The Vastness Of The Trump Revolution Is Immeasurable

Consider this article the latest in our long running series “Mistake In ’08” or proof that we have been so absolutely brilliant in our long running “Situation Comedy” series of analysis. Herein we discuss the 10 year plan that failed again, the 40 year plan that failed again, the cremation of the Democratic Party, the Clinton coalition renamed the Trump coalition, and assorted disasters inflicted by President-elect Donald J. Trump’s Revolution upon his enemies.

* * * * * *

Archimedes postulated that if he had a lever long enough and firm ground underneath he could move the world. In that spirit we note that if we had a measuring tape that could circumnavigate the political world it would fall short of measuring the immeasurable Trump triumph of 2016.

Those demonstrations and riots against the presidential election which resulted in President-elect Donald J. Trump? Excellent, most excellent. Those demonstrations are the death rattle of the Obamas choking in their own feces.

To try to measure the Obama catastrophe, the Mistake in ’08, we begin with the very premise of the Obama destruction of the Democratic Party in 2008. Recall that Obama and the Obamaroids rejected the FDR coalition and the updates to that coalition implemented by JFK and Bill Clinton. The new Obama coalition was “the coalition of the ascendant” which we declared to be nothing but a cult of personality.

There is no doubt now that we were right about “the coalition of the ascendant” being a “creative class” cult of personality for a tin plated wannabee “transformational” flim-flam man. The proof? The elections of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. In the election years 2008 and 2012 the Obama cult successfully elected their tin plated object of worship. But that cult, that “coalition of the ascendant” was not transferable and in 2009, 2010!!!, 2014!!!, and 2016 without Obama explicitly on the ballot, the cult of the ascendant failed.

Remember what that “coalition of the ascendant” was? We explained it and the disasters for the Democratic Party that would result back in 2008’s Barack Obama’s Situation Comedy. That new coalition for the Democratic Party was blacks, young white liberals, enough Latinos, and the gentry class in the suburbs protected by wealth and class from their foolish choices.

We explained it all in “The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua”:

For years we explained (see, “Mistake In ’08” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII, and the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV) that to build and grow a political party you first gather a core constituency then slowly grow the party by the addition of like-minded individuals and groups which share those interests of the core constituency.

The modern Democratic Party built by Franklin Delano Roosevelt had as a core constituency the white working class. This working class provided the party of FDR with guideposts on policy and guided the party in everything it did. The working class core of the party was white because it reflected the same characteristics as the general population.

Over the years groups were added to the FDR coalition. Senior citizens joined in on the coalition attracted by promises such as “Social Security”. In the 1960s John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Boston Brahmin added black Americans into the Democratic Party fold with some deft politicking (and his father’s vast wealth) which smudged away the racist past of the party. JFK grew the Democratic Party by addition not subtraction.

In 2008, Barack Obama and assorted kooks decided to purposefully destroy the Democratic Party of FDR. Barack Obama and these kooks willfully embraced the idea of the new “coalition of the ascendant”. This “coalition of the ascendant” and their interests – which conflicted with the interests of the FDR coalition – made it necessary to kick out core Democratic Party constituencies such as senior citizens and the white working class.

The Barack Obama coalition slogan was a variation of the race riot 1960s slogan “burn, baby, burn”.

By the time of our last installment of “Mistake In ’08” we fearlessly declared:

What happened in 2008 is not a question of historical interpretation. The “mistake in ’08” is the defining question for 2016.

Now the question[s] has been answered. The Mistake In ’08 is the greatest political miscalculation in American history that led to the destruction of the world’s oldest political party and the ascension of the new Trump Republican Party. That Hillary2016 did not read and absorb the lessons we wrote about, particularly in that last Mistake In ’08 article is why Hillary2016 failed and why Hillary Clinton deserved to lose.

In our first “Mistake In ’08” article we wrote:

The selection of Barack Obama is an historical mistake which will continue to unravel the Dimocratic Party for generations. Only now are honest Democrats beginning to assess the damage done. “Mistake In ’08” is the first installment in a multi-part series which will detail how big a mistake was self-inflicted by Democrats in 2008.

The consequences of that “Mistake In ’08” are many, as we now begin to describe.

* * * * * *

The 10 year plan. In our first “Mistake In ’08” article we discussed “the 10 year plan”:

What was that 10-year plan?

The six letter word is “census”. “The Census is the count of the US population conducted every ten years mandated by the Constitution. Redistricting is the process of drawing political borders to reflect changes in population.” Post-census redistricting was the Democratic 10 year plan which Obama has already effectively destroyed. 10 years of planning gone in a puff of smoke.

The 10 year plan for 2010, as we predicted in 2009, was destroyed by Barack Obama. In 2010 an entire generation of Democrats was beheaded and Republicans won a massive victory. This meant the Republicans would determine the redistricted lines for congressional districts after the 2010 census. The Republicans redistricted and ensured a Republican House of Representatives for the foreseeable future.

The next census will be in 2020 and already we can safely predict more Republican victories and another failure for the Dimocrats 10 year plan.

By the way, did we mention that white millennials voted for Donald J. Trump?:

This comes as evidence mounts that US millennials are more likely to identify as conservative than either Generation Xers or Baby Boomers were at the same age. [snip]

Trump’s level of support amongst white college-educated voters and white female voters was also unexpected.

CNN’s data put the Republican candidate ahead by 10 points among white women (among black women he was 90 points behind). Trump also polled 15 points ahead of Clinton among white male college graduates.

Trump also gained vast margins among white voters without college degrees.

In other words, as we wrote in October of 2015, Donald J. Trump walked away with the winning “Clinton Coalition” which Hillary Clinton stupidly discarded in favor of the Obama kookdom:

As we predicted long before conventional wisdom caught up to us this past weekend – Yes, Donald Trump looks to be the Republican nominee for president in 2016. [snip]

The white working class should have been the bedrock of Hillary2016. The white working class support for Hillary Clinton in 2008 provided grand victories of 40 point margins when Hillary was most wounded. Now Hillary2016 has repeatedly abandoned those voters. [snip]

The bedrock of a winning coalition, the people Barack Obama dismissed in 2008 as “bitter” and clinging to their guns and Bibles, used to be the FDR coalition and the Clinton coalition. No longer. They are now part of the Trump Triumph. Hillary2016 has abandoned them so they have abandoned her. [snip]

In 2008 Hillary Clinton survived and thrived because she marched alongside the white working class. Now, the white working class is marching with Donald J. Trump – towards victory.

The real ascendant are ascendant for Trump. And therein lies the most catastrophic consequences for Barack Obama, the Clintons, Big Media, and the Dimocrats/Democrats.

Remember our argument that the FDR coalition which JFK and Bill Clinton built upon was the winning coalition? There is another aspect of the FDR victories which Democrats have dreamed of recreating. Think of it as a 40 year plan which led to the “Mistake In ’08” and other disasters. James Carville outlined the modest 40 year plan:

Now, no less a pundit than James Carville has stepped into the breach with his new book, 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation, an extended boast that demographic trends, particularly the partisan preferences of young people, will ensure an era of Democratic dominance.

A Democratic majority is emerging,” Carville declares. “This majority will guarantee that the Democrats remain in power for the next forty years.

Carville admitted after the 2010 elections that the 40 years boast would not come to pass. The failures of 2009 and 2010 forced Carville to that admission. But that boast was not the real 40 year plan.

The real 40 year plan was that Democrats had to win in 2008 and thereby replicate the lasting victories of FDR. The Democrats thought if they gifted the nomination in 2008 to Barack Obama great things would happen. It was a “make Democrats great again” plan. The delusion was this: Barack Obama and the coalition of the ascendant would win in 2008 and soon there would be an economic revival such that Democrats would get all the credit. This would lead to 40 years of voters rewarding the Democratic Party with victory just as voters rewarded Democrats for 40 years after FDR – until it all came crashing down with the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.

Of course, Barack Obama bungled the supposed economic recovery. In 2008 Obama inflicted his flim-flam stimulus and the deadly ObamaCare plans on the nation. Both such disasters that by the time they passed the nation revolted and rewarded Republicans.

The failed Obama economy of the first term did not sober up the Dimocrats. This time they were doubly sure of the 40 year plan. The thinking was “well, it didn’t work in 2008 but boy oh boy it will work in 2012 for sure by golly”. Again the notion was that in 2012 Barack Obama would win reelection and that would lead to a massive economic recovery and once again the Democrats would get the credit, as they got the credit for FDR, and that economic revival would lead to 40 years of voter rewards and endless power for Obama Dimocrats.

Now the 40 year plan works in favor of President-elect Donald J. Trump. If, as we suspect, President Donald J. Trump leads the nation to a great economic boom and lives up to “Make America Great Again” it will be President Donald J. Trump and the Republicans who will be rewarded for generations by the voters.

Already we see the road is clear for a massive generations-long Republican victory under the banner of President Donald J. Trump. How? The Dimocrats in 2016 knew they had to, had to, win the Senate. That’s because in 2018 there will be 25 Dimocrats up for reelection, many in Republican states, while only eight Republicans, mostly in red states, will be up for reelection.

So many endangered Dimocrats will make it easy for President Donald J. Trump to force his will on them. We expect Donald J. Trump Republicans will win at least 13 of those Senate seats in 2018 and build a super majority in the Senate that will last a very long time. In the House, the Republicans will redistrict after President Donald J. Trump is reelected and thereby keep their majorities for generations. The Supreme Court appointments by President Donald J. Trump will mean conservative majorities for generations as well.

The Obama controlled Dimocratic Party response to this catastrophic series of easily predictable events? A Muslim left wing loon to run the Obama Dimocrat Party.

The temper tantrum loons in the streets protesting the election of Donald J. Trump and those losers who can’t go to work or take exams because they are so very distraught are on to something. Deep down they realize that they are lost for generations and that Barack Obama is the tin plated calf god that failed. What they don’t realize is that the more they protest the more they help President-elect Donald J. Trump by alienating the American voter. The lessons of the failures of the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter loons are lessons lost on these latest loons and kooks.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has accomplished many great victories already. President Donald J. Trump’s victories are so many, so immeasurable, even he might get tired of winning.

Mistake In ’08, Part IX: Capitulation And The Lessons For Hillary Clinton 2016

The whores admit they’re infected with “the pox”. The last of the Obama hold-outs from 2008 capitulate to our argument. It’s over. Our analysis about 2008 prevails. Their analysis about 2008 has fallen. It’s all over. Hillary Clinton 2016 take note.

John B. Judis, one of the loons who sold the Democratic Party of FDR a turd covered in gold flakes, admits he was wrong:

The Emerging Republican Advantage
The idea of an enduring Democratic majority was a mirage. How the GOP gained an edge in American politics—and why it’s likely to last. [snip]

American parties routinely go through periods of ascendancy, decline, and deadlock. From 1896 to 1930, the Republican Party reigned supreme; from 1932 to 1968, the New Deal Democrats dominated; following a period of deadlock, the Reagan Republicans held sway during the 1980s. After the parties exchanged the White House, Democrats appeared to take command of American politics in 2008. In that election, Obama and the Democrats won not only the White House but also large majorities in the Senate and House, plus a decided edge in governor’s mansions and state legislatures.

At the time, some commentators, including me, hailed the onset of an enduring Democratic majority. And the arguments in defense of this view did seem to be backed by persuasive evidence. Obama and the Democrats appeared to have captured the youngest generation of voters, whereas Republicans were relying disproportionately on an aging coalition. The electorate’s growing ethnic diversity also seemed likely to help the Democrats going forward.

These advantages remain partially in place for Democrats today, but they are being severely undermined by two trends that have emerged in the past few elections—one surprising, the other less so.

Judis is excuse making when he writes that the “trends” he now sees “have emerged in the past few elections”. No. The trends were clear in 2007 in polls and in 2008 in exit polls as well. We saw what Judis refused to see and we wrote about it repeatedly:

For years we explained (see, “Mistake In ’08” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII, and the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV) that to build and grow a political party you first gather a core constituency then slowly grow the party by the addition of like-minded individuals and groups which share those interests of the core constituency.

The modern Democratic Party built by Franklin Delano Roosevelt had as a core constituency the white working class. This working class provided the party of FDR with guideposts on policy and guided the party in everything it did. The working class core of the party was white because it reflected the same characteristics as the general population.

Over the years groups were added to the FDR coalition. Senior citizens joined in on the coalition attracted by promises such as “Social Security”. In the 1960s John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Boston Brahmin added black Americans into the Democratic Party fold with some deft politicking (and his father’s vast wealth) which smudged away the racist past of the party. JFK grew the Democratic Party by addition not subtraction.

In 2008, Barack Obama and assorted kooks decided to purposefully destroy the Democratic Party of FDR. Barack Obama and these kooks willfully embraced the idea of the new “coalition of the ascendant”. This “coalition of the ascendant” and their interests – which conflicted with the interests of the FDR coalition – made it necessary to kick out core Democratic Party constituencies such as senior citizens and the white working class.

The Barack Obama coalition slogan was a variation of the race riot 1960s slogan “burn, baby, burn”.

If Hillary Clinton 2016 comes into existence this July or later, the campaign strategy better consider our arguments and the ones that John Judis concedes he did not foresee. What happened in 2008 is not a question of historical interpretation. The “mistake in ’08” is the defining question for 2016.

In our last “Mistake in ’08” article we noted how Ruy Teixiera raised the white flag of surrender as he tried to rewrite his history and pretended he always understood the importance of the white working class vote. Now it is John Judis who pretends that he kinda sorta always believed in the importance of the white working class vote:

The less surprising trend is that Democrats have continued to hemorrhage support among white working-class voters—a group that generally works in blue-collar and lower-income service jobs and that is roughly identifiable in exit polls as those whites who have not graduated from a four-year college. These voters, and particularly those well above the poverty line, began to shift toward the GOP decades ago, but in recent years that shift has become progressively more pronounced. [snip]

To win elections, Democrats have still needed between 36 and 40 percent nationally of the white working-class vote—which, in practice, meant totals in the twenties or even the teens in the South, and near-majorities in many Northern and Western states. At one time, unions had provided a link between many of these voters and the Democratic Party.

Judis and others have finally caught on that yeah, the white working class vote matters:

Southern Democrats Should Just Forget About 2016
In Arkansas and West Virginia, Dems don’t see a comeback without at least an extra two years of distance from Obama. [snip]

Think President Obama hurt Democrats in 2014? It’s not over yet.

While many of the party’s strategists are banking on 2016 as a comeback year, in the South, the party’s congressional contenders can’t envision a rebound before at least 2018.

In fact, Democratic strategists think an extra two years of distance will be the minimum needed to separate their candidates from Obama’s record. That’s especially true in West Virginia and Arkansas, states where the local Democratic brand had stubbornly endured until last year’s Republican sweep.

“The farther he gets off the stage, the better,” said Arkansas Democratic strategist Robert McLarty. [snip]

Republicans will beat up any Democrat that runs by saying they’re a continuation of Obama’s anti-jobs, anti-coal policy,” said one West Virginia Democratic operative who has worked on multiple congressional races in the state. “In 2018, we’d be able to put it back into the D category, but next year will be another tough election.”

The party’s mood is similarly bleak in Arkansas.

“You don’t go from a complete shellacking one cycle to thinking you could take back congressional seats the next,” conceded Michael Cook, an Arkansas Democratic strategist.

This is likely the case even with Hillary Clinton sitting atop the ticket. While many Democrats argue that the former secretary of State and senator from New York could draw back to the party some of the Southern and blue-collar white voters who supported her husband’s presidential run, strategists on both sides acknowledge that the politics of the South have since changed.

“That’s the last hope Democrats in the state are clinging to,” said Conrad Lucas, chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party. “But the West Virginia of 2016 is not the West Virginia of 1992.”

And in Arkansas, more USA Today/Suffolk University poll respondents had negative views about Clinton than positive ones, and others are pessimistic that Clinton could compete in her onetime home state, much less win it.

“The landscape for Democrats in Arkansas does not look promising,” said Skip Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public Service and a veteran of Arkansas politics. “Barring any major developments, it’s going to be a very steep climb.”

It is going to be an impossible climb if Hillary Clinton 2016 is seen in any way as tied to Obama or Obama policies. Half-assed arguments of “stay the course’ but with “changes” will be too cute and will throttle Hillary Clinton 2016. And it gets worse, as John Judis just jived:

The more surprising trend is that Republicans are gaining dramatically among a group that had tilted toward Democrats in 2006 and 2008: Call them middle-class Americans. These are voters who generally work in what economist Stephen Rose has called “the office economy.” In exit polling, they can roughly be identified as those who have college—but not postgraduate—degrees and those whose household incomes are between $50,000 and $100,000. (Obviously, the overlap here is imperfect, but there is a broad congruence between these polling categories.)

The defection of these voters—who, unlike the white working class, are a growing part of the electorate—is genuinely bad news for Democrats, and very good news indeed for Republicans. The question, of course, is whether it is going to continue. It’s tough to say for sure, but I think there is a case to be made that it will.

Yeah, the middle class. So Obama has finished off any chance of a white working class return to the party of FDR and now Obama will make sure that with his plans to target the middle class it will be “good-bye middle class” in 2016. Wanna get tied to this loser in 2016??? Obama started his overtures to the middle class this year with a call for new taxes on college education plans which were so mocked that Obama had to immediately withdraw the tax. What a way to charm the middle class!

Remember all the promises Teixiera and Judis along with other Obama supporters made in 2008 about “demographic destiny” and Obama as the new Messiah that would bestride the political world like a colossus for decades? Uh, that “future” faded fast:

From the 2008 to the 2012 presidential elections, Democrats maintained their core coalition—the Hispanic vote for Obama even went up 4 percentage points in 2012—but their support among both white working-class and middle-class voters began to shrink. After getting 40 percent of the white working-class vote in 2008, Obama got only 36 percent in 2012. And after winning college-but-not-postgrad voters and middle-income voters in 2008, he lost both groups to Mitt Romney, by 51 percent to 47 percent and 52 percent to 46 percent, respectively.

The drop in midterm House races was even more precipitous. Democrats slid from 44 percent of the white working-class vote nationally in 2006 to only 34 percent in 2014, and from a 49-percent-49-percent split among college-educated voters in 2006 to a 54-percent-44-percent loss among these voters in 2014. They also dropped from a 50-percent-48-percent advantage among middle-income voters in 2006 to a 54-percent-44-percent deficit in 2014. [snip]

Overall, Democrats have continued to get a lower percentage of the vote among white working-class voters than among middle-class voters. But during the Obama years, middle-class voters have moved away from the Democrats at a comparable—and, in a few instances, such as the Senate race in Colorado, a higher—rate than white working-class voters.

Obama, as his own henchmen boast is not really a party building type:

But Team Obama has long believed that the president’s support is built upon the bedrock of his personal qualities rather than mere party identification. [snip]

But a senior Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama operation noted that, among the millions of names and emails on the famous lists, there were many people whose primary loyalty was to Barack Obama rather than to the Democratic Party.

We always said it was a cult. The cult of not very well informed young people voted in 2008 and 2012 for Obama in the same way that blacks voted for skin color not character. Obama received meaningless victories personally but the party he headed withered. The party Obama heads will continue to wither. Any fruit on the Obama vine will wither and die. And that is what is happening now and will continue to happen in 2016 for anyone who is seen as in any way an Obama ally or tied to Obama policies:

And while the white working-class vote has steadily shrunk as a percentage of the electorate, middle-class voters—as defined by education and income—have grown. In the 1980 presidential election, the white working class made up about 65 percent of the electorate; by 1988, it was 54 percent; by the 2008 election, it was just 39 percent. Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin estimate that by 2020, it’ll be 30 percent of the electorate. On the other hand, voters with college degrees but not postgraduate degrees went from 26 percent of the electorate in 2004, to 29 percent in 2012, to 31 percent in the last election. And according to census estimates, turnout among middle-class voters is 10 percentage points or more higher than among working-class voters. So middle-class voters are a force to be reckoned with.

The core swing voters within the middle class are whites, who make up 70 to 75 percent of this group; but the voting patterns of minorities in this income bracket don’t necessarily mirror the overall minority vote.

That’s a too cute way of saying that the middle class votes and is growing in votes and that minorities in the middle class vote like whites in the middle class. Judis also notes that young millennial voters will not “mitigate any losses” and save the party of Obama because they too now resemble the “electorate at large—pessimistic, untrusting, lacking confidence in government.”

The middle class writes Judis, is returning to its roots:

TO MAKE AN educated guess about whether these trends will continue, it helps to look at how the white working class and middle class have behaved historically. [snip]

For their part, middle-class voters have long been mistrustful of government. [snip]

Before the Great Depression, middle-class voters had been a stalwart Republican constituency, and they moved back toward the Republican fold after World War II. They supported Reagan in 1980 in the wake of Carter-era stagflation and the tax revolt that began in California in 1978. Reacting to the 1991 recession, a plurality narrowly favored Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but they began drifting to the Republicans in 2000 and favored Bush by 58 percent to 42 percent in 2004. In 2008, in the wake of the Iraq War and the Great Recession, they supported Obama; but in 2010—angry about Obama’s stimulus program and believing that the Affordable Care Act had cost too much without truly benefiting them—they once again began returning to the Republican camp.

Middle-class voters tend, on average, to be more socially liberal than white working-class voters, and they have punished Republicans for taking harshly conservative stands on social issues. [snip]

Yet while middle-class voters are generally socially liberal, they oppose candidates on this basis only when those candidates take extreme positions. And so, when Republican politicians have soft-pedaled their views on abortion or guns or immigration, middle-class voters have largely ignored these issues in deciding whom to back—reverting to their natural tendency to focus on topics like taxes, spending, and the size of government. [snip]

Middle-class voters also tend to be less populist than white working-class voters when it comes to blaming Wall Street and the wealthy for the economy’s ills. [snip]

Many of them work for businesses where their own success is bound up with the company’s bottom line. That makes them less susceptible than white working-class voters or professionals to Democratic taunts about the “1 percent.” [snip]

On the whole, the white working class and the middle class—animated by their distrust of government spending and taxes—have moved toward the Republicans in recent years, in the absence of some other issue (such as war or economic catastrophe or social extremism) temporarily taking precedence. And the two groups have done so largely in tandem.

These are chilling numbers for anyone who runs in 2016 perceived in any way to support Obama or Obama policies. Citing his wife and a fellow writer Judis provides anecdotal evidence of why the middle class is aghast at Obama and Obama policies “it appears that the election hinged on taxes and the size of government—the questions to which middle-class voters so often seem to return.”

Um, it gets worse. Judis interviews voters who voted for Obama but who recently voted for um, Republicans, in Maryland:

They are not driven by any racial animus. They are socially liberal, and would probably not vote for a Republican who was openly allied with the Religious Right, but they were willing to support an antiabortion Republican who didn’t make a fuss about the issue. They are not unbendingly opposed to government, like some libertarians or tea-party activists; but they are worried about overspending and taxes.

In a speech after the election, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York advised Democrats to “embrace government” to “get the middle class going again.” But if Democrats take this advice, which has some appeal within policy circles, they could continue to drive middle-class voters like Jerry, Connie, and James away.

Read that Hillary Clinton 2016. Crackpot DailyKook propaganda of “demographic destiny” and generations of Republican losses have been crushed. As labor unions weaken, and the middle class drifts away along with the white working class, Hillary Clinton 2016 has lessons to learn:

The White House understands that Democrats have a problem with white working-class and middle-class voters and is now calling for a “middle-class tax cut” aimed squarely at them. Yet the Democratic nominee in 2016 will still have to shoulder the size-of-government and who-benefits-from-tax-dollars grievances created by Obama’s initial spending programs and by the Affordable Care Act. [snip]

After the 2008 election, I thought Obama could create an enduring Democratic majority by responding aggressively to the Great Recession in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt had responded in 1933 to the Great Depression. Obama, I believed, would finally bury the Reagan Republican majority of 1980 and inaugurate a new period of Democratic domination.

In retrospect, that analogy was clearly flawed.

Our take on Obama and FDR was not flawed. We were correct in our reading. We were correct in our prescriptions. Hillary Clinton 2016 take note of the Mistake in ’08 and don’t repeat them or get tied to them in 2016.

Ebola Obama Corpse – The Autopsy

Update: At the end of our article we note that the GOP has some chips to play in the identity politics game. Others have noticed:



GOP wins with Democratic demographic playbook by ewillies

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart and Jessica Williams points out a rather interesting irony on the huge Republican win this week. On the more popular races, the Republican Party looked as diverse and fresh as the Democratic Party. Actually, it seemed quite a bit fresher. [snip]

“Jon, Republicans didn’t just take Democrats’ seat,” Jessica Williams said. “They stole their essence. The GOP went from a Brooks Brothers catalog to a United Colors of Benetton ad. [snip]

Jessica Williams then enumerated the list of ironies. “But sorry Democrats,” Williams said. “Utah just elected a young black congresswoman. Conservative Arkansas passed a minimum wage increase. What the f$ck kind of bizarro world is this Jon?” [snip]

This skit is funny. It is worth looking at the deeper message within and what it means for both parties.

Identity politics – the new GOP wildcard? Meanwhile, in the aftermath of Obama Dimocrats’ beheading, Obama golfs like an entitled Enron executive.

——————————————————–

Bathe in gasoline and light a match. Do you really need an autopsy to determine cause of death? Stand in a pile of nuclear waste. Is it difficult to determine cause of death? Lick the juices oozing from an Ebola Obama. You don’t need a medical examiner to tell you what mistake you made.

Obama Dimocrats are about to spend some of their borrowed cash for an autopsy of 2014. We’ll save them that deficit expenditure. We performed the Democratic Party autopsy back in 2008. The autopsy was in our series “Mistake In ’08” (which will likely have a new installment after Veterans’ Day). It’s all there in Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII.

There’s also our series on the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” coalition of death which explains it all. Read it Debbie and save yourself some money: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.

Vito Corleone did not need an autopsy report to figure out what killed Sonny.



Can’t you figure out what killed Luca?



Do you really need an autopsy for cause of death?

Ebola Obama. No autopsy required but a fake autopsy to shift the blame will do nicely:

DNC chief: We have a problem

The Democratic National Committee is planning a “top-to-bottom assessment” of its campaign strategy after suffering worse-than-expected defeats in last week’s midterm elections.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), who leads the group, announced Saturday that a committee will examine the party’s performance in the 2014 and 2010 elections.

“We are going to look at where we fell short. We’re going to identify our mistakes,” she said in a video that was sent to party supporters.

Our party has a problem,” she added.

The committee will specifically look at messaging, get-out-the-vote efforts and digital operations. It will form in the next few weeks and present a report at the organization’s winter meeting in early 2015. [snip]

“I’m not going to gloss over the facts: On Tuesday, the Republicans had a good night. We didn’t. We worked hard for months, we even won a few tough races, but it wasn’t enough,” she said.

In addition to losing control of the Senate this week, the Democratic party has lost 69 seats since Obama took office.

The problem is Barack Obama. The mistake is the Mistake in ’08. ‘Nuff said.



It will all be Obama excuses and phony explanations to avoid the obvious. The Obama Dimocrat “autopsy” will be a fake. Once again the blame will be shifted to “messaging”. The problem will be identified as “digital”. It’s all a fake. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” You don’t need an autopsy to know that Ebola Obama kills.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7w4Ak-1pKE

After 2012 the Republican Party held an inquest and autopsy too. The geniuses of the GOP came up with two conclusions. One of those conclusions was smart. One of those conclusions was stupid.

The smart conclusion, or rather the obvious conclusion was that the Republican Party had great need to catch up with the technology of elections. A modern campaign must utilize all modern technology and not go to sleep after an election. They spent money to come up with that brilliant conclusion. Mitt Romney’s ORCA system fell completely apart on election day so yeah, um, the GOP technology did fall short beyond a doubt so they spent money to uncover the obvious.

The stupid conclusion was on comprehensive immigration reform. This is another way for the “leaders” of the party to say “we have to pass amnesty on illegal immigration because that is what our Chamber of Commerce moneybags want to keep wages low”.

Fortunately for the GOP the rank and file as well as some leaders, like Ted Cruz, realized that amnesty was not a solution but a deadly draught. Amnesty, comprehensive immigration reform, was not the solution. In 2014 Republicans did much better with Latinos in part because they began to talk honestly about illegal immigration and their legitimate reasons to oppose amnesty.

In Texas Greg Abbott won 40% of the Latino vote. Part of his unique ability to garner Latino support came from the fact his mother-in-law is Latina. But the reason that fact was a benefit was because Abbott made sure the electorate knew he was not a Latino hater even if he opposed illegal immigration amnesty and supported border security.



Identity politics. Yup. Bill Clinton has warned against identity politics:

“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity.”

We’ve seen the bitter fruit of identity politics in the Barack Obama harvest. But if Obama Dimocrats are gonna play that card, the GOP had to learn to play the game too. And they did in 2014. With Tim Scott, Mia Love, Susanna Martinez, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Allan West, Brian Sandoval, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, George P. Bush, Columbia Bush, Joni Ernst, and Ben Carson, identity politics can cut both ways especially if Republicans continue to expand their minority gains as well as continue to gain with their already large support base among the white working class. The GOP has a lot of identity politics chips to play with in this scurrilous game.

What will be the biggest lie to come from the Obama Dimocrat autopsy? Willie Brown who thought Obama Dimocrats would win in November 2014 writes the plan for 2016:

Veteran California politician Willie Brown has warned this weekend that presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “is going to lose” in 2016 “[u]nless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation.” [snip]

“Everybody keeps asking me, “Why did this happen?’” Brown wrote. “Beats me. When it came to the elections, I was a dreamer who thought the Democrats were going to retain the Senate. Instead, we got walloped.”

Brown suggested that Democrats erred by running away from President Barack Obama, “which simply played into the Republicans’ strategy of portraying him as a failure.” The party also failed to turn out young voters, he said.

Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose,” Brown concluded.

Last year, Brown had predicted Clinton would win easily in 2016: “..[A]ll she has to do is continue to breath[e] and in 2016 she’ll be elected to the presidency of the United States,” he said.

In fairness, Brown appears to be saying that Hillary Clinton 2016 will fail unless the apparatus of vote turnout improves. But the suggestion that anyone should get closer to Ebola Obama is malarkey. On every issue he cites as reasons why Obama is popular, the polls state that the public as a whole is opposed to Obama’s policies – which were on the ballot in 2014 – every single one.

Anyone who suggests Hillary Clinton should stick by Ebola Obama is no friend to Hillary Clinton 2016. Hillary should not be a human shield for Barack Obama as so many Barack Obama supporters advocate.

Harry Reid who helped gift Barack Obama the nomination in the great “Mistake in ’08” is angry with Obama and blames Obama for the fact that he will now be a has-been in the Senate. Even bumblin’ Joe Biden has reason to be pissed off at his once savior and that’s not due to too much guzzlin’ liquor. If you think Reid and Biden are grinding their teeth, picture the Obama Dimocrats decimated in state and local elections.

If Hillary Clinton is anywhere near Barack Obama in 2016 we won’t need an autopsy to determine cause of death. Cause of death will be Ebola Obama.

The contagion of Ebola Obama will continue to kill in 2016 as in 2014. The solution is total cremation of Ebola Obama and the Ebola Obama Dimocrats. That’s the path to a healthy future.

ObamaCare Chess: Supreme Court Moves To Checkmate King

It’s political warfare on a Constitutional chessboard. On Friday the Supreme Court announced it would review the King decision. Checkmate.

The Supreme Court did not wait until Monday as it would ordinarily do to crush Barack Obama. Unlike most others, we are not surprised at all. For us, there is no Shock: Supreme Court will decide whether federal consumers are eligible for ObamaCare subsidies.

It is as we have foreseen – on the very day of the Halbig and King decisions:

We wrote about Halbig HERE. It’s a big, big, big, decision which almost surely forces an an Obama appeal to a full panel of the appellate court. Obama will win that fight because he packed the court when Harry Reid ended the Senate filibusters on judges to courts other than the Supreme Court. But then the case will go to the Supreme Court and we’re walking on the sunny side of the street and believe the Supreme Court will ratify today’s three judge panel decision. [snip]

Here’s a complication: There is another case on the same issues in the Fourth Circuit. It is likely the Fourth Circuit appeals court will rule in favor of ObamaCare. The losers in that case will then be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they so choose and force the issue faster than anyone expects but still after the November 2014 elections.

How’s that for bloody good analysis? Almost immediately after we wrote that, the Fourth Circuit did exactly as we predicted. We then wrote an update to take into account the latest decision:

Update II: Well that was quick. Two hours after the Halbig decision the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on ObamaCare. As predicted below, the Fourth Circuit upheld ObamaCare’s subsidy scheme as twisted into existence by Obama. This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review.

More importantly, the plaintiffs that lost in the Fourth Circuit now can immediately appeal to the Supreme Court and not bother with an appeal to the full panel of the Fourth Circuit.

Feel free to point out any small diddly thingamajig in which we were wrong ObamaCare supporters. Go ahead. We dare you. We double dare ya!

Our mockery of the Fourth Circuit decision added tickles when ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber’s videotaped statements emerged from a rathold. Gruber made it clear that ObamaCare subsidies were intended only for state exchanges.

Our brilliant, genius, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, analysis hit full flower soon thereafter:

We predicted that Gruber’s comments will be, either through judicial notice or part of the record, introduced by ObamaCare opponents into the judicial record.

We have been proven correct. Plaintiffs in an Oklahoma ObamaCare case have moved to supplement the record with Jonathan Gruber’s helpful comments and history. For our non-regular readers, here is a video hilarity of Gruber’s helpful comments for ObamaCare opponents:



Some would call it genius. We’ll be modest and just blush. Some of what we wrote was mundane:

Our Gruber prediction was not very daring. It was obvious.

But when others clutched their pearls at the swift Fourth Circuit decision on the same day as HalBIG we stayed fixed to the north star and well… we were brilliant in our analysis:

Less obvious at the time to all but us here at Big Pink was the good fortune of that Fourth Circuit pro-ObamaCare decision that came in two hours after the D.C. Circuit cut the guts out of ObamaCare. Our prediction? We predicted that the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs would race to the Supreme Court and skip the en banc stopover. Result? We are right again.

The Fourth Circuit plaintiffs could have asked the full panel of the Fourth Circuit to take up the case and therefore tie themselves down alongside the ObamaCare plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit where the ObamaCare scam artists ask the full en banc court panel to take up the case. ObamaCare lawyers, it was widely presumed, would appeal their loss in D.C. to the full en banc panel which is packed with Obama appointed judges after Harry Reid destroyed the Senate and its filibuster rules. The likelihood was (although this was before Jonathan Gruber’s comments came to light) that the full D.C. panel would uphold ObamaCare and thereby end the “split” decisions in the circuits making it less likely that the Supreme Court would take up the ObamaCare HalBIG cases.

But we suspected and predicted that the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs would skip the full panel in the Fourth Circuit and instead go directly to the Supreme Court. This they did and we go to the head of the class.

Oh dear, we’re on the verge of being immodest. What will mater and pater say? But damn it to blazes, we were right and so right that old articles we wrote are as daisies fresh sprung from the soil:

On Friday, August 1, pro-ObamaCare lawyers, as predicted by most, filed their appeal for an en banc hearing before the entire D.C. Circuit panel. On July 31, however, the plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit made their move. The “losers” in the Fourth Circuit beat the D.C. “winners” to the Supreme Court.

The writ to the Supreme Court by the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs cites their new pal “architect” Jonathan Gruber: [snip]

As we predicted the timing was the interesting aspect:

Under the court’s rules, lawyers who lose in an appeals court have 90 days to seek a review in the Supreme Court. And normally, lawyers take the full time. But in this instance, the opponents of the Affordable Care Act want the court’s conservative justices to have a chance to take up the new healthcare case in a few months so they can rule by next spring.

The Obama administration has the opposite strategy on timing. The Justice Department said it planned to ask the full appeals court in the District of Columbia to reconsider last week’s ruling by a three-judge panel. If so, that could delay a final ruling from the appeals court until next year and push off a Supreme Court decision to 2016.

By then, millions of Americans will have relied for several years on having health insurance they could afford thanks to the subsidies. A single adult with an income up to $45,960 and a family of four with an income up $94,200 may obtain insurance on an exchange at a reduced cost.

Did we ever tell you we are great at chess? Since childhood. Great at chess. And ObamaCare is a great chess game. Like Deep Blue we here at Big Pink knew how the chess pieces would move before the players knew what they would do. We wrote it is one giant political chess game on ObamaCare and that was the reason the Supreme Court would checkmate King:

We’ll address the issue of hooking Americans to ObamaCare subsidies as a political strategy below. We’ve already addressed why this line of HalBIG cases can be successful politically for the courts and that the Supreme Court will see that these ObamaCare cases are best settled outside the 2016 (and 2014) election window. Obama of course wants to attack the Supreme Court in an election year just like he so successfully used that timing to his advantage in 2012.

The Writ Of Certiorari filed so quickly, not waiting 90 days, comports with the strategy we have espoused of avoiding as much as possible an election year fight which will fill Chief Justice Roberts with angst. A non-election year ruling right after the November 2014 elections but well before 2016 is just what Roberts needs to calm his nerves.

It’s all come to pass. The Supreme Court waited to read the election returns. Now the Supreme Court will move against ObamaCare before the 2016 election and safely after the 2014 elections. ObamaCare has been hit by an electoral truck and is off to the Sarah Palin death panel.

If you doubt ObamaCare is about to die read the analysis of the Greg Sargent analysis. It’s a hoot. Obama high-priest and ObamaCare scorched earth defender Sargent unwittingly wrote the Supreme Court decision against ObamaCare even as he thought he wrote a brilliant defense for ObamaCare! Hilarius. Sargent and Gruber will eventually be seen as the ObamaCare supporters that buried ObamaCare.

ObamaCare supporter Timothy Jost is soiling his briefs with accusations that the Supreme Court is making political, not legal judgements. But the ones playing bad political chess are Harry Reid and Barack Obama with their court packing maneuvers. Chief Justice John Roberts will have to negate the Reid/Obama court packing schemes if he wants to preserve the integrity of the Judicial Branch.

The pearl clutching dummies will see a Supreme Court checkmate of ObamaCare as great for Barack Obama because it will give him an issue on which to fight. But that is a non starter. ObamaCare is hated just about everywhere. If anything a Supreme Court checkmate which destroys ObamaCare will strengthen the newborn Republican congress. Obama will have to crawl to Republicans for help to rescue his “legacy” disaster. Republicans will prove to not be in a giving vein.

ObamaCare, Ebola, they are all dancers in the Masque of the Red Death hosted by Ebola Obama.

Ebola Obama, this wretched creature who believes he is a black king is about to be checkmated by the Supreme Court. The knights, bishops, rooks, Queen, pawns, and the opposing White King will do Obama in. The name of the White King in this game of chess?

The White King is called the Constitution.

Horsesh*t And Fairy Tales: ‘Obama’s Coalition Of The Kicking And Screaming’

George W. Bush inadvisedly but successfully mustered a “coalition of the willing” at home and abroad to destroy Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Barack Obama’s uncertain kazoo call is scaring a “coalition of the kicking and screaming” abroad. In the United States the corrupt left that elected and reelected Barack Obama is also disintegrating into a “coalition of the kicking and screaming”.

Like faded “Hope and Change” posters advertising a long defunct circus Barack Obama is a tattered personality and politician even to his frat-house fan-boy liberal white base. These liberal left “creative class” loons stand aghast as they witness Messiah Obama – in of all places Iraq – wage war as a “unitary executive”. The “creative class” and the “coalition of the ascendant” are now the “coalition of the kicking and screaming” as they are dragged down to their fates by Barack Obama.

The Fairy Tale:

In 2008 Bill Clinton was denounced by Obama race-baiters as “racist” for saying that Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq was the biggest “fairy tale” he ever heard. Dat no gud debil Bill Clinton was immediately called a “racist” by race-baiting creeps like Jim Clyburn as well as the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur Ted Kennedy. But now Obama’s “coalition of the kicking and screaming” witness for themselves what Bill Clinton meant.

Bill Clinton with his “fairy tale” comment, as Andrew Breitbart later noted, referred solely to Obama’s position on the Iraq war and nothing else. But race-baiters such as Bob Herbert of the New York Times distorted the remark and race-baited Bill Clinton. Breitbart explained the role of Herbert and other pro-Obama race-baiters in this ugly episode:

I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama’s main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify, rather than further polarize, the country.

So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.

But – it wasn’t true. Watch Bill Clinton’s entire remarks and it’s 100% clear as to what he’s referring to as “the biggest fairy tale” and it’s not Obama’s candidacy. Nor is it the notion, as Herbert claims, that “a campaign based on hope and healing could unify.” No, the “fairy tale” is the idea that Obama was consistently opposed to the war in Iraq. Clinton points out speeches that Obama made and votes he cast as a Senator. His comments strike me as neither bizarre nor rambling, as the Times had claimed.

No matter. When Hillary Clinton appeared on Meet the Press just prior to the South Carolina primary, the late Tim Russert led with the race card attack against Clinton, including the quote from Herbert’s New York Times piece. Russert even plays a selectively edited clip of Clinton’s comments, where he cuts out every single part of what Clinton says leaving only ‘this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Russert follows this butchered video clip with the quote from South Carolina Senator and Congressional Black Caucus member James Clyburn that had also appeared in the Times; “To call that dream a fairytale, which Bill Clinton seem to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us.” Hillary Clinton tries to point out that Russert is not playing the entire clip, but he shuts her down and plays a quote from Donna Brazil expressing disappointment in Bill Clinton and his “tone.” Russert continues to filibuster relentlessly for a couple of minutes, quoting the New York Times.”

Bill Clinton should have included Obama’s entire preposterous candidacy as a “fairy tale” back in 2008 as we did. It’s taken this long but most Americans now agree with us about the repellant and divisive Obama:

The most troubling number for President Obama in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll is this one: Americans say 55 percent to 38 percent that he is more of a divider than a uniter.

That’s a reversal from last year, when Americans said 47-45 that Obama had done more to unite the country than divide it.

Of course, Obama also has become significantly more unpopular over that span, so it’s not surprising to see his “uniter” rating drop (and in fact, both numbers have dropped equally over the past 16 months). But the uniter/divider number stings more than most other measures of Obama’s leadership.

Why? Because this was the thing that put Obama on the map.

The Obama fairy tale about “uniter not divider” is in the trash along with his “composite character” autobiographical garbage books. The fairy tale of Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war was used to sell Obama to the gullible low information and leftist dreamers is also in the trash as Obama prepares the Obama War In Iraq.

The Domestic Coalition Of The Kicking And Screaming:

The left? Those loons and totalitarians are shocked and awed into silence by their own hypocrisies:

But it still is a war, isn’t it, Mr. Secretary Kerry?

“I think that’s the wrong terminology,” he sniffed yesterday. “What we are engaging in is a very significant counterterrorism operation.”

Does that make it … a police action? Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it?

It’s all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing … crickets.

Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?

Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?

To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: “Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?”

Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven’t seen an “EndLESS War” bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.

The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counter­terrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.

Maybe the left is silent because they are low information idiots? Consider them informed by this op-ed in the Obama love machine called the New York Times:

Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution

PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written. [snip]

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

Since ISIS poses a new problem for the president, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires him to seek a new mandate from Congress. [snip]

But for now the president seems grimly determined to practice what Mr. Bush’s lawyers only preached. He is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war.

In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.

It’s the worst of George W. Bush without the better qualities of George W. Bush:


Obama Will Fight ISIS With George W. Bush’s Legal Theories

John Yoo: “Obama has adopted the same view of war powers as the Bush administration.” [snip]

Among those doubters is Obama himself, or at least the pre-presidential version.

In late 2007, as part of a candidate Q&A, Obama told Charlie Savage, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” And as Obama made clear in his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, this is not the case in Iraq or Syria. “I want everybody to understand that we have not seen any immediate intelligence about threats to the homeland from ISIL. That’s not what this is about.”

This is about prevention and preemption, exactly the sort of thing that candidate Obama said presidents were not authorized to do without congressional approval. [snip]

Instead, whether out of expediency or outlook, he appears to have altered his views on constitutional power, and in doing so found himself relying on the same theories he once criticized. [snip]

“What is remarkable,” Yoo told BuzzFeed News, “is not that Obama eventually had to exercise the powers of his predecessors to protect American national security, but that his party in Congress, and his allies in the media and the universities, have remained so silent about it.”

It’s the silence of the lambs from what used to be wolves howling against the “unitary executive”. The left will pay for its hypocritical opportunism soon enough as even some of the juice vox boys are beginning to wail:

How Barack Obama is expanding presidential power — and what it means for the future [snip]]

Speaker John Boehner chided the Democrats: “Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change?” [snip]

“I taught constitutional law for 10 years,” Obama said in March 2008. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.

But interviews with academic, legal, and policy experts make clear Obama has done little to roll back Bush’s expansion of executive power — and that, instead, he’s added a few innovations of his own. [snip]

Many of Obama’s own controversial contributions cluster around one main theme: waiving, modifying, or refusing to enforce key provisions in laws dealing with domestic policy. And as he weighs a new executive action on immigration, he seems set to go further yet. In doing so, he’ll set new precedents that future presidents can cite for even more expansive action. [snip]

The problem for liberals is that there are many laws out there that conservative presidents dearly wish weren’t enforced. Indeed, the precedents Obama is setting “probably benefit conservative presidents who want to stop regulations and have a smaller agenda, to the extent it helps them gain control of the wider executive branch,” says Rudalevige, the Bowdoin professor.

So future Republican presidents will inevitably cite the new precedents Obama is setting to justify actions of their own. “I think Democrats are going to rue the day they did not push back against Obama on these things,” says Sollenberger, the University of Michigan professor. “Just as Republicans regretted the same thing when they didn’t push back against Bush.”

The response to all these warnings from the Obama left? One picture [HERE] tells the story.

The Horsesh*t:

The “horsesh*t” from Mr. Bullsh*t:

Hillary Clinton and congressmen alike have called on Obama to arm Syria’s rebels. But the president fumed at lawmakers in a private meeting for suggesting he should’ve done more.

President Obama got angry at lawmakers who suggested in a private meeting that he should have armed the Syrian rebels, calling the criticism “horseshit.” [snip]

Top Democratic lawmakers agreed with Corker and Clinton that doing more to support the moderate rebels would have at least had a chance of averting or mitigating the current crisis, which has now spread to large parts of Iraq as ISIS expands its newly declared Caliphate.

We may never know for sure if ISIS’s decisions were encouraged by Obama’s choices in Syria. What we know for sure is that ISIS metastasized in Syria and was not deterred because of anything Obama said or did so far.” [snip]

In a New York Times interview published Aug. 8, Obama said that the idea arming the rebels would have made a difference had “always been a fantasy.”

“This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards,” Obama said.

Clinton told The Atlantic in an interview published Aug. 10 that Obama’s “failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”

In 2012, Clinton revealed that she and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had pushed a plan earlier that year to arm the Syrian rebels that was rejected by the White House. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey later said they supported the plan at that time. Many lawmakers, including Corker and Engel, still support that plan and they agree with Clinton that Obama’s policy left a vacuum that ISIS rushed to fill.

“[ISIS’s threat in Iraq] is definitely tied to Syria because when the uprising started against Bashar al Assad, it was a movement of people wanting freedom and democracy in Syria, it wasn’t a war involving jihadism at all,” Engel said. “They desperately needed our help, which we didn’t supply, and as a result ISIS got the upper hand. We are now paying the price of that.”

Back when there was a possibility of success or what passes for success in the Middle East Barack Obama did nothing. Then he said doing what most everyone suggested was “a fantasy”.

Now, that it very late Obama adopts the long lost strategy as his fantasy strategy. But it is horsesh*t.

The Foreign Coalition Of The Kicking And Screaming:

Turkey is out. Germany and maybe the U.K. are out. The Barack Obama ISIS “coalition of the kicking and screaming” is horsesh*t too. Qatar? Really? Qatar?

Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia earlier this year withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar over Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and beyond. [snip]

Qatar has also had a complicated relationship with the United States. Qatar hosts one of the most important U.S. military bases in the world, at the al Udeid Air Base. Additionally, the Sunni nation played a key role in negotiating the prisoner swap between the Taliban and the United States to free Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, as well as in the release of American hostage Peter Theo Curtis.

At the same time, Taliban officials live and work in Qatar, and the Sunni nation has control of the often anti-American television network al Jazeera. The U.S. has taken issue with its support for Hamas. Meanwhile, support for Syrian rebel groups coming out of Qatar and other Arab nations may have contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Qatar? Really? The enemy within that coalition. In America that enemy goes by the name of Obama.

The Cost of Horsesh*t And Fairy Tales:

Obama apologist Karen Tumulty does the honors even as she weeps watching her own Messiah Obama fantasies disappear:

Obama losing the confidence of key parts of the coalition that elected him

Kimberly Cole was part of the coalition that voted in 2008 to make Barack Obama the 44th president and in 2012 gave him another four years to deliver on his promises of hope and change.

Now, the 36-year-old mother of three young children in Valencia, Calif., is among the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in Obama’s leadership and the job he is doing as president.

“He’s been faced with a lot of challenges, and he’s lost his way,” Cole said in an interview. She worries that Obama lacks the resolve needed at a time when things at home and abroad are looking scarier.

On the other side of the country, Karlene Richardson, 44, once counted herself a “very strong supporter” of the president. But now she feels much the same as Cole does.

“Honestly, I just feel that what I bought into is not what I’m getting,” said Richardson, an author and motivational speaker who teaches health care administration at a community college in Queens. “I’m starting to wonder whether the world takes us seriously.”

Both Cole and Richardson were surveyed in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll and represent one of its most striking findings: the degree to which the president’s approval has slipped among key parts of the Obama coalition — the women, youth and Latino voters most responsible for putting him into office.

They’re kicking and screaming out ‘no we can’t – take it anymore’.

African-Americans? They’re still mostly sticking by skin color – 87% approve of Obama even as their communities and opportunities are decimated by Obama (although even there support is down from the 93% it used to be).

The coalition of the kicking and screaming here at home has many women:

Virginia Wilson, 60, of Charleston, W.Va., is another disillusioned Obama voter.

“I can’t blame it all on him,” she said, but added, “There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart.” [snip]

And Richardson — interviewed before Obama gave a prime time speech Wednesday laying out plans to target Islamic State with airstrikes — said “he just made these promises that he doesn’t go through with” related to the terrorist group.

There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart.” Are you kidding? With Obama???? That was all in your head darling. It was a fantasy. It was horseshit.

Hillary Clinton Caught In VA Scandal?!?!?

Say it ain’t so! Say it ain’t so!

We need to point out something that is obvious, something staring everyone in the face. That seems to be our job lately, which is a pleasant change.

For years our job was to drag ignored or unknown facts into the open and then connect the dots. Recently though, much of what we wrote for years is being regurgitated by blogs and Big Media so all we have to do is shove the narrative along and point out the obvious – that all too many miss or choose not to declare. And there is one obvious fact that needs to be underlined and bolded and capitalized because sometimes you just have to clearly state the obvious – as the little boy did when he saw a naked emperor parading by.

Since April of this year the Veterans Administration scandal has taken the center stage and swallowed almost all the wattage of the Klieg lights. In the penumbra, the Benghazi scandal, valiantly kept on stage by the survivors of the dead. Occasionally highlighting the corrupt Lois Lerner is the only way the IRS scandal has gotten any attention. The rising oceans of ObamaCare corruptions assures all that killer ObamaCare will continue to stay in the light regardless of what Big Media does. Sadly, the Fast & Furious scandal fell into darkness along with others such as the oily devastation in the Gulf coast.

For years Barack Obama and allied Big Media have kept stories like Rezko, the missing boxes of Obama records, Michelle and Jarrett’s patient dumping past, all the promises of the Obama campaign (when was the last time Big Media noted Obama’s broken promises of posting legislation on line days before a vote, or his lies on FISA, renditions, etc.?) quiet and forgotten. Ron Fournier of National Journal, who once so assiduously protected Barack Obama is now raising many of the points we raised for so long:

You helped elect an untested presidential candidate, a man almost as liberal as you. He promised to heal the oceans, make health care an inalienable right, and transform Washington’s toxic culture. You mocked Republicans, independents, and squishy Democrats who had the audacity to criticize your guy, much less doubt the inevitability of his victory. President Obama won—twice—and then didn’t live up to anybody’s expectations, including his own.

What do you do? Well, if you’re Ezra Klein and a coterie of inflexibly progressive pundits, you repurpose an attack used against President George W. Bush’s bombastic approach to geopolitics. You call anybody who questions Obama’s leadership style a Green Lanternist. In a post for Vox stretching beyond 2,500 words, Klein makes his case against Obama critics.

“Presidents consistently overpromise and underdeliver,” he begins, a fair start. [snip]

Now, wait. A Harvard-trained lawyer and constitutional scholar like Obama didn’t stumble into the 2008 presidential campaign unaware of the balance of powers, the polarization of politics, the rightward march of the GOP, and other structural limits on the presidency. He made those promises because he thought those goals were neither unreasonable nor unattainable. Either that, or he was lying.

Notice that the broken promises are pawned off to nonhuman forms (“his 2008 campaign” pledged … “It also promised … “) rather than Obama himself. The verbal gymnastics are an early hint that the main purpose of the essay is to shelter Obama from blame.

Barack Obama lied. It’s the obvious truth. There is no need for Fournier to provide an alternate explanation. To provide an alternative is to “shelter Obama from blame”. Journolister Ezra Klein is solely in the business of Obama protection but why doesn’t Fournier call a liar a liar? It’s not as if there is no evidence. There is evidence in abundance sufficient to move “liar Obama” from theory to fact.

Remember in 2008 when Barack Obama swore up and down the campaign trail that he would lead a filibuster against FISA and telecom immunity? Once he was sure of the nomination Obama voted FOR FISA. Remember all the Obama attacks against the Patriot Act? Obama and the congress he controlled voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. The NSA?

Remember Obama screeching against the unitary executive? Instead of fighting against executive branch expansion Barack Obama is a proven despot happily attaching non-constitutional signing statements to laws he signs, ignoring laws he does not like and not enforcing them, and despotically twisting laws he has signed.

“Shelter Obama from blame” is the priority for many in Big Media and in the party once called the Democratic Party. The self-proclaimed “fact checkers” at PolitiFact claimed in the election year of 2012 that Barack Obama’s promises on the VA had indeed been kept. PolitiFact waters that down now to a promise that has been “stalled”. WTF?

The K-K-K of Krugman, Kristof and Klein praised the VA hospital system in order to defend ObamaCare and its atrocities. Cooked books make for great recipes but unsavory dishes:

And herein lies the problem for the left: the failures at the VA, including its bureaucratic incompetence, its waiting lists, and its deaths, all debunk the notion that a government-run healthcare system will work. It’s a fresh slap in the face to all those commentators who, in pushing Obamacare, endorsed the VA as a model.

There are some pretty big names on that list.

Democrat Brent Budowsky is at least displaying some shame:

Virtually all members and the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress owe veterans an apology. The media owes veterans an apology. Shame on them. I owe veterans an apology for not having written a column this brutally blunt the moment I learned that every day, 22 more vets commit suicide. Shame on me.

I do not call for the resignation of Shinseki, but the president owes veterans more than another White House staff, spin and stall operation, which he offered on Wednesday with the same cast of characters waiting for yet another report. Congressional Republicans, who share responsibility for the VA scandal, owe vets more than another attack, deride and exploit operation that plays politics with the health of those who serve.

Budowsky shames himself further by blaming others. Why bring Republicans into the shame distribution? The VA scandal belongs entirely to Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the president. Barack Obama is the one who made the promises. Barack Obama is the one who lied. Barack Obama is the one to blame.

“Shelter Obama from blame” is what Budowsky is up to. Are problems with the VA long term? Yes. And Obama promised to fix them. “The buck stops here” is now “pass the buck by Barack Obama’s desk because he is too busy with celebrities and other distractions.”

What is Barack Obama up to? Well the other day he took time off from fundraising, vacations, and golf to finally pretend in public that he cares at all about the VA scandal. Immediately afterwards Obama went to meet with burly tall men with arms as muscular as Michelle’s. Barrack Obama always has time to rub shoulders with muscular men:

Obama is making a week of it, celebrating games large and small. A day after feting the National Football League champion Seattle Seahawks at the White House, Obama is going to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York, today to promote tourism and economic development.

He started the week by dropping in on co-ed Little League players at a neighborhood recreation field in Washington, tossing a ball and posing for photos. [snip]

Obama, who calls Chicago home, stepped in to belatedly honor that Bears team at the White House in 2011. He reached into the past again last year to hold a ceremony for the 1972 Miami Dolphins, the only NFL team to compile an undefeated record for the season.

Obama, 52, an avid basketball fan and golfer, has expanded the scope of the spotlight presidents put on athletes.

Soccer teams, men’s and women’s professional and collegiate basketball teams, hockey teams and NASCAR champions all have been accorded the White House treatment by him.

Obama has also given Super Bowl Sunday interviews with the network broadcasting the NFL championship and appeared each year on sports cable channel ESPN to reveal his picks for the National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball tournament. He even took U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to an NCAA tournament game in 2012 in Ohio before a state dinner.

Flanked by Seattle’s first Super-Bowl-winning squad yesterday, Obama talked about a sports team exceeding expectations with a reference to his own story.

It’s always about “his own story”. But hearing Barack talk about how excited he becomes when watching burly men “overcome the odds” is ugly. We don’t object to Barack Obama desire to sniff the testosterone infused air surrounding muscular sweaty men but thinking about him whimpering about these men like a lonely dog finally getting attention we can’t help but recall his homophobic campaign of 2008.

In the Barack Obama politics of distraction no male sports shoulder will go unrubbed nor unsniffed. Sports figures will not be the only distraction.

As with Budowsky’s Obama protection blame shifting, many attempts will be made to shift the blame from Barack Obama to someone/something else. Eric Shinseki is a hero to the left so he is safe from Obama’s blame shifters.

In order to “shelter Obama from blame” others will be blamed. George W. Bush will be blamed. Bill Clinton will be blamed. George H. W. Bush will be blamed. George Washington will be blamed. “Shelter Obama from blame.”

On the day of her resignation we wrote that Kathleen Sebelius was not the one to blame for ObamaCare. The one to blame for ObamaCare is Barack Obama. It is also Barack Obama who is to blame for the corruption and lies at the VA. It is Barack Obama to blame for Fast & Furious. Barack Obama is to blame for Benghazi. Barack Obama is to blame for the IRS scandal. Barack Obama is to blame for low esteem the U.S. suffers in the world. Barack Obama is to blame for the weak American response in the Ukraine. Barack Obama is to blame for the faltering economy. Barack Obama is to blame. Barack Obama is to blame for all of it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euIZLEo0STA

That is the obvious truth few will dare speak. It’s not Shinseki, Sebelius, Kerry (although he has 2008 to pay for), Clinton, Geithner, Summers, Holder, or any of them to blame. It’s Barack Obama that is to blame.

It is the corrupt, treacherous, boob that cares only for his self-advancement and profit that is to blame.

Stop trying to “shelter Obama from blame.” Barack Obama is the one – to blame.

The obvious truth that few will outright say is that it is Barack Obama that is to blame. This is so obvious, it is staring everyone in the face, but few will say it. The dots do not get connected.

All the dots have one variable that never varies: Barack Obama. Don’t blame Lois Lerner, we wrote, blame Obama. Sebelius is not the disease, she is a symptom. It’s not the NSA but Barack that sets the policy. It’s not a lack of resources at the VA, it’s a lack of leadership from a corrupt lying boob.

Consider: imagine Hillary Clinton is the worst person in the world. Imagine Hillary Clinton is to blame for everything bad that happened at Benghazi. Is Hillary Clinton to blame for the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, the Rezko scandal? No. Is Sebelius responsible for the IRS scandal or Benghazi, or the NSA scandal? No. Is Eric Holder responsible for Benghazi or the NSA or the IRS or ObamaCare? No. The one variable that appears in all the equations of potential blame is Barack Obama.

In midterm elections one of the most important data points to determine the results is the popularity or non-popularity of the president. An unpopular president destroys the party in midterm elections. That’s the #2 reason why so many will attempt to “shelter Obama from blame.”

The #1 reason why so many will attempt to “shelter Obama from blame?” It’s a cult with no where else to go. The cult will blame Hillary or anybody but not Obama. But it is Obama that is to blame. It is Barack Obama that is to blame for it all.

Where’s Benghazi Now?

Update III: A comment by Mormaer reminds us all that on April 18 Judicial Watch won the court case which forced the release of the Ben Rhodes memo along with 40 other memos.

On April 19 Barack Obama began to lawyer up:

Which brings us to the strange case of President Obama’s decision to hire Neil Eggleston to be his new White House Counsel.

Eggleston is the kind of guy you go to when someone tells you, “time to lawyer up.” [snip]

Which begs and pleads the question, is Obama looking for more protection for the White House from the various GOP congressional probes, or is he aware of the possibility that something much, much worse could break?

Enter the House Select Committee on Benghazi – Eggleston won’t be enough.

Time to lawyer up dude.

———————————————————–

Update II: After resisting the obvious for so long, today the news: Speaker of the House Boehner to appoint select committee on Benghazi. Jake Tapper of CNN knows the White House henchmen are lying. Even David Gregory of Obama cult NBC knows the stink comes from the White House.

We’ve been calling for a select committee almost from the day of the Benghazi attack as the only way to get answers. The Issa committee has been so incompetent that we still don’t even know simple things like “where was Barack Obama?” on that night. Did he go to bed early in order to be fresh for his fundraising trip to California then next day? Where was Obama and what did he do?

The likely Chairman of the select committee on Benghazi is the smart Trey Gowdy whose efforts in the IRS investigation so outclassed Chairman Issa. Perhaps Trey Gowdy will not get distracted by side issues and thereby get the answer to the question that matters: Why was the United States unprepared on September 11 for a potential commemorative attack by Muslim creeps and why was the United States without a quick response military team ready to go on the night of September 11?

———————————————————–

Update: As we write below, this story deserves more attention and we are glad it is, because of Sharyl Attkisson: CBS told me it wasn’t relevant to our Benghazi coverage that the president of the news division is Ben Rhodes’s brother.



————————————————————

From the very beginning, on September 11, 2012, we made several points about the terror attacks and deaths of American diplomatic personnel in Benghazi which prove with every passing day to be more and more astute and accurate.

The truth-seeking points we have made from the very beginning, which have not been popular with partisans on any side, are: (1) the central issue and only issue is that this was a terror attack purposely staged on the September 11 anniversary of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and the question that must be answered is why the United States was not prepared on a world-wide basis for attacks from Al Qaeda on that very special date; (2) Barack Obama is to blame; (3) the C.I.A. is a major player in all this and until we get honest testimony about what the Benghazi base was really about this will all add up to much of nothing; (4) Big Media is complicit in the Barack Obama cover-up of the death dealing scandals centered around Benghazi; (5) Hillary Clinton will come out smelling like a rose.

Shortly after we made the above 5 points we added a few others: (1) a select committee or a special prosecutor is needed to get answers from Barack Obama and his henchmen; (2) the investigations have been bungled almost beyond repair. We’ll expound on all these points in no particular order and as briefly as possible.

Let’s look at how the Benghazi investigations have been completely bungled.

The latest Benghazi “bombshell” is a memo written by then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Benjamin Rhodes which leads directly to the White House as lying creators of the talking points on Benghazi in order to corruptly advance the election of one Barack Obama.

Proof of the bungled Benghazi investigation is clear when one considers that this Benghazi bombshell memo is now public due to the efforts of the private organization Judicial Watch, not congressional investigators. Congressional investigators are unable to find sh*t on a pig farm it seems.



But this talking points memo is a minor detail in what congressional investigators should be focused on. What should congressional investigators be focused on? How about the only fact that matters. The only fact that matters? What is that? Well, the only fact that matters is our original point #1: (1) the central issue and only issue is that this was a terror attack purposely staged on the September 11 anniversary of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and the question that must be answered is why the United States was not prepared on a world-wide basis for attacks from Al Qaeda on that very special date

And by the way, are we asking too much when we say that the brother of Benjamin Rhodes might be someone that should be mentioned in a consistent manner by anyone who wants to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi? It’s all about Big Media complicity in the cover-up of deadly lies concerning the Benghazi terror attack:

Today, Lasky notes that Rhodes’s brother heads CBS News, which recently lost reporter Sharyl Attkisson – at least partly, she alleges, because the network did not like her reporting on Benghazi and other Obama administration scandals, including Operation Fast & Furious.

CBS President David Rhodes, brother of Benjamin Rhodes, got rid of Sharly Attkisson in part because of her Benghazi reports. Does anyone think that is is a fact worth emphasizing? Does anyone think that maybe CBS can be shamed into at least mentioning the Benghazi scandal in their network news broadcasts if congressional committees or someone/something consistently mentions this sibling Big Media connection?

Congressional investigators can’t find sh*t on a pig farm, blood in a blood bank, or ugly outfits in Michelle Obama’s closet. It’s more than time for a select committee of experienced prosecutors with a hired experienced prosecutor for staff lawyer that knows how to ask questions and get answers. What we have now is an army of fools trying to prove what is more than obvious to everyone: the September 11 2012 attack in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack.

But most importantly how about sticking to what matters and not the peripheral? Today, Darryl Issa’s congressional committee is once again investigating everything but the central issue about Benghazi. Instead of demanding to know why the United States was unprepared on SEPTEMBER 11 for a terrorist attack, the committee gloried in post-terrorist attack musings from a USAF general: “We should have tried” to respond to Benghazi attack.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvnwd6zGQlc

Um, isn’t the question that needs to be answered why the United States was not on alert on September 11 for a terrorist attack? A focus on lack of preparation and “we should have tried” after the attacks sort of misses the point doesn’t it?

Missing the point has been the hallmark of congressional investigators. On October 10, 2012 the Issa’s Government Oversight Committee held a hearing on Benghazi. We tried to help the committee unravel the Sunday Susan Rice “Libya Fibya”:

First draw the organizational chart. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and she runs the State Department. But it is not that simple. Recall that in 2009 Barack Obama put in one of his enforcers as the #2 at the State Department in order to thwart Hillary Clinton and to keep eyes on her.

Recall also that Susan Rice, an Obama supporter in 2008, was placed by Obama without Hillary Clinton’s input as United Nations Ambassador. Rice was supposed to be a power center against Hillary Clinton and therefore was also given cabinet level status and a direct line to Barack Obama without having to go through the Secretary of State.

Also in 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was purposefully circumvented when Obama appointed special envoys to coordinate policy with him, not Hillary, in major areas of foreign policy. [snip]

Susan Rice was deployed by Barack Obama to go on political shows in order to lie about what happened in Libya. It was the Sunday of the Libya Fibya.

Hillary Clinton refused to go on the Sunday talk shows to do the Libya Fibya and Obama did not trust her to go on the Sunday talk shows to Libya Fibya on his behalf. Still, many believe that Hillary Clinton 2016 is cooked, burnt to a crisp, because of Benghazi.

We’ll have more to say on Hillary Clinton’s record at the State Department and what she did there in an upcoming post. For now we can say that the full record of Hillary Clinton and Benghazi is yet to be written. Answers will have to be provided and the truth of what happened in Benghazi revealed fully. But is Hillary Clinton 2016 doomed because of Benghazi? Um, no.

As we have written repeatedly the only way to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 is to tie her to Barack Obama. If Republicans want to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 they must make sure the electorate sees Hillary Clinton 2016 as a third Obama term. If Hillary Clinton 2016 wants to win they have to make sure Hillary Clinton’s message in 2016 is “it’s time for a change.”

What do the latest Benghazi revelations tell us about Hillary Clinton 2016? Karl Rove talking to Bill O’Reilly on April 30 thinks Hillary Clinton 2016 is helped by the Ben Rhodes Benghazi memo.

Starting at 3:45, after a good summary discussion of the latest events, Bill O’Reilly gets to what everyone is politics-wise interested in. At the 4:50 mark, Karl Rove with O’Reilly in full agreement says that Hillary Clinton 2016 will run away from Barack Obama, blame Barack Obama, and succeed because of the separation from Barack Obama.



Karl Rove thinks that it is “ironic” that the Ben Rhodes memo will help Hillary Clinton 2016. What is really ironic is that one of Hillary Clinton’s most virulent enemies in the White House will unwittingly provide the knife to stick in the backstabbing Barack Obama.

So where are we in Benghazi? We still require a select committee to investigate Benghazi. If not Benghazi is nowhere. The Benghazi investigation goes nowhere.

At some point the truth about what happened in Benghazi will emerge. As we wrote in September 12, 2012 the truth should have emerged before the November 2012 elections. But that did not happen. The truth will have to emerge before 2016 if not before November 2014.

Do not expect Big Media to do the job of digging out the truth and exposing it. More lawsuits will have to ferret out the truth. A select committee of the House of Representatives is still needed.

In short, until the House of Representatives decides to do it’s job properly and effectively by appointing a competent select committee – Benghazi is nowhere.

Get Over 2008 Big Pink! – Campaign Finance Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Let’s look at the history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back In The U.S.S.R.

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out… That Georgia’s always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mind.

Back in 2008 Barack Obama’s mocking of Hillary and McCain triumphed. Barack Obama called those two old hat. Barack Obama was going to “turn the page”. All those pesky old time problems Mess-Obama was about to celestial choir away – along with no more rising oceans and well everything old and bad and soon we would have anti-gravity cars and planes taking us to holidays on the moon and a disco ball in the White House. Well the page has turned alright. We’re now out of the frying pan and into the fire. Elect a boob and you get boobery. Re-elect a boob and you get more boobery. Oy vey!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgTYMnMazh0

Back in 2008 Barack Obama was a promising star. Obama promised and promised and promised – stars and unicorns along with pennies from Heaven. It’s been Hell ever since.

Now Vladimir Putin is the star, er, Tsar – sorry for the typo, misplaced letters and all that. Obama is exposed as an international man of boobery. Charles bangs down the hammer on Obama the boob:

The United States does not view Europe as a battleground between East and West, nor do we see the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum game. That’s the kind of thinking that should have ended with the Cold War.” — Barack Obama, March 24

Should. Lovely sentiment. As lovely as what Obama said five years ago to the United Nations: “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.”

That’s the kind of sentiment you expect from a Miss America contestant asked to name her fondest wish, not from the leader of the free world explaining his foreign policy.

Miss America is made of sterner stuff and has more lucid wits than Barack Obama. Miss America would likely agree with an argument we recently made about the Ukrainian crisis. We wrote that the task for an American president who shared Western values is to make the case for the West and the values and history of the West:

“If we had an American president with belief in American values and willing to fight for those values, instead of a president only concerned with his stinking “brand”, the Ukraine crisis could be easily turned into a Churchillian moment in Western history. [snip]

An American president at this time who believes in American values and the values of the Christian West would leap to action. The first symbolic action of such a president would be to recall the ejected bust of Winston Churchill and place it back in a place of honor on the desk in the Oval Office.

Next, such an American president would, alongside Mitt Romney fly to the German capital of Berlin and with Lech Walensa at his side address the peoples of Europe, the West, and the world. To a candid world, in words of brutal truth, such a president would place the attack on Ukraine in historic context. “Ich bin ein Ukrainer” would echo from JFK. “Mr. Putin we forced Mr. Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall'” and Reagan could for a second be remembered. But more than that, an American president with American values would place the crisis in Ukraine in the context of the West and the long fight for freedom and self-determination of nations.

An American president with granite belief in American values would remind the world that people and nations run TO the west and FROM totalitarian regimes.

An American president with American values would remind the world that the crime of the Ukraine in the eyes of the Evil Empire redux is the preference for the values and freedom and economic hope provided by the West. An American president with American values would remind the world that there was a time when half a continent was called the “captive nations”. An American president with American values would remind the world that evil will not live forever and that even though the Hungarian revolution was crushed by the Evil Empire, tens of thousands killed, freedom came to Hungary and it is free today after a long twilight struggle between the West and the totalitarians.”

As we wrote there is a lot an American president with American values could do to shore up the West and challenge the totalitarian imperium. Roger Cohen at the New York Times is an Obama supporter who does not abandon Obama talking points but he agrees with the the main thrust of our assessment:

“LONDON — Having pivoted to Asia and done the de rigueur minimum over several years to keep the trans-Atlantic alliance off life-support, Barack Obama awakened with a jolt to Europe this week and, on his first visit to Brussels as president, spoke of “inseparable allies” with a shared mission to demonstrate that Russia cannot “run roughshod over its neighbors.”

Shaken from a view of Europe as a kind of 20th-century yawn, Obama spoke of freedom and the ideas that bind the United States and Europe still in an ongoing “contest of ideas” against autocracy and “brute force.” [snip]

Better late than never: The Russian president has benefited from the perception of a United States in full-tilt, war-weary retrenchment; of American red lines turning amber and then green; of a divided European Union; and a hollow NATO living more on the past than any vision of a 21st-century future. Obama has been making up for lost ground.

Still, his Brussels speech, presented as a capstone of his visit and one of those Obama specials designed to offset with eloquence a deficit of deeds, was a poor performance overall, a jejune collection of nostrums about binding values of free-market Western societies and their appeal to the hearts (and pocketbooks) of people throughout the world, not least Ukrainians.[snip]

It is all of this. Unless Western societies find a way to shake their moroseness, level the playing field and rediscover, as Obama put it, the “simple truth that all men, and women, are created equal,” they are going to have a very hard time winning “the contest of ideas.”

Instead of a speech of weary worthiness, Obama should have addressed how an alliance neglected through much of his presidency can be revived; and how American and European democracies, for all their failings, can right themselves because that is the great distinguishing feature of open societies — their capacity for renewal.

Weakling Obama will not be able to bluster the new star, er, Tsar. The world looks at Obama and sees a weakling and smells the stinky fear emanating from the corpse of the unicorn man. Obama is a bumbling boob that will get us all killed. Vladimir Putin is a Tsar who wants to bring back all the Russias and has an active strategy for getting what he wants:

“Perceptions are important. Whatever his long-range intent, Vladi­mir Putin has Russia’s neighbors fearing and many Russians believing that he has, in effect, announced his objective to bring the former Soviet space once again under Russian influence, if not incorporated into the Russian state. He has stationed troops and other military assets in proximity and has indicated a willingness to use them. The resentment and fear his moves have created in Ukraine and other neighbors will, over time, set in motion countermoves and activities that will diminish Russia’s own security. Putin has demonstrated his willingness to cut off supplies of the large quantity of oil and gas Russia ships to Ukraine and the countries of Western Europe and to play games with prices. Russia has also developed important trading and financial dealings with Western countries, particularly Germany, Britain and France.”

The Tsar of all the Russias is up against Obama the Boob. As Krauthammer stated, it is quite a mismatch.

There are some who outright cheer Vladimir Putin’s not yet satiated hunger for territory. There are some who want us to consider why Putin is doing what he is doing and busy blaming the United States policy incompetents (if not corrupt) of officialdom. The smart Patrick Buchanan is in that latter category:

“Perhaps Americans, a fortunate tribe, should try to see the world from the vantage point of the Russian people and Vladimir Putin, and, as the poet Robert Burns said, “see ourselves as others see us.”

At 35, Putin was a rising star in the elite secret police, the KGB, of a superpower with a worldwide empire.

The USSR was almost three times as large as the United States. Its European quadrant was half of the Old Continent. The Soviet Empire extended from the Elbe River in Central Germany to the Bering Strait across from Alaska. It encompassed thirteen time zones. [snip]

Consider, then, what the last dozen years of the 20th century must have been like for proud Russian patriots and nationalists.

First, the European empire suddenly and wholly collapsed. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria all broke away to join the West. The Red Army came home, undefeated, but also unwanted and even detested.

The Warsaw Pact, the rival to NATO, dissolved.

Eastern Europe, which Russians believe they had liberated from the Nazis at a monumental cost in blood, turned its back on Russia, hailed the Americans as liberators, and queued up to join a U.S.-led alliance created to contain Russia.

Then, as Germany was reuniting, the Soviet Union began to break apart — what Putin calls the great tragedy of the 20th century.

One-fourth of the nation he grew up in and half its people vanished. Tens of millions of Russians were left stranded in foreign lands.”

Buchanan’s history is all too true. Yes, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia joined NATO, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova left too. Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan soon packed up their lipsticks and left – former girlfriends tired of being abused. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan hit the road too. Buchanan writes those loses are equivalent to an America without the 11 Confederate states with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua aligned with the now defunct Warsaw Pact. There’s also this bit of “blame America”:

“State’s Victoria Nuland says we invested $5 billion in re-orienting Ukraine away from Russia. How would we respond if we awoke — as Putin did in February — to learn a pro-American government in Mexico City had been overthrown by street mobs financed by Beijing, a pro-China regime installed, and this unelected Mexican regime wanted out of NAFTA in favor of joining an economic union and military alliance with China?

A U.S. president who landed Marines in Veracruz, as Wilson did in 1914, and sent a 21st-century General “Black Jack” Pershing with an army across the border, would be over 70 percent in the polls, as Putin is today.

And if he seized Baja, as Putin seized Crimea, it would be a cakewalk to a second term.”

Fair points and one that are currently in vogue among those that, well we really don’t understand the motivations of those making excuses for Putin’s actions.

What Buchanan and others like him fail to acknowledge is that the young Putin lived in a vast totalitarian imperium appropriately described by President Ronald Reagan as “The Evil Empire”. That halcyon memory of days gone by was a nightmare for the rest of the world.

What happened to Vladimir Putin’s boyhood homeland is that the “captive nations” escaped. They fled to the West. The West was a refuge. They fled to the West for freedom and the economic growth that follows when women and men are free.

The Russia of Putin’s memory was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was the Evil Empire. It deserved to die. America and the West killed it. Pope John Paul II killed it. The U.S.S.R. was put out of it’s misery. The Berlin Wall was torn down. The KGB and the Stasi and all the apparatus of state terror against its citizens was destroyed. Temporarily.

Now, we are “turning the page” once again – to the past. Any cursory reading of the Quotes of the day reveal the utter befuddlement of Obama’s minions and the purposeful or foolish assessments they make. Unfortunately armies are massing and time is running out. The Tsar of all the Russias is calling. The Evil Empire calling. It’s time to “disconnect the phone” – we’re back in the U.S.S.R.

How NOT To Be Ready For Hillary Clinton 2016

Update: Lots of reports confirming what we have forseen and advised for months (if not years). Run Hillary, Run against Obama and his Obaminations. Forthwith the Quotes of the day: “…Hillary Clinton, has already left the administration and can thus, in classic Clinton form, ditch unpopular policies….” That’s about how Biden is trapped defending the indefensible.

The Hill newspaper also sees Hillary Run Run Run away from Obama and his Obaminations. But as Clinton distances herself from Obama, rakes in the cash and prevents other Democrats from prepping a national campaign for a White House run in 2016, she might look around at the polls and see just what will happen to Democrats in this fall’s midterm elections if all current estimates are correct.

The Wall Street Journal noticed Hillary demonstrating the toughness Obama only fantasizes about as he watches burly men on the basketball court. Hillary said she is “personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver” on the Obama sell out of American/Israeli interests.

For success, Hillary Clinton 2016 must run away and eventually denounce Barack Obama and his Obaminations. It’s beginning to happen albeit not fast enough. Whatever loses this strategy costs in loss of Obama cultists and DailyKooks will more than be matched by increased support of the white working class and senior citizens both groups which once formed the Democratic Party base.



——————————————————————————————————-

For Republicans the strategy on how to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 is obvious and real easy. For Hillary Clinton 2016 the road to success is more treacherous but the Republican attacks can be anticipated, prepared for, and protected against, if and when Hillary Clinton decides (after November 2014) to commence Hillary Clinton 2016.

As we have advised before, Hillary Clinton 2016 must be like hockey great Wayne Gretzky and anticipate where the puck will be in 2016. Republicans have the same task. Republicans also have to get rid of their practice and image as hypocritical panty sniffers more concerned with the bedroom activities of other adults than their own sexual hijinks and policy prescriptions. Republicans have taken a giant step in at least putting forward an initial attempt to fix their image with a new campaign which features YouTube videos like this one:



That video upends what most people believe Republicans look like which in itself stokes attention to the message. The message from the mouths of normal looking everyday people is at the heart of Republican philosophy. Yet it is not difficult to believe that a great majority of what is said in the video will find agreement with most Americans whatever their political persuasion. In short this is an agreeable, smart, honest, accessible, positive, attractive, inclusive, surprising, feel good, expression of what the Republican Party image can and should be. The problem comes when the red flag of battle is waved which causes Republicans to forget this type of “addition politics” and revert to emotionally satisfying ugly self-destructive foolishness.

We are not suggesting for a second that Republicans should not be tough during a campaign. Quite the contrary. We are once again suggesting that Republicans (and Hillary Clinton 2016) be tough. In 2012 we fumed when Mitt Romney said Barack Obama was a nice guy. Mitt Romney should have exposed Barack Obama as a race-baiter whose entire campaign history was ugly attacks on opponents while publicly demanding a “new politics”. By saying Barack Obama was a nice guy Romney undercut himself by telling a lie. Now Mitt Romney is talking tough about Obama (shades of Chris Christie) but when he should have been tough Mitt was mostly a doughnut.

All the above we have written before and will write again and again and again until the message sinks in. Some of our message is taking hold. For instance, the intelligent Jay Cost has advice of his own for Republicans on how to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 most of which we have written long ago. Most Republicans will not be able to tolerate what Cost is telling them let alone take his good advice. Jay Cost does provide one suggestion we find counterproductive, but overall it is good advice which will stick in the craw of many Republicans. Here is the smart part of the Jay Cost advice for Republicans which comes after Cost raises the specter of the massive Clinton money machine:

Not Ready for Hillary

The GOP has another problem with Hillary: In the last quarter-century, it has exhibited no facility for countering Clintonism in the public mind. This failure is arguably worse than any cash crunch; it does not matter how much money you spend making a bad argument if it is still a bad argument. And that is all the GOP ever seems to have against the Clintons.

Republicans have had three at-bats against the Clintons—the elections of 1992 and 1996 and the impeachment proceedings of 1998-99—and struck out every time. To date, there is little evidence they have learned from their defeats. Rand Paul has been raising Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct, something that backfired while Clinton was president. Meanwhile, some Republican pundits are saying that Hillary Clinton has never really accomplished anything, a line that got George H.W. Bush nowhere in 1992.

Almost certain to be outraised and lacking any compelling case against the Clintons, the Republican party, it is fair to say, is not ready for Hillary. If anything, the classic Clinton shtick—“I feel your pain”—should play particularly well in this age of seemingly permanent economic anxiety.

Context is still important. In 1992, when Bill and Hillary Clinton waxed eloquent about the middle-class squeeze, they were flanked by an unemployed steelworker and a single mother working two jobs. Nowadays, they are more likely to have Warren Buffett on one side and Mick Jagger on the other. That’s the price you pay for being at the top of the world’s political, social, and economic hierarchy for a quarter-century: You are bound to lose touch with the “folks” (a Clintonian classic) who elevated you to those heights in the first place. In 1992 George H.W. Bush was the out-of-touch elitist who (supposedly) did not understand how a grocery scanner worked. In 2016, Hillary Clinton will not have driven her own car for 25 years.

And therein lies the GOP’s best opportunity.”

At this point Jay Cost goes off the rails. Cost is absolutely correct in asserting what we have constantly shouted about why the Clenis, Lewinsky, Brodderick, Paula, Whitewater, bimbos, travel office, Mena, blue dresses, draft dodging, pot smoking, black baby daddy, Gennifer Flowers, missing papers, release of papers, furniture, pardons, yackety yack yack yack yada yada yada etc. etc. etc. won’t hurt Bill or Hillary Clinton. If anything this all helps them. Republicans might not like it, but these things help Bill and Hill more than anything else. Scandal fatigue is transmuted to at worse entertaining entertainment. Cost is right about this.

But when Cost discusses the “GOP’s best opportunity” he has forgotten 2008 and 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. Here is Jay Cost’s proposal to the GOP:

“Put simply, the party should try to occupy the same political space the Clintons seized in 1992, and cast the Clintons in the role of the out-of-touch elitist. Bill’s appetite for the rock-star lifestyle—hobnobbing with the gilded elite in Davos rather than the diner crowd in Little Rock—facilitates this effort. So does Hillary’s presumably endless grasping for campaign contributions, which unmistakably connects her to the elite (and reviled) quarters of this country. Goldman Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein is already on board for Hillary, which tells you all you need to know. It should, in theory, be possible for the GOP to expose the hypocrisy of the Clintons’ pitch to the “forgotten middle class,” given that they seemingly have forgotten all about their own middle-class backgrounds.

That’s the theory, at any rate. In practice, success depends upon the nominee. Some candidates are well equipped to make a populist pitch to the middle class, others not. [snip]

This time, Republicans would be well advised to cast against type. They should consider a candidate who has not spent much time in Washington, somebody whose parents struggled to reach the middle class, someone who has had to work hard in the last 20 years to retain that status, somebody who is, if not hip, at least relatively young (the younger candidate has won the popular vote in the last six presidential elections). In general, one cannot overstate the power of symbolism in a presidential election. The vast array of issues that confront the electorate is bewildering, and an easy heuristic to deal with the messy questions of policy is: Which candidate has more empathy for people of my social and economic status? The Republicans should find a candidate who seems more empathetic than Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, “The Republicans should find a candidate who seems more empathetic than Hillary Clinton.” But c’mon. Really? Does anyone think the Republicans have someone more empathetic than Hillary??? No, really, c’mon. Ain’t gonna happen. Let’s get real here.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton roared and rallied the white working class to her side. That’s not “elite” Jay. In 2009 through 2014 it has and will be Bill and Hillary Clinton that can go, to cheers and applause, to places that no Democrat can go to and win. Hillary can knock back a drink and wiggle a dance in any working class bar in any country in the world. So don’t go there Republicans. That’s an area you cannot yet compete in.


Guzzle

Could we be wrong in this? We suppose so but right now we cannot think of a Republican candidate that fits “the bill” so to speak better than Hillary. Rand Paul? The guy that loves to talk Clenis? Chris Christie? He could say, as we have strongly suggested, that he is a fighter for the people but empathy? We don’t think so. Ted Cruz is smart and tough. But empathy? Jeb Bush, Huckabee, Martinez, Walker, Ryan, might be the empathetic miracle Cost is summoning but we have not yet seen any evidence they can be more empathic than Hillary. Rubio? Is he still an option after his immigration reform campaign?


BadAssCool

As for Republicans denouncing Hillary Clinton 2016 for fundraising, or as Cost terms it “Hillary’s presumably endless grasping for campaign contributions” unless Republicans forgo fundraising in 2016 that appears to be a non-starter too. Yes, Barack Obama got away with his fundraising lies and hypocrisies but that was well, “racism” if you pointed it out.

Jay Cost is also right that Republicans need a “Sister Souljah moment” but that is a discussion for another day. The best part of Cost’s article for Hillary Clinton 2016 and Republicans is this paragraph about Bill Clinton:

“Meanwhile Clinton mentioned “work,” “working,” or “hard work” 29 times in his 1992 address, and in so doing produced a lasting shift in the party’s image. No longer would it be the party of the radicals, the grievance mongers, or those blindly pushing government for its own sake. It would be the party that wields government to help those who are already working hard. That was the essence of the “New Democrat” label.”

If Hillary Clinton 2016 and Republicans run a campaign based on that paragraph all Americans will be better off.

How does Hillary Clinton 2016 win? How do Republicans win in 2016? Cost comes close to suggesting what we have been suggesting for some time now:

“An economic calamity would sink the standing of Barack Obama, the Democratic party, and the Clintons as well, in which case any reasonably qualified GOP nominee could probably win. Similarly, an economic boom might restore Obama’s reputation and render moot the entire GOP campaign, wafting Clinton into office on her predecessor’s coattails. But if the current state of affairs prevails—Obama is unpopular, but Democrats are united and Clinton remains detached from the incumbent in the public’s mind—the GOP should worry. This could produce something close to a 50-50 race, making the party’s message to the electorate of crucial importance.”

If Republicans want to win in 2016 all they have to do is make sure that Hillary no longer “remains detached from the incumbent”. If Hillary Clinton 2016 wants to win then the effort must be to make sure that “Clinton remains detached from the incumbent”. Tie Hillary to Obama – Republicans win. Get away from Obama as far and fast as possible and Hillary Clinton 2016 wins.

For Hillary Clinton 2016 the time is now. Barack Obama has been a boon to Republicans and poisonous stink to anyone near him. The latest attempt by James Carville, a close adviser to the Clintons, to rally the party lacks spirit and conviction. Carville writes:

“In early February this year, I wrote a column for The Hill in which I tried to talk Democrats off the cliff. I warned them against having such a gloomy outlook for November. To tell you the truth, though, when I saw the result from the Florida special election last Tuesday, I asked myself where my straight razor was because I thought I might need it.”

Another Clinton advisor, Doug Sosnick, analyzes Republican prospects:

Since Obama became president, the party has not fared particularly well. The WSJ/NBC polling trends indicate that Democrats’ favorability ratings have dropped 21 points during Obama’s time in office, going from a rating of 49 percent positive/31 percent negative during his first term to being underwater now with a 35 percent positive /38 percent negative rating. (See May 9, 2013 memo)

All of these indicators would seem to suggest that 2016 should be a “time for a change” election, creating a window of opportunity for Republicans.”

Sosnick is stating what we have stated:

“The central question for any campaign is whether the electorate must “stay the course!” or whether it is “time for a change!”. It’s one or the other. There is no other question. A merge, a double message won’t sell. A “let’s stay the course but change” concoction has as much appeal and logic as vegetarian pork chops.”

IT’S TIME FOR A CHANGE! Hillary Clinton is already tiptoeing away from the Hell-Hole called ObamaCare. Hillary will have to run faster away from the domestic disaster that is ObamaCare. ObamaCare is going to get much worse and the costs will continue to rise for Americans. But at least she has begun the walk-trot-run-race away from ObamaCare.

ObamaCare will continue to kill ObamaCare supporters. In Colorado, according to the Dem pollsters at PPP, “There’s little doubt that it’s the unpopularity of Obamacare and Barack Obama himself that’s making the Colorado Senate contest look so potentially competitive.” It’s not just Colorado and it’s not a problem that can be fixed with distractions and squirrels, “The Democratic power elite now believe that appeals to raise the minimum wage and extend unemployment insurance are not enough to overcome Obama’s deep unpopularity and frustration with the president’s signature health care law.

Hillary Clinton 2016 has begun to run away from ObamaCare but not quickly enough. Barack Obama is poison and the party that destroyed it’s winning FDR-Kennedy-Clinton coalition to embrace the Obama “creative class” “coalition of the ascendant” is finally beginning to figure out what we warned them about starting in 2007. Hillary Clinton 2016 can avoid the “screaming siren” “turnout issue” by mobilizing white working class voters and senior citizens to her banner again. The problems of 2014 will repeat themselves in 2016 even though it is a presidential election year because the population will rise up in pitchforks to burn down ObamaCare and all the evil works of Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton has also begun to get away from Barack Obama and his foreign policy disasters. We’ll be discussing Hillary Clinton, foreign policy, her record at the State Department very soon. But for now let’s briefly glance at Hillary Clinton and the Obama weakness on Ukraine. Obama weakness emboldens Putin and today more bad news is Breaking: Ukraine military to pull out of Crimea

Like the proverbial 98 pound weakling on the beach, flabby fool Barack “coward” Obama is getting sand thrown in his face and sandwiches by the strong guy Vladdy “Punchin'” Putin. Putin and his pals are laughing at Barack Obama openly and twittering their contempt. Who can blame them? When you see such contemptible weakness posing as a tough guy the testosterone demands kicking in the teeth and administering noogies on the noggin. We are sure Putin stays awake at night – thinking of new ways to mock Obama and humiliate the preening jerk. When Putin finally drifts off to sleep he dreams of kicking and punching Barack Obama again and again to general guffaws as he further demonstrates his ability to humiliate the tall hapless dope that occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Barack Obama? Barack Obama is busy preening in front of various mirrors only too happy to remind himself that Michelle will soon be gone for a few glorious days of mooching off the taxpayer purse. World affairs, missing airplanes, ObamaCare disasters? Barack is busy watching burly men sink basketballs and cheering them on with his bracket picks.

Hillary Clinton? Hillary is saying some of what needs to be said:

“Hillary Clinton on Tuesday painted Russia’s actions in the Ukraine as an affront to “our values” that will set a dangerous precedent if left unpunished. [snip]

Her remarks came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed the Ukrainian region of Crimea for Russia.

“I hope there’s not another Cold War,” she said, when asked if that was how she saw the conflict playing out. “Obviously, nobody wants to see that. I think that’s primarily up to Putin.”

The United States earlier this week announced some sanctions targeting officials tied to the crisis on Monday, to mixed reviews.

Clinton, who recently likened Putin’s moves in the Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler’s in the 1930s, warned that allowing Russia to escape relatively unscathed from its actions in the Ukraine sends a problematic message.

“What Putin did is illegal,” she said.

Dripping sarcasm, she continued, “It’s not because we gave the poor little Baltic states NATO protection. And people need to say that, and they need to be very clear: This is a clash of values and it’s an effort by Putin to rewrite the boundaries of post-World War II Europe. If he’s allowed to get away with that, then I think you’ll see a lot of other countries either directly facing Russian aggression or suborned with their political systems so that they’re so intimidated, they’re in effect transformed into vassals, not sovereign democracies.”

The issue requires “visionary leadership,” she said, adding that Europe — especially Germany — is dependent on Russia for energy.

How far this aggressiveness goes, I think, is really up to us,” she said. “I would like to see us accelerating the development of pipelines from Azerbaijan up into Europe, I’d like to see us looking for ways to accelerate internal domestic production [in places like Poland] … and just really go at this in a self-interested, smart way. Russians can only intimidate you if you’re dependent upon them.

Clinton added that there’s no need to “be rattling sabers, that’s not useful. But people need to get moving in protecting themselves against future intimidation.”

We especially like that Hillary calls what is happening in the Ukraine as a “clash of values” as we have suggested. Even before those tough, not wimpy flabby foolish remarks like what oozed out of Barack Obama’s mouth, Hillary was seen by many as stepping away from Barack Obama – on foreign policy:

Hillary Clinton Steps Away From Obama on Foreign Policy
She rolls out tough rhetoric on Russia as the president treads lightly with Putin.

In recent weeks, as the standoff over Ukraine escalated, Hillary Clinton did something that she never did as secretary of State: She put considerable distance between herself and the president she served loyally for four years. While Barack Obama cautiously warned Vladimir Putin to back off his claims on Ukraine, Clinton rolled out a rhetorical cannon, comparing the Russian president’s moves to the seizure of territory by Adolf Hitler that set off World War II. Her comments were so harsh and controversial that she was forced to walk them back a bit, saying, “I’m not making a comparison, certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before.”

Clinton’s remarks appeared to be an indication of two things. One, she’s concerned enough about shoring up her reputation for toughness that she may indeed be thinking about running for president in 2016. Clinton offered up, in other words, a rare and enticing hint about the question that everyone in the politics game is asking these days. Undoubtedly she knows that the effort she led as secretary of State in 2009, an attempted “reset” of relations with Russia that included a new arms treaty, now looks naive in the face of Putin’s repudiation of Obama over Ukraine and his lack of cooperation on other issues, such as resolution of the Syrian civil war. Two, Clinton could be worried that by the time the next presidential season rolls around, what was once seen as one of Obama’s stronger points—foreign policy—could easily become a liability to whomever is seeking the Democratic nomination.[snip]

Putin’s continued recalcitrance, and Obama’s hesitancy over how to react to the biggest foreign policy test of his presidency, is only the capstone to a series of apparent failures and abortive efforts to avert war in Syria, resolve the situation in Afghanistan, and tamp down the resurgence of al-Qaida. If, as is likely, Russian forces are still occupying Crimea come 2016—or worse, advancing westward—if chaos and bloodshed still reign in Syria, and if Afghanistan begins to look as chaotic as Iraq has in the aftermath of the planned U.S. troop withdrawal at the end of this year, the narrative will be very different in the next presidential campaign.

Republican attacks on Obama in recent months are an early indication of what’s to come. Sen. John McCain, Obama’s 2008 opponent, has been almost beside himself with fury in condemning the president as weak on Ukraine, Syria, China, and Iran. With negotiations failing over Syria, Egypt becoming a military-run state, and Putin indicating he intends to stay where he is in Crimea, the killing of bin Laden will be but a distant memory in 2016. Even some prominent Democrats, such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, have turned into persistent critics of Obama’s policies abroad. “Our policies toward Russia require urgent reexamination,” Menendez wrote in The Washington Post this week.

“It’s absolutely true that things are tough for the president all around right now, whereas before, his foreign policy and relations with the world were one of the high points for a long time,” Campbell says. “She can credibly create the separation for herself. It’s going to be a lot tougher for Vice President Biden.”

Hillary Clinton is saying what must be said about events in Ukraine. Hillary Clinton is doing what must be said and done. Hillary Clinton is also getting away from Barack Obama on domestic policy and foreign policy which is another imperative priority for Hillary Clinton 2016.

Hillary Clinton 2016 must get as far from Barack Obama and his Obaminations as fast as possible. Hillary Clinton must realize that the only way Republicans can defeat her in 2016 is to tie her to Barack Obama.

Likewise, for Republicans to win in 2016 they must tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. It’s a race to see who will do a better job of linking or shielding from poisonous snake Barack Obama first.

Mitt Romney is doing his best to tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. But that is a topic for another day when we discuss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s record at the State Department.