberations continue.”
“Chief among those in the “no” camp is Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, Cheryl Mills, according to several people familiar with her thinking. Another close Clinton confidante, Maggie Williams, who took the helm of the 2008 campaign after a staff shake-up, is also said to have reservations for the same reason — the DNA-altering experience of a modern presidential campaign in which nothing is guaranteed.
The people cheerleading Clinton on the most are often less close to her. Their focus is primarily on winning — they know Republicans probably won’t put up a candidate as weak as Romney next time and see Clinton as far and away their best shot. [snip]
Beyond potential health concerns, an unforeseen event could make running more complicated. Democrats could struggle mightily in the midterms, and Obama could have another difficult year. Another foreign policy headache could emerge, posing a fresh challenge for the former secretary.”
What is clear to us is that there are many given jobs by Barack Obama who want to keep those jobs and the potential rivers of money flowing to those in power. These people are not interested in Hillary Clinton nor what is good for America. They are “pimping” Hillary Clinton for self-interests (yes Donna, we are also talking about you). So what should Hillary Clinton do?
What Hillary Clinton should do is decide on who her friends are and who has the best interests of America in heart and mind. Those Obama apparatchiks now jumping on the Hillary Clinton 2016 team should be squeezed dry of whatever benefits can be extracted from them. But at some point (the clock started ticking the moment ObamaCare registration for January 1 coverage ended) Hillary Clinton has to choose between the Obama coalition and the Hillary Clinton coalition.
Hillary Clinton can win by bringing back senior voters and the white working class voters that have dumped the Democratic Party they once gave allegiance to. This will enrage the DailyKooks and Obama apparatchiks. But it is the only way for Hillary Clinton to win.
Barack Obama apparatchiks that have infiltrated Hillary Clinton 2016 are terrified that Hillary Clinton will succumb to logic and reality and become the candidate of change from Barack Obama. These Obama loving parasites in Hillary Clinton 2016 know if Hillary tells the truth about Barack Obama their lame duck will be a dead duck.
“Robert Gates: Obama White House ‘offended’ Hillary Clinton
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saw the Obama administration as deeply “controlling” on national security issues, Defense Secretary Bob Gates wrote Tuesday in an essay published adapted from his forthcoming book.
“The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work, offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me,” Gates writes in an piece published by the Wall Street Journal.
His new book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War,” is set for publication on January 14. According to an early writeup of the book by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Gates at times writes reverentially about Clinton, who is expected to decide later this year whether to pursue a presidential bid.
“I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world,” Gates wrote.”
While some, many, will focus on the now shocking Casablanca revelation asserted by Gates that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both confessed their opposition to the Iraq “surge” in 2007 was “political” the problem for Hillary Clinton 2016 is that the respected Robert Gates – a good friend and ally of Hillary Clinton – lobs some serious ordinance at Obama and Hillary Clinton will at some point be forced to choose between treacherous boob Barack and smart good guy Bob Gates.
“Actual quote from Gates’s new book, writing about a meeting with O in March 2011: “As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his… For him, it’s all about getting out.” Nearly three years later, we’re still not out despite O’s alleged disbelief. I’m caught between astonishment that any president would send troops to die for a cause he apparently thought was lost and reminding myself that … we already knew this. Right? The Democratic commitment to Afghanistan was always chiefly a function of their opposition to Iraq. They wanted out of the latter but were afraid that the left’s anti-war brand would frighten centrist voters in 2008 who wanted something more muscular in the post-9/11 age. Ramping up in Afghanistan was the answer.”
Barack Obama foreign policy is a disaster. Bob Gates insulates Hillary by noting that the disasters were run from the White House and that the total control by the White House “offended” Hillary. Barack Obama domestic policy is a disaster as well.
In this series, Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, we’ll discuss why Barack Obama’s attempted distractions will not work. The issue in 2014, as in 2010, will be ObamaCare and the treacherous boob destroying America.
Of course there will be additional disasters authored by Barack Obama, both foreign and domestic, which will grab the spotlight intermittently but the crown jewel of Barack Obama incompetence and treachery is ObamaCare and that will be the issue in 2014. Those thinking about tomorrow better get ahead of events and fight the future fights that matter.
Let’s face it, after the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize award winner was announced that once prestigious honor is reduced to naught but a piece of junk bling. We don’t have a multimillion dollar jackpot to reward the deserving so we cannot replace the once treasured Nobel. We can however recognize, with our very own prestigious Backpfeifengesicht Award, the face that deserves the dishonor on the other side of the spectrum.
There were more nominees for the Backpfeifengesicht 2013 award than there were hours in the year.
At first blush we thought for sure the winner of Backpfeifengesicht 2013 was to be Pajama Boy. Pajama Boy certainly has a Backpfeifengesicht look. Pajama Boy is a smarmy punk badly in need of a severe beating. Pajama Boy is the smug twerp portrayed by Obama propaganda boy Ethan Krupp to sell ObamaCare to young idiots. Pajama Boy however lost first place due to the work of two men so deserving of the Backpfeifengesicht 2013 award that little Ethan went the way of Chad Henderson into oblivion. [For those of you who have forgotten Chad Henderson he is the other Obama propaganda boy caught this year. Like Pajama Boy Chad Henderson works for the Obama organization to secretly corrupt comment sections on blogs with propaganda without disclosing who they are. Chad and Ethan are two peas in a pod.]
So what two “men” thwarted Ethan Krupp for the top spot? First up was Jay Michaelson of the Jewish Forward. Jay wrote a stupid column that declared attacks on Pajama Boy to be “anti-Semitic”. It’s a sign of desperation that the race card is now being played by every Obama/ObamaCare supporter in myriad variations. But if Michaelson is in any way right that Pajama Boy is really Jew Boy then who is responsible for this anti-Jew bit of antisemitism? We found the culprit at MSNBC!
The anti-Jew antisemite is Domenico Montanaro, Deputy Political Editor, NBC News and by logical extension the Barack Obama campaign organization which created Pajama/Jew Boy. Consider, if Pajama Boy is really a barely disguised Jew Boy then what of the creators of Pajama Boy/Jew Boy who (allegedly) specifically designed Pajama/Jew Boy to be hated? Who’s the antisemite now?
A lot of people don’t like the persona that has become “Pajama Boy,” whoever he really is.
Ahead of Monday’s deadline for people without health insurance to sign up for Jan. 1 coverage, Organizing for Action, the president’s former campaign arm supporting his presidential agenda, sent out a tweet urging people to sign up that sparked all kinds of debate.
As part of an ongoing campaign using the president’s Twitter handle (@BarackObama) to try and reach young people, the Tweet showed a young man in red-plaid pajamas holding a mug and donning a wrist watch and a smirk, with the message:
“Wear pajamas. Drink hot chocolate. Talk about getting insurance.” [snip]
Conservative writer Rich Lowry called “Pajama Boy” an “insufferable man child,” who is “so nerdy he could guest-host on an unwatched MSNBC show,” and goes so far as to draw out the “breakdown of marriage” as the reason people like “Pajama Boy” exist while quoting Tocqueville. [snip]
Charles C.W. Cooke in National Review took it all very seriously, calling “Pajama Boy” the “Obama Machine’s Id,” a “metrosexual hipster in a plaid onesie who wants you to spend your precious Christmas days talking to him about the president’s vision for health insurance.” He also invoked the Founding Fathers.
“During the 2012 campaign, the Obama campaign bombarded supporters with provocative, if not downright creepy, email subject lines. (Remember: “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner?” Or: “You, me, and Michelle?”)
Those were often derided on Twitter, mocked by Jon Stewart, and called “desperate.”
But they were among the most successful marketing and fundraising devices employed during the campaign. And no campaign has shown a better sensibility about what breaks through with young people.
That is vitally important if the law is going to be financially viable. The White House, before the website rollout debacle, stressed that it needed a three-to-one ratio of older-and-sicker versus young-and-healthy people to sign up for the law.
And the underlying message in this tweet — part of a light-hearted campaign that included the same model with his feet up on a coffee table smiling in a Christmas sweater — in many ways, is: “DON’T be like this guy. Get health care.”
“Don’t be this guy sitting around in his pajamas,” a Democratic official told First Read said of the message, who requested anonymity to talk freely. “Have a conversation, and get health care. And it’s poking fun at that” idea of doing nothing.
The official added that this is a way to try and reach a demographic that can be “hard to break through” with.
“Young people are going to be home, and this [getting health care] is a conversation they should have,” the official said. “They shouldn’t be this guy.”
Such is the chaos among Obama and ObamaCare supporters that they tie themselves up in knots trying to protect Obama. If Pajama Boy is supposed to be hated then isn’t Michaelson’s fight with the antisemitic creators of the Obama organization? Maybe Pajama Boy is just another example of Obama boobery and Michaelson is just another run of the mill Obama race-baiter of the Jewish variety.
Ask yourself, who is the bigger whore? Is it Ethan Krupp (or Chad Henderson) who happily gets paid to post propaganda? Is the bigger whore Jay Michaelson who plays the antisemitism card in order to protect Barack Obama’s ObamaCare disaster? Or, is the bigger whore Domenico Montanaro of NBC News who so desperately wants to protect Obama from the charge of incompetence that he actually has the gall to write an article claiming that hate for Pajama Boy was deliberate and not an example of more boobery from Obama and the ObamaCare fools?
“Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated ‘True’ in 2008 Obamacare’s ‘Keep Your Health Plan’ Promise
On December 12, the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.” An understandable choice. But in its article detailing why the President’s promise was a lie, PolitiFact neglected to mention an essential detail. In 2008, at a critical point in the presidential campaign, PolitiFact rated the “keep your plan” promise as “True.” The whole episode, and PolitiFact’s misleading behavior throughout, tells us a lot about the troubled state of “fact-checking” journalism.”
The entire dissection by Avik Roy of lies by PolitiFact in defense of Barack Obama and ObamaCare is worth a read. When it mattered, during election season 2008 and 2012, Big Media protected Obama lies with Big Media lies. Big Media has not only allowed Barack Obama to lie but has been complicit in disseminating Barack Obama’s lies and giving them the veneer of truth.
None of this is to absolve Barack Obama of responsibility for the lies he told and the lies his campaign propagated via cyphers like Pajama Boy and Chad Henderson. It is Barack Obama and Obama Dimocrats responsible for the lies about ObamaCare. And the lies and excuses keep coming:
“The Obama administration acknowledged Tuesday that some people who think they successfully signed up for insurance under the president’s health law may not actually have the coverage in place Jan. 1, because of the tech problems with HealthCare.gov. [snip]
Wednesday is the first day Obamacare coverage takes effect for people who signed up by the Dec. 24 deadline, but problems with the federal Obamacare portal and error-ridden enrollment files that were sent to insurers mean it’s all but certain that some of the sign-ups may have been lost or wrongly recorded.”
“Nearly 16,000 Iowans who tried to apply for coverage via the trouble-plagued federal health-insurance website are being told to apply separately through the state Department of Human Services. [snip]
The announcement affects people who entered their information into healthcare.gov and received a notice that they might qualify for Medicaid. The federal computer system was supposed to transfer their applications to a state computer system, but that transfer has been complicated by technical problems. The timing is critical, because the new insurance coverage is supposed to take effect on New Year’s Day, which is Wednesday.”
Happy New Year suckers. Don’t get sick.
It is not just on the broken back of ObamaCare that our prestigious Backpfeifengesicht 2013 is awarded. Consider the spectacle of Big Media lies on the unbroken ice of Antarctica:
“Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice. If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity.”
In every time zone, on every continent American Big Media is busy with lies to protect Barack Obama. That is why Barack Obama came in second to our winner in the Backpfeifengesicht 2013 sweepstakes. The winner is exemplified by NBC/MSNBC of which the following video is but an example of the filth so deserving of a powerful Backpfeifengesicht.
That video published on Christmas eve came too early to capture the latest filth from MSNBC. Not as vile as Martin Bashir’s crap attack against Sarah Palin but sufficient to make Melissa Harris-Perry tweets apology to Romney family the filth is never-ending. The phony apology came because of Harris-Perry mocking Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandson. Let’s all remember this next time we are told not to say anything mean about the Obama girls.
A lot of ugliness flowed under the 2013 bridge. From Ducks to Satan to ObamaCare we’ve had a lot of fun and words spilled this past year. It will be worse in election year 2014. Our Backpfeifengesicht 2013 Award Winner – Big Media – will see to that even lower standard.
* * * * * *
We remember. For the past seven years we have remembered. This year, once again, some of us have lost loved ones and friends and to you we lift a cup – for Auld Lang Syne. Keep memory alive. Never forget. Happy New Year!
One year ago, after a bleak November, the threat of a long term Grinch victory appeared all too real. But fear not. Whoville has been threatened with its very survival before – most recently after too many of its citizens drank Hopium and committed mass stupidity. Foolish Whoville has been threatened before and yet foolish Whoville has survived – over and over correcting its mistakes. One year later, after last year’s horrible November – it’s a wonder filled Christmas.
The original story of how an earlier Grinch evilly tried to steal Christmas featured the voice of Boris Karloff as the animated Grinch. Karloff, made his bones, so to speak, as the monster created in a laboratory by twisted Dr. Frankenstein who thought he was a new God with the power of life and death. Herr Doktor Von Frankenstein was sent packing by “bitter, clinging” peasants with pitchforks.
As we’ve warned, a new Frankenstein monster walks the land ready to kill before it is killed. In an attempt to steal Christmas we were all suppose to waste our Christmas Eve with thoughts of this monster. The Grinch thought we could all be forced to join the attack on Christmas. Instead this latest Grinch failed as spectacularly as the earlier green Grinch failed.
It marks the final deadline for most Americans to sign up for health insurance under President Barack Obama’s 2010 Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, if they want coverage starting on January 1.
If enough people – and the right mix of young and old – do not enroll, the ambitious program designed to provide health benefits to millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans risks eventually unraveling.
The deadline caps a turbulent roll-out this year for Obamacare and the HealthCare.gov website that is key to enrolling millions of people in the initiative. The website crashed upon its launch on October 1, frustrating users trying to shop for insurance plans. It now is functioning much better, but is still not at 100 percent. [snip]
Here is a look at some notable moments in the months leading up to Obamacare’s troubled launch.
EYES WIDE SHUT
In June 2012, Margaret Tavenner was worried. [snip]
The White House was closely briefed on the issues. Tavenner was cleared to visit White House officials involved in the project 425 times from December 2009 to June 2013, including several meetings with Obama, visitor logs show. The White House said later that Obama knew only the broad picture, not details of the effort. [snip]
For insurance brokers who had learned to keep it simple for customers, it was a harbinger of trouble. [snip]
DANGER SIGNS [snip]
Tavenner assured the panel that software development and testing for HealthCare.gov would be done by September 2013.
A week later, on April 18, Tavenner’s boss, Katherine Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, delivered a similar message to a House budget panel. [snip]
These confident public displays masked a different reality. [snip]
Obama also was briefed on McKinsey’s findings, White House press secretary Jay Carney later acknowledged. [snip]
“I’m pretty nervous — I don’t know about you,” Chao told the group, according to Congressional Quarterly.
“The time for debating about the size of the text on the screen, or the color, or is it a world-class user experience, that’s what we used to talk about two years ago,” Chao said. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.”
THINGS FALL APART
By July, Chao’s concerns had escalated. [snip]
Alarming assessments streamed in from CMS technical advisers.
“We believe that our entire build is in jeopardy,” wrote one, referring to the elaborate website construction. [snip]
A MAD SCRAMBLE
As October 1 approached, bleak assessments about the website surfaced everywhere – except from the Obama administration. [snip]
THE RUSH TO FIX IT [snip]“
We snipped out the majority of this for all purposes Three Stooges comedy. The boobery and the lies are too many to explore in detail this Christmas Day. Furthermore, as Obama endorser and love bug David Brooks puts it, there is a “legitimacy problem” to this grinchian clodfest:
“The Legitimacy Problem
It’s pretty clear that the implementation of Obamacare will set the tone for how Americans think about government for years to come. There are two large questions to be settled, which you might call the questions of competence and coercion.
The first is whether the government is competent enough to manage large programs. [snip]
Already, it’s very clear that millions of Americans — and not just Tea Party types — do not accept the legitimacy of the government to overrule individual decisions, even on something like health insurance. This is not the America of 1932 or of 1964. This is an America steeped in distrust of government. It’s an America that is, on both left and right, steeped in the ethos of individual choice. It’s an America steeped in a morality of authenticity, which says that it is right to listen to the individual voice within and immoral to be forced to conform to the external commands from without. [snip]
It now seems possible that no one will be paying the mandate penalties in 2014. Having exempted some groups from the mandate already, it will be politically difficult to start enforcing it on others. And, looking further into the future, why should we think Democrats will suddenly crack down and enforce the mandate in the run-up to the next presidential election? [snip]
Governing in an age of distrust is different than governing in an age of trust. Government now lacks the legitimacy to impose costs on losers, so politicians face unprecedented pressure to create situations in which everybody looks like winners. Government lacks the legitimacy to coerce.”
What Brooks does not dare say is that Barack Obama is the one who finished off the notion of a government that is competent and honest. It was dolts like Brooks that believed in Barack Obama and HOPE and CHANGE and that the oceans would be made to recede and that a new golden age replete with CELESTIAL CHOIRS would sing. It was smarties like us that spotted Barack Obama as a treacherous boob and repeatedly wrote:
“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.”
A dishonest, incompetent, treacherous boob of a Grinch extended phony deadline after phony deadline for a flim-flam scam of a law that he wrote and rewrote as convenience dictated. Whether in states like Oregon or the illegitimately subsidized federal exchanges the Frankenstein monster is being chased away by yawning peasants with pitchforks.
This latest green with envy Grinch thought Americans could be coerced into spending Christmas Eve bowing down before a Frankenstein monster law and a barely electrified website in order to comply with a deadline that is not really a deadline because it is just a scam within a scam within a larger scam. The golfing Grinch thought we could be made to cower and forget Christmas. Instead Americans fought either directly or via boredom.
2013 was the bad luck “year of the backfire.” In real life and entertainment shows it was all about the great backfires and the growing backlash.
This past year we only watched two entertainment shows with some degree of regularity and persistence: American Horror Story: Coven and Duck Dynasty. The drama Coven is a little noticed, almost 100% women, wicked, filthy, lewd, campy, shocker, about witches in modern day New Orleans, Louisiana. Jessica Lange, Kathy Bates, Angela Bassett, and the fat girl (no apologies to thought totalitarian Jennifer Lawrence) who starred in the movie Precious Gabourey Sidibe, romp though this exhilarating playground for actresses with near criminal glee and the choice evil they unleash.
The few men in Coven are toys for these despicable (as well as lusciously wicked) witches in this particularly campy Coven. The only male of significance (the humpy Even Peters) is essentially a sex toy for some of the younger witches who reanimated the boy after his death. This post death galvanization of the sexy boy backfires for many reasons. It’s a cautionary tale.
Also based in Louisiana, Duck Dynasty. We began to watch the Ducks several months ago and lucked out because the first show we saw was a rerun (the shows are constantly rerun five at a time) of what we think is the best episode of the Ducks. In that episode the children and their spouses want to do something special for the (48th or 50th) wedding anniversary of the parents Phil and Kay. Enlisted to distract the couple while a surprise party is organized is the zany Uncle Si (Silas) who takes the unfortunate duo down into a warped “memory lane” which does not comport with their recollections of their early romance. The episode ends with a touching wedding party as tears flow from the youngest son Jep and his wife.
Our favorites in this swamp monster comedy reality show are Si and Jase. Phil the patriarch is not someone you want to mess with; and Willie the CEO of the company based on the manufacture of duck calls invented by Phil is a bit of a bore. All clearly love their families and one another.
In a sense Duck Dynasty is a modern day Beverly Hillbillies. Those Hillbillies had lots of money too, a love of family, and exotic tastes in food – eating possum and gizzards and all sorts of things that we regularly see the Ducks cooking – such as squirrel and frogs. The Hillbillies series started out mocking the family that called their luxury swimming pool a “cement pond” and outsmarted by simple technologies such as phones. America however wound up falling in love with the Beverly Hillbillies and especially with the tough and zany Granny. Soon enough the joke backfired as the series converted the mockers into fans and the jokes increasingly came at the expense of the city slickers.
“Duck Dynasty is not the show that they wanted, it is the show that got away from them.
It seems what the producers intended and what A&E envisioned with the show is much different than the show that they ended up with, but they didn’t do anything about it because it was so wildly popular and so wildly profitable. But even with all the money, they have never really been comfortable with what happened.
This is what happened. The whole idea of the show was to parade these nouveau riche Christian hillbillies around so that we could laugh at them. “Look at them,” we were supposed to say. “Look how backward they are! Look what they believe! Can you believe they really live this way and believe this stuff? See how they don’t fit in? HAHAHA”
When the producers saw the way the show was shaping up, different than they envisioned it, they tried to change course. They tried to get the Robertson’s to tone down their Christianity, but to their eternal credit they refused. They tried to add fake cussin’ to the show by inserting bleeps where no cussword was uttered. At best, they wanted to make the Robertson’s look like crass buffoons. At worst they wanted them to look like hypocrites.
They desperately wanted us to laugh at the Robertsons. Instead, we loved them.
A&E wanted us to point fingers at them and laugh at them. But something else happened entirely. Millions upon millions of people tuned in, not to laugh at them, but to laugh with them.
And then we pointed at them. We pointed at them and said things like, “I wish my family was more like them. I wish we prayed together as a family. I wish we were together like the Robertsons.”
Watching Phil Robertson shoot various animals, disembowel the same, skin animals, then watch Mrs. Kay cook clearly discernible squirrels and ducks and otherwise engage in a cuisine that is foreign to us is part of the Ducks “charm”. We don’t have to enjoy the cooking to appreciate the lifestyle and love the Robertsons enjoy. We don’t have to agree with the religious opinions or even like all the cast members to enjoy the company of the Duck Dynasty crew and family.
As with the Beverly Hillbillies the Duck Dynasty is all about family. This family has had trial by fire. The patriarch Phil was a drunk and all around nogoodnik who abandoned his family and caused all sorts of trouble for himself and those that loved him. Eventually Phil, because of the love and persistence of his wife, corrected course. Today, it is clear that the family not only loves but respects Phil.
When a lizard escapes in the company warehouse, it is Phil that is called. When business pressures build up after a large order that cannot be fulfilled due to lack of workers it is Kay that comes though by organizing family and friends to the rescue. At every turn, in every situation, the parents are looked up to and respected. It is something shocking to see because that is a long gone narrative on American TV.
American TV today tells only one story when it comes to family: the kids are smart and the parents are idiots. That story is told in every entertainment show, movies (ever see Home Alone?), and commercials. The parents are dopes unable to function without the wise guiding hands of the children. That notion even reached into 2008 presidential politics as Barack Obama’s campaign organized the young to lecture their elders on the wisdom of electing Barack Obama.
“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Thursday.
“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added. [snip]
“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”
Paglia went on to point out that while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists.
“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”
“There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents into a political movement,” she added. “And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism.”
We’re quick to oppose fanaticism when Muslims engage in it and we will do so when our compatriots for gay rights and feminism engage in the same ugliness. Our favorite Quotes of the day cite totalitarianism as the threat it is:
“In the 1960s, radical philosopher Herbert Marcuse popularized the “repressive tolerance” theory of modern progressives. “Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left,” Marcuse pontificated. “Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.”
The tolerance mob’s insatiable quest for power and control has led to such unhinged witch-hunting that many of its own erstwhile allies are balking. Novelist Bret Easton Ellis called GLAAD the “gatekeepers of politically correct gayness.” He was attacked as a “self-loathing gay man,” but unlike A&E, he didn’t give in.”
I have to say I’m befuddled by the firing of Phil Robertson, he of the amazing paterfamilias beard on Duck Dynasty (which I mainly see via The Soup). A&E has a reality show that depends on the hoariest stereotypes – and yet features hilariously captivating human beings – located in the deep South. It’s a show riddled with humor and charm and redneck silliness. The point of it, so far as I can tell, is a kind of celebration of a culture where duck hunting is the primary religion, but where fundamentalist Christianity is also completely pervasive. (Too pervasive for the producers, apparently, because they edited out the saying of grace to make it non-denominational and actually edited in fake beeps to make it seem like the bearded clan swore a lot, even though they don’t.)”
“It’s a very powerful ad indeed,” Grace Marie Turner, the head of the Galen Institute, a health-care advocacy group, told me.
Chris Cillizza, the Washington Post’s top political blogger, says “Obamacare’s growing unpopularity makes the ad’s message dangerous for any Democrat.” The latest ABC News poll shows 70 percent of independents oppose Obama on health care. Nearly half of all voters think Obamacare is making the health-care system worse versus only 19 percent who think it will improve matters. Cillizza’s conclusion: “You have a very scary situation for Shaheen — and any other Democrat, which is almost all of them, on the record supporting the ACA. Get used to this ad. You are going to see it thousands of times — in various forms — before 2014 is over.”
“Utter Chaos: White House Exempts Millions From Obamacare’s Insurance Mandate, ‘Unaffordable’ Exchanges
It’s hard to come up with new ways to describe the Obama administration’s improvisational approach to the Affordable Care Act’s troubled health insurance exchanges. But last night, the White House made its most consequential announcement yet. The administration will grant a “hardship exemption” from the law’s individual mandate, requiring the purchase of health insurance, to anyone who has had their prior coverage canceled and who “believes” that Obamacare’s offerings “are unaffordable.” These exemptions will substantially alter the architecture of the law’s insurance marketplaces. Insurers are at their wits’ end, trying to make sense of what to do next. [snip]
This means that by January 1, 2014, less people will have health coverage under Obamacare than before. [snip]
For years, these pages have raised the concern that the “Affordable Care Act” will drive up the cost of health insurance. “What is remarkable about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” I wrote in 2010, is “its devastating consequences for the cost of health insurance.” A 49-state analysis I conducted along with two colleagues at the Manhattan Institute found that the average state will see underlying premiums increase by an average of 41 percent in the individual market, the market where people shop for coverage on their own, instead of getting it through an employer or the government. (Our state-by-state interactive map can be found here.)
But this most recent announcement from the Obama administration is the first time it has publicly admitted that Obamacare is making health insurance less affordable, not more so, for millions of Americans. [snip]
This decision by the administration—characterized by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as an attempt to provide “the smoothest possible transition” into the Obamacare era—has instead thrown the individual insurance market into chaos.”
“The “sticker shock” that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experienced—with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coverage—has only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays.
If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older, sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a “death spiral” of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The government, through taxpayer-funded “risk corridors,” is on the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance-company losses. This will be about as politically popular as bank bailouts.
The “I can’t keep my doctor” shock will also hit more and more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as low as possible—given cost pressures generated by the government’s rules, controls and coverage mandates—insurance companies in many cases are offering plans that have very restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude some of the best physicians and hospitals.
Next year, millions must choose among unfamiliar physicians and hospitals, or paying more for preferred providers who are not part of their insurance network. Some health outcomes will deteriorate from a less familiar doctor-patient relationship.
More IT failures are likely. [snip]
Be prepared for eligibility, coverage gap, billing, claims, insurer payment and patient information-protection debacles.
The next shock will come when the scores of millions outside the individual market—people who are covered by employers, in union plans, or on Medicare and Medicaid—experience the downsides of ObamaCare. There will be longer waits for hospital visits, doctors’ appointments and specialist treatment, as more people crowd fewer providers. [snip]
Next, the Congressional Budget Office’s estimated 25% expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will exert pressure on state Medicaid spending (although the pressure will be delayed for a few years by federal subsidies). This pressure on state budgets means less money on education and transportation, and higher state taxes.
The “Cadillac tax” on health plans to help pay for ObamaCare starts four years from this Jan. 1. It will fall heavily on unions whose plans are expensive due to generous health benefits.
In the nearer term, a political iceberg looms next year. Insurance companies usually submit proposed pricing to regulators in the summer, and the open enrollment period begins in the fall for plans starting Jan. 1. Businesses of all sizes that currently provide health care will have to offer ObamaCare’s expensive, mandated benefits, or drop their plans and—except the smallest firms—pay a fine. Tens of millions of Americans with employer-provided health plans risk paying more for less, and losing their policies and doctors to more restrictive networks.”
Then of course there will be more part-time workers and cut backs in workers hours. The practice of medicine will suffer as doctors become salaried workers to big conglomerates. The latest polls show that even the uninsured don’t like ObamaCare:
“Skepticism about the health care law extends to both insured and uninsured Americans, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. Both groups disapprove of the law overall, and while the uninsured are more positive about the law’s personal impact than those with insurance, more still think the law will hurt rather than help them. CBS News and The New York Times interviewed 702 adults who do not have health insurance for this poll.
Just 15 percent of insured Americans think the health care law will help them personally, but that number rises to 33 percent among the uninsured. Still, more uninsured Americans think the health care law will hurt them (37 percent). Thirty-two percent of insured Americans say it’ll hurt them. Overall, 46 percent feel it will have no effect (49 percent of insured Americans, 27 percent of uninsured).”
The dogs won’t eat the dog food. “The beatings will continue until morale improves” says the totalitarian. “Big government is the threat” say three quarters of the people.
Drat! Supporters of the Pope for Man of the Year have more clout than we do. Their man got the Time magazine cover. But it’s not as if we came up empty handed. Our nominee for thing of the year failed to win, again. Our thing of the year nominee has failed again, and again, and again – no surprise to us.
Our nominee for thing of the year was ObamaCare. Why was this our choice even as ObamaCare continues to fail? Because of ObamaCare, we reasoned, the daddy of ObamaCare has been exposed as the doofus he is, the treacherous lying boob that he is – just like his daddy. Like daddy, like son, like the thing produced – treacherous lying failure – the tree is known by it’s fruit. We’re talking sour lemons here.
Time Magazine’s choice of someone other than our nominee is certainly no loss for us. Time Magazine has plastered Obama’s puss so many times on their cover few Americans take that rag seriously anymore. Our nominee for thing of the year gave us a bounty of laughs all year and today is no exception.
Because of ObamaCare many Obama cultists are leaving the shrine. We picture Obama voters walking into walls, stepping on rakes, staring empty eyed at pictures of their love bug Barack from back in 2008. That was the year when we were called racists for pointing out the obvious. But Obama cultists, their brains drooling onto their shoes like scuzzy men at a hootchie coochie strip bar, loved themselves their Barack and only racism could be the reason for anyone to reject the Chicago pimp. Now, the Obama cult has gone racist. Racists:
MSNBC cleaned the tape up to hide Obama cultists calling Barack “dishonest” but it’s still the focus group from Hell. Rat bastard racists!
Rat bastard racists! We’ll probably never get tired of mocking them. We’re certainly not tired today. We’ve got a Santa-sized sack of mockery to dump on the sad sacks that listened to, believed in, and voted for Barack Obama.
We laughed heartily today when the news hit that the earnest-looking guy signing at the Mandela funeral service was a fake. It’s the age of fake over and over. But what struck us was how lucky the deaf are in this high visibility scam act. Consider: the fake sign language guy has done this before; the fake sign language guy’s supporters came up with a bunch of cockamamie excuses, such as he was signing in the nonexistent “Zulu sign language,” to excuse the scam – and after listening to just a few seconds of Barack Obama’s funereal drone we realized the deaf came out lucky “listening” to sign language gibberish instead of Barack Obama’s swill.
That’s just some of the ObamaCare disasters revealed today which hide deeper problems and bigger lies. Small businesses will be hiring – lawyers to comply with the sewerage backup called ObamaCare. With a goal of 800,000 enrollments by now HHS announced less than half that. Many of those “enrollments” will turn out to be duplicates. Of those “enrollments” the word that best applies is “FAKE”.
The enrollment numbers are “FAKE” because only 5% to 15% of the FAKE enrollees have actually paid their first premium. As any Amazon shopper knows you have to pay before they ship your package to your home. Make that as any shopper that has every purchased anything knows. You make your selection, then you go to the cash register, and you pay. Then you take your purchased product home. It works the same way even for a manure pit like ObamaCare.
Beyond any doubt ObamaCare is singularly responsible for the most eye opening, mind-blowing, political planetary shaking of the past decade. Since 2007 we have been writing on target analysis about Barack Obama only to be rewarded with sneers of “crazy” from the Obama Hopium guzzlers many of whom write for Big Media outlets. Now, thanks to ObamaCare what we wrote that was derided as “crazy, bitter, clingy, dead-ender, rat-f*cking” is now conventional wisdom. Our analysis of Obama is majoritarian opinion. But you knew that… we’ve also written that before.
There is another reason why ObamaCare is deserving of a Time Magazine cover story as the most important news story of the year. In a little noticed article by Carl Cannon ObamaCare is placed in the strategic center of politics it deserves. Cannon’s article lists the many Republicans that denounced ObamaCare. Christie calls ObamaCare “an awful law. Senator Tim Scott slams it as “an absolute failure” with the worst “yet to come”. Senator Ted Cruz pits at it as a “train wreck”. Senator Rand Paul deplores the violation of the Constitution which is ObamaCare. Senator Kelly Ayotte sneers that ObamaCare is “a mess”. Governor Scott Walker plots an escape hatch for Wisconsin residents. Governor Susanna Martinez denounces “the ultimate in social engineering”. Senator John McCain calls for “total repeal”. Carl Cannon notes that this list “pretty much covers the ideological spectrum of the modern Republican Party.”
Cannon’s contribution is not that inventory of what ObamaCare has wrought. It is the strategic landscape Cannon adroitly paints that is so smart. It’s what we will call The Grand Army Of The Republicans:
“Such unity has been a long time in coming. Someday, they should stop and thank Barack Obama. He’s no socialist, but he has helped fill a void that has plagued Republicans since Mikhail Gorbachev arrived on the world stage. [snip]
The Berlin Wall came down, the Iron Curtain went away, the Soviet Union split apart, and America’s longest war came to a close.
Democrats swiftly sought to turn the national conversation to talk of a “peace dividend” and increasing spending on domestic programs. And in the run-up to the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, influential New York Times scribe R.W. “Johnny” Apple wrote a little too gleefully, “The end of the cold war has robbed the president’s party of one of its mightiest swords.”
But the GOP’s problem wasn’t just that the Democrats’ program suddenly seemed more appealing and less risky. It was that the Cold War had knitted together the then-diverse Republican coalition. In the post-World War II Republican Party, two great factions had emerged.”
Bill Clinton was very well aware that with the forced collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics he could run for president by “Putting People First”. The foreign policy barrier to the presidency was no longer operational. With the end of the Cold War it was likely that Americans would turn to domestic issues.
Bill Clinton won the presidency while running against an incumbent Republican president. Bill Clinton then set about to dismember the Republican Party and steal some of their most potent domestic issues. From welfare reform to school uniforms Bill Clinton led the Democratic Party into the mainstream of American life and neither Special Prosecutors sniffing panties nor personal misbehavior well known to the American voters before election time could stop the Big Dawg and his centrist party of, by, and for the people. Simultaneously the Republican Party was in a vortex of disarray as their Cold War unity of factions fell apart:
“The first included economic conservatives—apostles of small government at home and promotion of freedom abroad. Their galvanizing issues were lower taxes, less government regulation, and a muscular U.S. military. The second brought together the social conservatives whose animating issues ranged over two generations from school prayer to abortion to gays in the military and same-sex marriage. They, too, opposed communism, a system that dismissed religion as “the opiate of the masses” and that persecuted believers.
In Ronald Reagan, each side found its champion, the results being landslide victories in 1980 and 1984 and a 1988 Reagan farewell that left the party stronger than it has been in nearly a century.
Today, that advantage has dissipated into a morass of conservative purity tests, Tea Party-fueled protests, government shutdowns, and intramural culture wars. The upshot has been Democratic presidential tickets outpolling Republicans in five of the last six national elections.”
George W. Bush was in many ways an accidental president. His “compassionate conservatism” and family named masked intra-party divisions but did not end them. Bush’s popularity was on the wane during his first summer in office only to spectacularly rise after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center. Bush then depleted the good will Americans had in him with an ill advised war in Iraq which only helped Iran become a renewed power center.
The Iraq War ate Bush from within and by the time of Katrina and the attempts to reform Social Security the Republican Party factions hated each other and cared more about party dominance than party victory. After eight years which ended with a financial debacle and Wall Street bailouts not only were Democrats positioned for victory but Republican factions were ready to kill each other. Indeed, many Republicans secretly or openly wanted Barack Obama to win in 2008 because an Obama victory would force the Republican Party closer to what they wanted it to be not what the other factions wanted the Party to be. Some Republicans/conservatives, such as Peggy Noonan, preferred to attack those of us who warned against Barack Obama in order to ensure an Obama 2008 victory. That was then. ObamaCare is now. ObamaCare brings back Republican Party unity and the Grand Army of the Republicans:
“Obamacare has changed the game, not in the sense of making the GOP brand popular again—there’s still a ways to go on that score—but by reminding Republicans what they have in common.
The Affordable Care Act is a giant, nanny state, one-size-fits-all, top-down government overreach that appalls economic conservatives. Meanwhile, its stringent requirements that employers do such things as provide “free” contraceptive care is an affront to social conservatives, not to mention the Catholic Church. To every Republican, the thing is a parody of liberal excess.
Republicans now know what they are against, as they did in the Cold War.“
ObamaCare reshaped the political strategic landscape. Even at the liberal The Atlantic the issue discussed is The Democratic Party: How It Can Save Itself. Long time Democratic strategist Ted Van Dyk is worried and sees the need to change. Van Dyk foolishly calls Hillary Clinton “the establishment candidate” in 2008 which she was not. Barack Obama was the one that Reid, Pelousy, Daschle, Kennedy, and Kerry secretly anointed. Still Van Dyk makes some clear headed judgements about the disasters to come for what was once a great American political party.
“Democrats need to return to the mindset of their most skillful prior leaders. Those leaders, from the New Deal onward, always began by asking: What are our country’s most pressing needs? Then, what are our proposals to meet those needs? Finally, how can we mobilize majorities in the country and Congress to enact those proposals?
Comprehensive healthcare reform was a worthy priority for the administration. It was undertaken, however, at a time when the country remained financially and economically unstable—and when people of all outlooks were wary about an ambitious remake of a huge part of the economy. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid, or the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, it was formulated and narrowly passed on a one-party basis without public opinion supporting it. If he were to do it over, Obama would no doubt take the Lyndon Johnson/Ted Kennedy approach to healthcare reform and enlist a few Republican leaders and ideas, such as tort reform or selling insurance across state lines.
That mindset does not focus on one-upping Republicans in the next news cycle or gaining an edge for the next election. It focuses on serious governance.
Environmental, cultural, social, and other issues have moved forward on the national agenda since FDR and LBJ laid down New Deal and Great Society policy frameworks for the country. But the Big Two issues—the economy and national security—remain the Big Two, and remain to be addressed.
The first imperative is to provide long-term financial and economic stability to the country. Residual federal debt of $17 to $31 trillion, depending on whether you count off-budget obligations, must be reduced. This is necessary not only to fend off inflation and protect the dollar but also to facilitate ongoing governance. From a liberal or Democratic viewpoint, there can be few public initiatives if an ever-growing share of public resources is gobbled up by debt service.
This will require a bipartisan fix to taxes, spending, and entitlements along the lines proposed by Obama’s Simpson-Bowles commission.”
Van Dyk should not be so diplomatic. Obama Dimocrats will denounce him no matter how soft his words or how mealy mouthed his excuses for Barack Obama are. Van Dyk’s critique, however muted, stings:
“But Obama opted instead to flay Republicans for their supposed hostility to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He clearly did not recognize that, unless dealt with comprehensively and in bipartisan fashion, this issue would remain unresolved. A relatively painless combination of measures, recognized for decades as a solution, would include cost-of-living adjustments; small increases in the ages for Social Security and Medicare eligibility; and lifting the cap on earnings subject to tax withholding. The only thing missing has been the political will to apply the solution now rather than in a later presidential term. The next president will have to do it all over again.
Another part of this challenge—comprehensive tax reform—must also be addressed on a bipartisan basis. [snip]
On the national-security side, Democrats need to reconsider the Wilsonianism that has pervaded their thinking since World War I. Both parties, but Democrats more than Republicans, have wanted “to make the world safe for democracy” with interventions in many places where American vital interests were not at stake. [snip]
Democrats also must reconsider the habit of seeing Americans as senior citizens, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Jews, single mothers, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Y members, secular or religious, higher-educated or not, debtors or savers, union or non-union, wealthy or members of the middle class. These are useful categories for pollsters and campaign consultants as they try to figure out what certain people think and the best way to influence them. But they are a trap for policymakers. [snip]
Wedge politics and tailored political messaging can bring a campaign or even a presidency short-term success. But, for the longer run, most Americans feel they are in it together and badly want bipartisan action to keep the economy stable and growing, to keep the country safe here and abroad, and to keep American society open and fair.”
You don’t have to agree with Van Dyk’s policy prescriptions nor his analysis. But his introspection is brought about because of ObamaCare. Strategists from all parties see what has happened during the Obama years and what will happen in the future to Obama Dimocrats. It ain’t pretty:
“Pundits on the left and right agree: Obamacare will leave a mark on Democrats in the 2014 elections.
When the most hopey-changey of journalists, Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, writes “Change hurts, particularly in health care insurance, and it may well hurt Democrats in 2014,” you know we’re headed for a stormy political year.
There are 33 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2014 — 13 held by Republicans and 20 held by Democrats. The GOP needs a six-seat swing to take control the Senate.
Conventional political wisdom holds that it’s still a long time before these senators face the electorate. The flub of HealthCare.Gov on Oct. 1 was ugly, to be sure, but the website will get fixed. People will forget. The president says the website problems are a mere “bump in the road.”
But Democratic strategists know better. It’s a “bump in the road” on a highway to a massive reconfiguration of health care. That spells disruption, and in politics, disruption is a dangerous thing.
So far, about 5 million people in the individual market have seen their policies canceled. By late summer and early fall of 2014, an estimated 80 million more people will have their employer-based insurance yanked out from underneath them.
This won’t be a “glitch.” This will be Obamacare manifesting itself exactly as Democrats envisioned.”
“When most or all the measures fall simultaneously, it means that something dramatic has happened to undermine the public’s confidence in the president,” Sabato says. “The Obamacare rollout and presidential misleading on keeping your doctor and insurance explain [Obama’s] recent polling fate.”
But not entirely. There’s another factor. Obama is on his own now. He’s flying solo as president. And what the polls reveal, when taken together, is a rising concern that he may not be up to the job.“
“President Obama won re-election with the rock-solid support of what has become known as the “Obama Coalition” — young people, minorities, women, and low-income voters. Without a firm foundation — and high turnout — among those groups, Obama would not be in the White House today.
Now, little more than a year after the president’s re-election, his job approval rating has fallen among all segments of the American electorate. But it has fallen the most among those who did the most to elect him.
For example, according to a new Gallup compilation, Obama’s job approval rating among Hispanic Americans has plunged from 75 percent in December 2012 to 52 percent today — a drop of 23 percentage points, the sharpest decline among any voter group. Among Americans who make less than $24,000 a year, the president’s approval rating has fallen from 64 percent last December to 46 percent today. Among Americans 18 to 29 years of age, it has fallen from 61 percent to 46 percent. Among women, it has fallen from 57 percent to 43 percent.”
The Hopium Guzzlers are waking up from their druggie slumbers. One of them, Micheal Zuckerman, an Obama campaign worker is comically crestfallen in his plea to Barack Obama published in The Atlantic. Bemoaning that ObamaCare has “lost its soul” Zuckerman provides same laughs at his expense but there is at least an acknowledgement, through his tears, that all is not well in Obamaland and there is a fight in the Obama Dimocrat party:
“Voters were already tuning Obama out before the Healthcare.gov woes. Now, with tanking approval ratings, he’s in danger of becoming a lame duck. In this climate, a series of cautious, policy-heavy speeches about the ACA’s benefits is unlikely to break through. [snip]
Third, Obama is the standard-bearer of a party in the midst of a fight over the validity of its philosophical underpinning. (The administration’s Healthcare.gov incompetence has not helped.) With 2014 looming and many of his supporters in retreat (or at least feeling that way), Obama needs to fight the progressive corner. If the country has really come to a point at which a Democratic president won’t defend the basic ideas behind “income redistribution”—something we’ve been doing for over 150 years now—Democrats are soon going to have much bigger problems than a malfunctioning website. Obama’s opponents certainly aren’t shying away from making their own moral claims.”
The philosophical underpinnings of a party that nominated and elected a flim-flam con man are not sturdy. The renown pollster Charlie Cook has done all he can to salvage Barack Obama. Now ObamaCare forces Cook to stop his defense of Obama and issue storm warnings:
“Can Democrats Recover From the Obamacare Catastrophe?
If Republicans don’t flub the coming fiscal debates like they did in the fall, voters will focus squarely on the health care rollout.
Most graphs of polling data show shifts that are very gradual. (Tracking real-time changes in poll results often is about as exciting as watching paint dry.) Recently, however, the HuffPost Pollster website produced a graph of national polling on Congress that showed one of the most dramatic shifts I’ve ever seen in 40 years of involvement in politics. It charts responses to the question of whether voters would like Republicans or Democrats to control the House.”
“In late 2013, the GOP is not only still around, it is ascendant. The magical Obama coalition, thought by many to be composed of mere automatons who would follow the Democratic party wherever it went, is starting to fracture. This is not to say that its members are lining up to re-register as Republicans and subscribe to National Review, of course. But they are expressing dissatisfaction — and, crucially, not just with this president but with the central ideological achievement of his tenure. Obamacare, not time, is dragging the man down. Who would have thought that government policies could lead to political change?“
Stumbling, bumbling, treacherous Obama was sure to make the Republican Party ascendant. And as Jay Cost notes, 2014 is going to likely be a banner year for Republicans. In large part that is because united teams win. ObamaCare united Republicans as a party. Republicans are also forging an alliance against ObamaCare with the American voter.
ObamaCare has exposed Barack Obama as a treacherous boob. For that alone, ObamaCare deserves to be Time Magazine’s 2013 thing of the year. And if events go as we suspect be prepared for Time to award ObamaCare the thing of the year award in 2014 as well.
Don’t invite Barack Obama to your daughter’s wedding. He’ll try to squeeze himself into the wedding dress and push the bride away from his cameras.
Don’t invite Barack Obama to a funeral. He’ll wiggle himself into the coffin to give photographers what he thinks they want – more pictures of him.
Don’t invite Barack Obama to dinner. He’ll strip himself naked, toss the turkey to the floor, lay himself in its place on the bed of arugula while clasping his knees and ordering the servants to baste him. A baked apple in his mouth will be the final sweet incentive for the photographers to snap away.
Our warning will go unheeded as the mourners of South Africa will be forced to issue an invitation to Barack Obama to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela. Indeed, it has already been announced that Barack Obama will insert himself into the funeral of Nelson Mandela – to be followed immediately with another weeks long vacation amongst his many vacations to Hawaii. It’s not like there’s any work to do.
For Barack Obama work is something others do. He just takes the credit and the photographs. Mandela worked. Yes, Mandela was a communist and sometime terrorist who served decades in prison for the struggle he believed in. Barack Obama? No one seems to know where Obama disappeared to when Mandela visited Chicago in 1993. Maybe Obama was with his Uncle Omar preparing new lies about himself and his history, but in either case we can be sure Obama was near a mirror admiring himself.
It’s always about the mirror and self adoration. When Barack heard about the expected passing of Mandela, Obama’s thoughts turned to himself. Nowhere a mention of the American people in Obama’s statement. It was about how Obama felt, what Obama did, where Obama was mentally. No mention however why Obama did not bother to see Mandela when Mandela was in Chicago on a very well publicized tour. Or as Obama would phrase it ‘why Mandela did not get to see Obama see him’ in 1993.
Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, back when that award required extraordinary achievement, died Thursday night. Mandela merited his 1993 Nobel Peace Prize. Mandela also deserves a higher class of funeral invitees than what will be shipped over from the United States. Barack, you’re no Mandela.
In 1993 Nelson Mandela received his Nobel Peace Prize along with the very man who imprisoned him. Mandela worked with his tormentor to bring about a new South Africa and they were both recognized for their hard won achievements. Barack Obama? Obama called Cambridge police “stupid”, declared thug Trayvon Martin to be a reflection of his own gloriousness, and has yet to speak out against the “knockout game” let alone that repugnant elected official who blames the increased population of Jews for the anti-white black youth violence in her neighborhood.
Mandela reconciled a very bitter country. All Obama can offer is race-baiting and division. The best thing Obama can do is probably go on vacation and say nothing or do anything. It’s not like there’s anything to do anyway.
As ObamaCare devours Obama and Obama Dimocrats, Barack Obama figures it’s time to pack up his lantern-jawed wife and skedaddle. Young idiots who once believed Obama are turning on him, Latino idiots who voted for him are disgusted with him, white women idiots who thought he could be trusted are scalded and running from him too. Solution: funerals and vacations.
At the Mandela funeral there will be two corpses. One will be the withered by work and age body of Nelson Mandela. The other corpse will be the walking dead scrawny Barack Obama seeking refuge from the disaster that is ObamaCare. One will rest in a deserved peace for a life well lived. The other will continue to rest, surrounded by mirrors to protect him, from the army of the angry growing daily.
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.
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."