Posts Tagged ‘DNC’

Is Obama Able To Finally Keep A Damn Promise And Turn America Around? Mr. Disbarred ‘It Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word ‘Is’ Is’ Says Yes He Can!

September 6, 2012

Nobody denies that Bill Clinton is able to give a great speech.  If anything, Clinton’s speeches make Obama look mediocre by comparison.  Particularly when Clinton talks about his record and you’re a sentient life form who has any consciousness of reality as to Obama’s economy after four years of his failed policies.

But ultimately, Bill Clinton’s speech amounted to this: “Trust me.  Obama is the man to lead us to shared prosperity.”

I could point out that “shared prosperity” didn’t work in the U.S.S.R.; it didn’t work in Maoist China; it didn’t work in Cuba; it didn’t work in North Korea.  It didn’t work pretty much anywhere it has ever been tried.  It is bankrupting Europe as we speak.  And it won’t work here.  But I’m more fixated on Bill Clinton’s “Trust me” thing.

How many intelligent people don’t understand that Bill Clinton gave his speech as a career Democrat who was loyally trying to rally Democrats?  Probably zero.  But unfortunately, there simply aren’t a lot of intelligent people any more, thanks to what liberals have done to our government schools over the last forty damn years.

It comes down to this: Bill Clinton was a president who got his ass historically kicked for his party’s failures in 1994.  And as a result of that asskicking, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate.  And as a result of that repudiation, Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over,” and began to govern NOT as a liberal like Obama but as a moderate who compromised and worked with the Republican Party.  And as a result of that “era of big government is over” governance, America got a balanced budget and began to thrive under grand tax cuts like the capital gains rate that Clinton cut from 28% to 20%.  That Republican-style tax cut unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to MORE THAN TRIPLE.

That, for the record, is because Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

It is a deliberately forgotten fact that Clinton ended his presidency as a success because he benefitted from the policies of a completely Republican-controlled Congress.  Bush ended his presidency as a disaster because he was plagued by the policies of a completely Democrat-controlled Congress.

It is a national disgrace that this nation is controlled by a mainstream media propaganda machine that keeps pumping the message that Obama couldn’t succeed because of Republican obstructionism.  Because they will NEVER be consistent or honest and tell you that our economy melted down in 2008 thanks to the policies of Democrats who controlled both the House AND the Senate, whereas Obama benefitted from complete control of both branches of Congress for his first two years in office and now still has Democrats controlling the Senate.  George Bush would have LOVED to have enjoyed as little “obstructionism” as he was burdened by his last two years in office under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why every single time I hear a Democrat mention “Republican obstructionism” I can know that I am dealing with a completely dishonest human being and that it is time to move on.  Because you have got to be an abject lying hypocrite to say that after George Bush tried not once but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the collapse of those two institutions which triggered the mortgage-market meltdown in 2008.  When you look at the FACT that conservative economists literally PREDICTED the collapse when Democrats empowered Fannie and Freddie to give mortgages to people who could not possibly afford to pay their loans; when you look at the FACT that Fannie and Freddie were the ONLY entities that were empowered to create the subprime-based mortgage backed securities that became the “toxic assets” that poisoned the portfolios of suddenly bankrupted firms like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch; when you look at the FACT that as this disaster was building and building and building after Bill Clinton expanded the disasterous loan program, and that Democrats in Congress rabidly refused any kind of reform of these suicidal policies when there was still time to fix what was broken, you are simply a fool if you don’t acknowledge that it was DEMOCRATS who were the obstructionists.  And all you people are for whining about Republicans is DISHONEST HYPOCRITES.

And somehow Bill Clinton managed to completely omit the FACT that he created a financial collapse and resulting serious recession of his own in the DotCom Bubble collapse that resulted in George Bush watching $7.1 trillion in wealth vaporized while the 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio valuation was annihilated.  And the only reason that recession isn’t well-remembered is that the 9/11 disaster that resulted from Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and the CIA and our intelligence apparatus and leaving us both weak and blind even as he emboldened Osama bin Laden to view America as a weak “paper tiger” that was “ready to be cowed by an attack.”

Bill Clinton omitted the fact that he left George Bush in a hole that wasn’t a lot less deep than the hole Bush left Obama in.

So should we trust Bill Clinton when he rallies to his fellow Democrat and says, “Trust me, Obama is the only man who can lead you to a better future?”

How about not?

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

Barack Obama is a wildly failed president.  And he is a failure for the very reason that Bill Clinton was ultimately a successful president: because while Bill Clinton compromised and negotiated and bargained with Republicans, Barack Obama surrounded himself with radical leftist ideologues and has steered America left like no president ever has before him.

Obama is going to make a bunch of promises to turn America around and cut the deficit and create jobs, etc. etc., blah, blah, blah.  They’re the same promises he failed to keep four years ago and he’s going to demand more of the same failed policies that failed to fulfill those promises that he demanded the last four failed years.

Constantly Changing Democrat Lies Continues With Wisconsin Smackdown: DNC Head Wasserman Schultz Had Called It A ‘Dry Run’ For Obama

June 7, 2012

The Youtube video of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

As narrated by Rush Limbaugh:

But then she went to CNN.  She was on CNN, I think it was Sunday morning on State of the Union with Candy Crowley.  Candy Crowley asked her about the Wisconsin recall.  “So there’s a recall movement, sitting governor, but he’s now leading in the polls up there, and you’ve said you don’t think there’s national implications to this, and yet you’re gonna spend some of your time up there fundraising for the Democrat who’s challenging Walker.  If the Republican governor should retain his seat up there, what will it say about the power of unions who’ve been fighting him, and what will it say about putting Wisconsin in play this fall, maybe going for Romney?”

SCHULTZ:  Well, I am going there Tuesday to campaign with Mayor Barrett.  I think that he has a real opportunity to win.  Ultimately I think Tom Barrett will pull this out, but regardless it’s given the Obama for America operation an opportunity to do the dry run that we need of our massive significant dynamic grassroots presidential campaign which can’t really be matched by the Romney campaign or the Republicans because they’ve ignored on-the-ground operations.

Now that they’ve got their asses massively kicked, cockroach Democrats say the whole recall thing really didn’t mean nothin’.

Obama worshipers point to polls that ostensibly show that Obama has a significant lead over Romney in Wisconsin as proof.

Well, a couple of things: 1) polls can change and change quickly.  And 2) the same polls that Democrats are pointing to to argue that Obama has a big lead over Romney in Wisconsin WERE THE SAME POLLS THEY WERE POINTING TO WHEN CLAIMING THAT THEIR CANDIDATE WAS GOING TO WIN.  Maybe there’s something wrong with those polls given the tiny little fact that they were just completely discredited with the massive Walker win???  Maybe???

The “grassroots” came out in the largest numbers imaginable in Wisconsin: and they told Democrats to shut the hell up and go away.  THAT was the real “dry run” that we just witnessed.

In any event, it’s impossible to have a meaningful debate with Democrats because to be a Democrat is to be a liar who keeps constantly moving the goalposts.

Campaigner-in-Chief Says ‘You’re On Your Own’ To Democrats As He Jets From Fundraiser To Fundraiser

March 5, 2012

Barack Obama has been the greatest campaigner-in-chief in American history.  He has held a hundred fundraisers versus 49 at this same point for George W. Bush.  Mind you, Obama has ALWAYS been better at whoring for his cash stash than any other incumbant president.

But – just as in his personal life - don’t count on Barack Obama to be generous to others:

 W.H. to Dems: Expect no money
By: John Bresnahan
March 5, 2012 04:52 AM EST

President Barack Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash: You’re on your own.

Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee — a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010.

But that’s not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks. It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line.

Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Plouffe is a senior political adviser to the president and served as campaign manager for Obama in 2008, while Messina is Obama’s campaign manager this cycle.

Hill Democrats won’t be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC. OFA officials suggested Vice President Joe Biden do two fundraisers for each campaign committee. Obama will instead send out an email and fundraising letter solicitations for both committees.

Nor, for that matter, have Obama or Biden committed to do events for individual Democratic lawmakers. That’s true even though 23 Democrat-held Senate seats are up for grabs in a competitive battle for control of that chamber. And no fundraisers have been scheduled yet for House and Senate Democrats with Cabinet officials, usually a staple of an election-year calendar for incumbent presidents looking to boost their party’s prospects.

The tightfistedness by the Obama campaign toward Hill Democrats reflects the harsh realities of the 2012 White House fight. Obama, who broke all fundraising records in his historic 2008 run, isn’t going to be the overwhelming financial juggernaut that he was four years ago. Obama still has a big edge in money raised and cash on hand — OFA and the DNC reported nearly $92 million in cash at the end of January after hauling in a combined $250 million last year, according to campaign records — over any Republican challenger.

But that still leaves Obama far short of the $1 billion that many pundits had predicted he would raise this cycle. Messina has railed against such claims for months, as it became a problem for Obama because some donors didn’t think he needed their support. Obama could still raise $700 million to $800 million, Democrats predict, a total that could be eclipsed by the GOP nominee, the Republican National Committee and shadowy pro-GOP super PACs.

The financial caution for the Obama team also reflects the growing power of super PACs, especially for Republicans. The groups — technically unaffiliated with any candidate yet already a huge factor in the GOP presidential contest — are prepared to dump tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, into the White House race. So far, Democrats, including Obama’s own super PAC allies, have been unable to match that flood of pro-Republican cash.

For instance, Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked super PAC and nonprofit, will spend as much as $300 million bolstering the GOP presidential nominee and Republican congressional candidates and incumbents, POLITICO and other news organizations have reported.

In comparison, Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC founded by former presidential aides, raised just $59,000 in January after taking in $3 million last year. To counter the super PAC gap, Obama has been forced to embrace such outside groups, dispatching Plouffe and other campaign officials — and potentially Cabinet secretaries — to help bolster its efforts. Priorities USA Action is also coordinating money efforts with super PACs raising money for Hill Democrats.

Those huge sums of GOP money, much of it in the form of secret gifts from wealthy donors, have tilted the presidential campaign in an unprecedented way. In the past, an incumbent president like Obama with a broad base of small-donor support would have a significant financial edge against any challenger, particularly one who went through a long and costly primary season like this year’s eventual GOP nominee will have endured.

Crossroads, though, has already announced it will spend $20 million to pummel Obama and the Democrats this summer, a time when the prospective nominee would normally be focused on refilling his own campaign coffers. And super PACs more closely tied to Romney or one of the GOP presidential hopefuls could quickly shift targets with one mega-check from a big donor.

All of which leads to Obama’s decision to worry first about his campaign war chest, with the fate of Hill Democrats further down his “to do” list.

“Our top priority and focus is to secure the electoral votes necessary to reelect the president,” Messina said in a statement to POLITICO. “There’s no doubt that Democratic campaigns face a challenging new political landscape with special interests giving unlimited amounts to super PACs. We’re committed to doing everything we can to elect a Democratic House and Senate, and we’re having a conversation about the best way to achieve that goal.”

Messina added: “The organization and turnout operation we’re building on the ground in states across the country is unparalleled, and it will help to elect Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.”

OFA officials note that White House officials, Cabinet secretaries and top Obama surrogates — including Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman — have done 15 fundraisers for House and Senate Democrats so far this cycle.

They also point out that Obama’s effort to build a mammoth get-out-the-vote operation in key battleground states like Florida will benefit all Democrats on the ticket, not just the president. OFA and the DNC are expected to spend $50 million-plus in the Sunshine State this year, although an OFA spokesman would not comment on how much the campaign has budgeted for that critical state.

And Obama’s improved approval ratings, combined with a stronger economy and suddenly hopeful Senate Democratic map, are buoying party strategists on the Hill. They know, like the White House does, that Reid has no chance of retaining his majority, nor Pelosi a chance of becoming speaker again, if Obama doesn’t win reelection.

Some Democratic insiders caution as well that the Plouffe-Messina line on Thursday may not be the last word on campaign cash.

Officials for both the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees echoed the conciliatory White House message, despite the unhappiness in Democratic ranks over the Obama stance.

“The DCCC’s goal is to win 25 seats, and President Obama’s reelection is critical to our effort. We appreciate everything that OFA is doing to help and look forward to working with them as we each reach our goals this cycle,” said Jennifer Crider, the DCCC’s communications director.

“Keeping Mitch McConnell and the tea party in the minority is motivating Democrats across the country, and that is why Democratic senators and candidates will have the resources to win in November,” said Matt Canter, the DSCC’s spokesman. “We appreciate OFA’s cooperation with our efforts and look forward to even more support from the president’s campaign and the DNC.”

What’s really funny is the progression:

We go from this:

The 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a multibillion-dollar contest. President Obama’s re-election committee is expected to raise at least $1 billion, and Republicans have high hopes that their nominee will reach the 10-figure level as well.

That’s brand-new territory for presidential candidates. In 2008, Obama raised nearly $746 million. That was double what George W. Bush raised just four years earlier — which itself was double what Bush raised four years before that.

It’s the first time ever that presidential fundraising shot up that fast. And it puts the Obama re-election operation within reach of raising $1 billion: a volume of cash that takes the campaign out of politics-as-usual.

to our present state of the Obama union.

Interestingly, it wasn’t all that long ago that Obama was blaming his poor fundraising on his being so generous to the DNC (that we now know he won’t be giving a dime to):

President Obama’s reelection campaign will bring in a “moderate” amount of money when it reports its fundraising total to the Federal Election Commission in July, a senior campaign adviser said.

The adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that campaign officials have decided to devote the bulk of their early efforts to fortifying the Democratic National Committee rather than the president’s own reelection campaign, anticipating that DNC will need to spend the money earlier. This decision, they said, accounts for the lower total.

Obama advisers anticipate that the president’s campaign will face questions about whether it is on track to meet internal fundraising targets, which have not been disclosed. Inevitably, Obama’s take will be compared with Republican Mitt Romney’s because Romney is the closest thing the GOP field has to a front-runner. On Monday alone, Romney’s Nevada call-a-thon took in more than $10 million.

Obama raised a record-shattering amount of campaign money in the 2008 cycle–nearly $750 million.

An American Thinker article does an excellent job of both introducing the increasing desperation of the Obama campaign to raise funds and simultaneously points out the sheer hypocrisy of said Obama campaign.

It just strikes me as beyond amazing that the left continues to depict Obama as some transcendent political messiah when he is in fact the worst money-grubbing whore to ever stink up the White House.

Liberals Seeking To Bring Chaos Of Islamic World To America

February 21, 2011

Liberals brought chaos to the Middle East.

Oh, yes they did.  Liberal Marxist terrorist professors like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and liberal Marxist terrorist organizations like Code Pink did everything they could to light matches to the Middle East powder keg by creating violent incidents such as the Free Gaza Movement flotilla.  You’ve had George Soros acting as a puppetmaster of pro-leftist destabilization for years.

Heck, as the entire Middle East now goes up in flames, with the uprising in Egypt being bracketed by Tunisia and now by bloody Yemen and even bloodier Libya, remember that Democrats “credited” Barack Obama with being behind the spark behind it all (see also here).  And Obama seems to want that credit himself.  Because it might end up becoming the spark that blew up the world.

It’s probably about time to finally understand that Obama has his roots as a leftwing community agitator.  And that while you can talk the man out of community agitation, you can never take the community agitator out of the man.

Obama is trying to do unto Wisconsin (and from there on to Ohio) what he apparently did in the Middle East.  Because vile leaders have always known that blood and unrest tends to benefit the vile:

The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America arm — the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign— is playing an active role in organizing protests against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to strip most public employees of collective bargaining rights.

OfA, as the campaign group is known […has been] riding to the aide of the public sector unions… OfA’s engagement with the fight — and Obama’s own clear stance against Walker — mean that he’s remaining loyal to key Democratic Party allies…

OfA Wisconsin’s field efforts include filling buses and building turnout for the rallies this week in Madison, organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies, a Democratic Party official in Washington said.

And with all of that evidence that liberals are burning up the powder keg in the Middle East and are trying to do the same thing in America, let me introduce the article that prompted me to write what I wrote above:

Documents show Wisconsin unrest orchestrated and spreading
February 19th, 2011 3:12 pm ET.

While part of the current unrest in Wisconsin is driven by local issues, new information has been uncovered indicating an orchestrated attempt to stir up ‘worker protests’ not only in Wisconsin but in at least a dozen states.  The coordinated effort is part of a ‘revolution’ spearheaded in part by a group called ‘Heartland Revolution,’ a Kentucky-based political action organization. The group was first envisioned by a Kentucky Democrat, John Waltz, who announced his candidacy in 2009 to oppose 2-term Republican Geoff Davis for the 4th Congressional District. Waltz was defeated in the November 2010 midterm elections but embarked on an effort to create ‘revolution’ throughout America, stemming from his anger toward what he terms ‘the hijacking of political discourse by right-wing propagandists.’ His group is invovled in the continuing Wisconsin protests of teachers unions upset over Governor Scott Walker’s plan to have them pay for part of their healthcare and pension benefits, to which they currently contribute very little of the total costs. 

Waltz frames his revolution in terms of a ‘political war,’ which he claims is being waged against the middle class by Republicans and corporate interests. His aim is to ‘shut down right-wing political cash machines’ using whatever means possible.

For example, in Wisconsin members of his organization were instructed to boycott a Subway Sandwhich Shop in downtown Madison during the protests.  The reason?  The owner of the deli is a large contributor to Governor Scott Walker.

The following Twitter alert from the Walsh organization was sent to Heartland protesters in Madison this morning:

02.19.11ALERT: If you are @ the protests in WI boycott the Subway in the square. The owners are the 2nd largest contributors to Gov. Walker

Waltz makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is a ‘progressive.’  The term is indicative of a mindset that wishes not only to hide the true intent of those who proudly own the description but promote an agenda that is based on a collectivist view of government and society where decisions concerning the personal lives of citizens can best be made by those in a centralized government complex.  The goal is to increase the scope of government so that workers, unions, and others can benefit from a confiscatory tax structure aimed at draining ‘the rich’ to pad the pockets of others.  

But perhaps the most troubling aspect of ‘Heartland Revolution’ is its coordinated efforts to create unrest across America, beginning in Wisconsin, but extending to Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

The map displayed here on the group’s blog page will reveal their upcoming plans and targeted areas, along with their Twitter messages to members.

Curiously, the group refers to its protesters as ‘boots on the ground,’ and war terminology abounds.  A cursory scan of Heartland Revolution’s website will reveal that members view their efforts as a war, a revolution, with boots on the ground that are determined to intimidate conservatives, overthrow politicans who represent the voices of taxpayers, and target the businesses of those who support them.

Far from being for the ‘working poor,’ as the group claims, Waltz and his minions are dedicated to preverving and expanding union power and protecting the high salaries and benefit structures enjoyed by many who work for various government entities.  For example, in Wisconsin  the average city school teacher earns over $100,000 per year including pay and benefits, and pays next to nothing toward their retirement or healthcare. The benefits are paid overwhelmingly by taxpayers. Waltz and his group, however, believe that asking these teachers to contribute more to their plans like most Americans do is tantamount to ‘waging war against workers.’

It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks if the average American agrees with him.

If America doesn’t want to burn, it had better vote out all these Democrats and make sure they don’t have enough fire to light anything.

Hillary Clinton: Good Speech, But Not Much Of An Obama Endorsement

August 27, 2008

Hillary Clinton gave a pretty good speech. She presented her case for her candidacy, citing all the reasons why she ran and all the aspirations she had for America. And she said that those same reasons were why she now supported Barack Obama. She did outwardly all the things the Obama people wanted her to do.

But she didn’t do any more than the minimum.

The McCain campaign jumped all over what Hillary Clinton didn’t say:

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded, “Senator Clinton ran her presidential campaign making clear that Barack Obama is not prepared to lead as commander in chief. Nowhere tonight did she alter that assessment. Nowhere tonight did she say that Barack Obama is ready to lead. Millions of Hillary Clinton supporters and millions of Americans remain concerned about whether Barack Obama is ready to be president.”

I  took notes on an interesting discussion  on Fox News.  There analysis was insightful about what Hillary didn’t do.

The interesting thing about this speech is that she could have given it about ANY Democratic nominee. It could have been given of John Edwards or Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. She didn’t say a word about him as a person. She didn’t talk about what she’d learned about his character over the last 18 months. She didn’t trace his biography and tell us what about his character or experiences would make him fit to be President. She never said she respected him. She never said she had confidence in him. She never said he was ready to be president. She never said she’d come to have confidence in him as Commander-in-chief. She never claimed he was experienced or ready to lead. And in the past she has said that he WASN’T ready to be president, ready to lead, ready to be Commander-in-chief.

In the end, Hillary Clinton supported Barack Obama for President because he is the Democratic nominee for President. She would have supported Daffy Duck if Daffy Duck were the Democratic nominee.

Interestingly, she said Michelle Obama would make a great first lady. She never said the same about Barack Obama making a great President.

It was a minimalist endorsement, and she didn’t go one iota beyond what she needed to.

Contrast Hillary’s speech endorsing Barack Obama with Barack Obama’s speech introducing Joe Biden.

Heck, the last quarter plus of her speech presented her historic role as the first major female candidate for President. “This is the culmination of the women’s movement of 1848.” That sort of thing. That was the rhetorical high point of the speech.

The speech didn’t in any way culminate with a presentation of Barack Obama’s vision for America. In the end, the speech was more about Hillary (and Hillary supporting the Democratic Party) than it was about Barack Obama as the candidate for President.

Hillary Won’t Rock The Boat In DNC Speech, But Will Hope For Chaos

August 26, 2008

What does Hillary Want? That’s the real question. Whether she will say something that overtly undermines Barack Obama in his speech isn’t much of an issue: of course she won’t. She can’t be tied with ANYTHING that would directly undermine Obama’s chances or it would irreparably damage her own career.

How hard has Hillary really worked to overcome Obama’s difficulty reaching her 18 million voters?

What will Hillary say tonight in her speech? I think – in ostensibly campaigning for Obama – she will try to remind voters of what they could have had.

Think of Hillary tonight as the metaphorical spurned jealous ex-wife dieting like mad to make her ex-husband eat his heart out.

Hillary wants to outshine Barack Obama, and she most definitely wants to outshine Joe Biden.

That said, I don’t think the most exciting show will be watching Hillary Clinton when she gives her speech. I think we should be watching her supporters and the many PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass).

Many have raised the issue that it would be better for Hillary if Obama loses. That would allow her to run again in 2012. And that’s clearly true. The only way she could realistically run against Obama if he were President would be if his presidency was going down the toilet. And then the odds would strongly favor Republicans. Hillary is 61 years old, and since she isn’t getting any younger, she only has so many runs left in her (any pun intended).

Maureen Dowd wrote a viciously mischievous piece titled, “Two Against One.” The two, by the way, are Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

I don’t think there’s much of a question as to whether Hillary wants Obama to lose. I don’t think there’s any doubt that she fantasizes about Democrats wailing for the next four years, “Oh, if only we’d remained true to Hillary and not fallen for that snake Obama.”

This isn’t really a dig on Hillary at all: Politicians will surely have a huge representation in the lowest floors of the basement of hell. And if every self-centered, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed politician in Washington were to be abducted by aliens, the power centers of the D.C. would be very silent indeed.

Hillary wants what’s best for Hillary, and what’s best for Hillary would be to run against McCain in 2012. She just can’t get caught trying to make it happen.

I thought a rightpundits piece came up with an interesting take on the Machiavellian, politically-hatchet-sharp Clintons convincing politically-juvenile Barack Obama to buy their magic beans, with Obama’s professionals coming in afterward to shove Bill and Hillary away from Obama’s ear lest the wolves in sheeps’ clothing pull even more wool over his eyes:

The theme for the DNC Convention tonight is “Renewing America’s Promise.” Hillary’s DNC Convention speech is expected to be one of healing and hope and encouraging her supporters to give their support to Obama. Her role, as per reports, is to be one of healing and unity. She will say the requisite words, I’m sure. Although, I think its odd that she is speaking, for one. For another thing, that the Obama people seem to view it as her responsibility to give Obama votes rather than him getting them. Its definitely an odd election year.

The Clintons also managed to get Obama to agree to a floor vote between herself and Obama. I can just hear the conversation between the two. ‘Why don’t we have a vote and clear the air, Barack. It’ll be healing for the people and there won’t be any of those silly little dangling chads to worry about later,’ she’d say. Barack would put his finger thoughtfully to his lips as he slowly lowers his head so that she could see more than the bottom of his chin. ‘Do you think that would make your people happy and they’d vote for me then?’ he’d ask. ‘Oh yes, Barack, its the thing to do. Then it’ll be clear I lost and the party will be unified again.’ Barack agreed and the Clintons laughed all the way to their separate living areas. They’d be laughing because they know that when Hillary wins the floor vote, she’ll have to reluctantly and oh-so regretfully for poor Barack have to bend to the will of the people and accept their nomination.

But again, the micromanagers stepped in. Even though they are following through with the floor vote, the votes won’t be counted until after Barack is nominated and given his acceptance speech. That’s why appeasement is such a problem. Even though he agreed and everyone was all excited about how they were going to pull the rug right out from under his feet, his people had to come in and straighten the mess out and now everyone is mad.

They say the floor will be completely controlled so that the Hillary supporters will not be able to get their signs up in support of her or have their voices heard. They’ll go away mad, but the damage will be done. As they say, better to ask for forgiveness than to try to get permission.

After all that’s over, they’ll try to win back Hillary’s people. They’ll say they are so sorry about how that worked out and blame every body for misunderstanding their instructions. Yeah, it won’t be their fault. It will just be a misunderstanding.

Under all the smiles, there are a whole bunch of bruised egos and bad feelings.

And a lot of those people with the bruised egos and the bad feelings will be the ones wearing “Hillary 08″ campaign buttons.

But even Hillary doesn’t know what her supporters will do, or how many of them will do it. As long as she doesn’t come across as being directly associated with any meltdowns, I think the bigger the ruckus, the more delighted Hillary will be.

That’s going to be the interesting part about her speech, and about the convention.

If Obama comes out of the convention with a big bounce, figure that Obama did a good job wooing back angry white women Hillary supporters. If he doesn’t, figure that they went away mad.

Catholics Open Can-O-Whoopass On Nancy Pelosi’s Abortion Of Catholicism

August 26, 2008

Thanks for helping Catholics understand how hateful Democrats actually are against religion, Nancy!  Kick start the DNC with a statement of foolishness and hate.

Pelosi – after making sure she was represented as speaking as a Catholic – was so unrelentingly stupid, and so full of blatant lies, on a crucial issue to the Catholic Christian worldview that you knew a response was coming.

Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, was one of the Catholic leaders to refute Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s incredibly stupid view of Catholic thought on abortion:

Statement on Remarks by Speaker Pelosi

August 26, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 26, 2008

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York

Nancy Pelosi “should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”

That’s why devout evangelical Protestants like myself love devout evangelical Catholics.

See my piece, “Pope Pelosi Issues New Papal Decree Re: Catholic Stance On Abortion” for Pelosi’s blatant misrepresentation of her own professed religion for despicable political purposes.

It’s whoop-ass day for Nancy Pelosi. The Catholic League weighed in over her terrible lies as well:

On yesterday’s NBC-TV show, “Meet the Press,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment on when life begins. Here is what she said: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.”

When Tom Brokaw told her that the Catholic Church “feels very strongly” that life begins at conception, Pelosi said, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: ‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.’ It also says, ‘Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.’ Looks like Pelosi didn’t study the subject long enough. But not to worry: We are sending her a copy of Catholicism for Dummies today (the Catechism is like maybe a bit advanced).

“Whether Joe Biden is as ignorant of what his religion teaches remains to be seen. What is not in doubt is the enthusiasm which NARAL showed when he was selected to join the ticket. The radical pro-abortion group was delighted, as were the radical pro-abortion delegates to the Democratic convention: as reported in today’s New York Times, 64 percent of Americans reject abortion-on-demand, yet only 23 percent of the delegates do. It is only fitting, then, that NARAL’s president will speak today at the Convention and Planned Parenthood’s president will speak tomorrow.

“So there we have it: the man running for president on the Democratic ticket supports selective infanticide, his running mate is a pro-abortion Catholic, the delegates are wildly out of step with Americans on abortion and the Speaker of the House hasn’t a clue what her religion teaches on the subject.”

The Pope has already spoken on the subject. A Reuters article titled, “Pope warns Catholic Politicians Who Back Abortion” says:

Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as “automatic excommunication” on themselves.

The Pope said parliamentarians who vote in favor of abortion have “doubts about the value of life and the beauty of life and even a doubt about the future”.

“Selfishness and fear are at the root of (pro-abortion) legislation,” he said. “We in the Church have a great struggle to defend life…life is a gift not a threat.”

“ALWAYS A GIFT”

The Pope’s comments appear to raise the stakes in the debate over whether Catholic politicians can support abortion or gay marriage and still consider themselves proper Catholics.

In recent months, the Vatican has been accused of interference in Italy for telling Catholic lawmakers to oppose a draft law that would grant some rights to unwed and gay couples.

During the 2004 presidential election, the U.S. Catholic community was split over whether to support Democratic candidate John Kerry, himself a Catholic who backed abortion rights.

Some Catholics say they personally would not have an abortion but feel obliged to support a woman’s right to choose.

But the Church, which teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder, says Catholics cannot have it both ways.

“The Church says life is beautiful, it is not something to doubt but it is a gift even when it is lived in difficult circumstances. It is always a gift,” the Pope said.

Catholics, please be true to your religion: vote out the Party of Death. Vote out the Demagogic Party. Get rid of these blatant blasphemers and cast your vote for life.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers