Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

June 1, 2012

Obama Democrats and the liberal mainstream media propaganda complex are eating their words on the Obama campaign’s boasted $1 billion fundraising campaign:

Other experts agreed that, compared to Obama’s $750 million campaign budget in 2008, $1 billion isn’t that much of a stretch.

“It’s a stunning amount of money,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “But what we’ve seen over the past couple of election cycles is that the trajectory only goes upwards.”

Obama set the bar for expensive campaigns in 2008 when he became the first major presidential candidate to refuse general election public financing. This removed the cap on how much money he could raise.

[…]

With fundraising strategies that have yet to be matched, Canary and others said, Obama could be using the $1 billion figure to psych out the competition.

“It’s a coded statement to all potential challengers that says, ‘My team knows how to fundraise,’” Canary said. “It says, ‘Don’t get into this race unless you want to take on $1 billion.’”

The reliably leftist Daily Beast simply states matter-of-factly:

The first post Citizens United presidential election is already shaping up to be one of the most lucrative in history—at least in certain quarters. President Obama is expected to raise more than $1 billion, a record that would eclipse the one he set in 2008 when he collected $750 million.

It turns out Republicans have a “code” of their own – in the form of the middle finger salute.  It turns out that a growing number of Republicans are saying, “I don’t care how much it will cost; let’s get this stinking sack of Marxist feces out of the White House while there’s still some America left that Obama hasn’t ‘fundamentally transformed.'”

Obama has been the biggest political whore in the entire history of the human race up to this point:

Obama first U.S. politician ever to raise over $1 billion in campaign funds
By ANI | ANI – Wed 23 May, 2012.

Washington, May 23 (ANI): President Barack Obama has been found to be the first U.S. politician ever to raise over a billion dollars in the course of his career.

According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, his lifetime total hit has been found to be 1,017,892,305 dollars in April, nine years after he began his 2004 race for Senate.

[….]

To help fund his re-election bid, Obama has turned to a series of big-names to join him at fundraising events, the latest being Bill Clinton.

Obama is the money-grubbing–cynical-political-pig-in-chief who has attended more fundraisers than the past five presidents – COMBINED:

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on ‘permanent campaign’
By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 07:41 EST, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 14:16 EST, 29 April 2012

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.

Let’s also point out that this nuclear war over fundraising was started by none other than the cynical money-grubbing whore Barack Obama (again, from the reliably leftist Daily Beast):

In 2008, Obama’s record haul was made possible by the fact that he broke a campaign pledge and opted out of the public financing system. He was the first candidate ever to take that step, and he justified it with the prospect of hostile outside spending.

Let me put that another way: as the Daily Beast acknowledges, Barack Obama broke his word, which is to say he lied to the American people.  John McCain accepted the public financing system which had always been used previously.  Barack Obama saw his chance to rake in more money and said to hell with that public financing system and its limits, and exploded it for all time.  And the worst demagogue who has ever stunk of the Oval Office used as his deceitful ruse the threat that HE HIMSELF WAS ACTUALLY PERPETRATING: to raise giant sums of money from outside the public financing system.

And understand: the Citizens United case – which Obama demonized and undermined the Supreme Court for deciding – hadn’t happened yet.  And the only reason we probably ever GOT the Citizens United decision that Obama demonized the Supreme Court over is because Barack Obama broke his word and massively corrupted the political fundraising system to form the backdrop to which Citizens United came down.

You don’t like the Citizens United decision that opened up the fundraising floodgates even wider than Obama flung them open, Democrats?  You have yourselves to blame for it and for a whole hell of a lot of other things by electing an evil malignant narcissist as your president.  Because don’t you dare think that the Supreme Court didn’t look at the billion dollar whore who had ripped up all previously mutually agreed upon fundraising rules and standards and concluded that they might as well finish what Obama started.

And then there’s the fact that according to the Democrats’ “logic,” corporations – which are groups of people organizing to build a business – shouldn’t be counted as a “person,” but UNIONS – which are groups of people organizing to tear apart those same businesses – SHOULD BE counted as a “person.”  So unions raising hundreds of millions of dollars is good but corporations backed by elected boards and shareholders raising money is BAD.

Not that Democrats hadn’t already violated the fundraising rules in all sorts of sordid ways without Obama.  You know about that silly little limit of $2,500?  We know for a fact that Rachel ‘Bunny’ Mellon gave upwards of a million dollars to John Edwards campaign in an under-the-table transaction through third parties:

According to two sources close to Mrs. Mellon, her suspicions weren’t even aroused by the unusual method of payment: She was advised to write bank checks for “furniture,” made out to Bryan Huffman’s Monroe, North Carolina-based interior design business. Huffman in turn endorsed them over to Young, who then got the money to Edwards.

That “gift” then met with a request by John Edwards for another $3 million.  And if that wasn’t enough chutzpah, Edwards started asking for sums in the $30-40 million range.

John Edwards is one nasty whore, I believe it is wholly accurate to say.  But he is nowhere NEAR the whore that Obama has proven to be in terms of fundraising.

So it should surprise nobody that Republicans – who have had it past their eyeballs in Obama’s incredibly divisive and incredibly partisan and incredibly evil political games – to determine to finally beat Obama at his own twisted game and raise such a mountain of money that it will bury even “the billion dollar whore” once-for-all:

GOP groups plan record $1 billion blitz
By MIKE ALLEN and JIM VANDEHEI | 5/30/12 4:34 AM EDT

Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations.

That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections – twice what they had been expected to commit.

Just the spending linked to the Koch network is more than the $370 million that John McCain raised for his entire presidential campaign four years ago. And the $1 billion total surpasses the $750 million that Barack Obama, one of the most prolific fundraisers ever, collected for his 2008 campaign.

Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, proved its potency by spending nearly $50 million in the primaries. Now able to entice big donors with a neck-and-neck general election, the group is likely to meet its new goal of spending $100 million more.

And American Crossroads and the affiliated Crossroads GPS, the groups that Rove and Ed Gillespie helped conceive and raise cash for, are expected to ante up $300 million, giving the two-year-old organization one of the election’s loudest voices.

“The intensity on the right is white-hot,” said Steven Law, president of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. “We just can’t leave anything in the locker room. And there is a greater willingness to cooperate and share information among outside groups on the center-right.”

In targeted states, the groups’ activities will include TV, radio and digital advertising; voter-turnout work; mail and phone appeals; and absentee- and early-ballot drives.

The $1 billion in outside money is in addition to the traditional party apparatus – the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee – which together intend to raise at least $800 million.

The Republican financial plans are unlike anything seen before in American politics. If the GOP groups hit their targets, they likely could outspend their liberal adversaries by at least two-to-one, according to officials involved in the budgeting for outside groups on the right and left.

By contrast, Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama’s reelection, has struggled to raise money, and now hopes to spend about $100 million. Obama’s initial reluctance to embrace such groups constrained fundraising on the Democratic side, which is now trying to make up for lost time.

Labor could add another $200 million to $400 million in Democratic backing.

The consequences of the conservative resurgence in fundraising are profound. If it holds, Romney and his allies will likely outraise and outspend Obama this fall, a once-unthinkable proposition. The surge has increased the urgency of the Democrats’ thus-far futile efforts to blunt the effects of a pair of 2010 federal court rulings – including the Supreme Court’s seminal Citizens United decision – that opened the floodgates for limitless spending, and prompted Obama to flip-flop on his resistance to super PACs on the left.

“We’re not making any attempt to match American Crossroads or any of those groups with television ads,” said Michael Podhorzer, political director for the AFL-CIO. Instead, much of labor’s money will be spent on talking directly with union members and other workers.

“Progressives can’t match all the money going into the system right now because of Citizens United, so we have to have a program that empowers the worker movement,” Podhorzer said.

Much of the public focus has been on how these outside groups will tilt the balance of power in fundraising at the presidential level. But POLITICO has learned that Republicans involved with the groups see the combined efforts playing out just as aggressively at the congressional level, in below-the-radar efforts designed to damage Democratic candidates for the House and Senate.

The officials said that if Romney looks weak in the final stretch, the vast majority of the money could be aimed at winning back the Senate. Republicans need four seats to do that, if Obama is re-elected.

Republicans have taken one big lesson away from campaigns conducted to date in 2011 and 2012: outside money can be the difference-maker in elections.

It was outside money from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson that single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich afloat against Romney. A super PAC spending surge fueled by Wyoming mutual fund guru Foster Friess was credited with powering Rick Santorum to an upset win in the Iowa caucuses. And outside money has helped lift tea party challengers past incumbents like Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) in this year’s primaries.

Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, spent twice as much on the air as the campaign did in the thick of the primaries: Through March, the campaign had put $16.7 million into TV, while ROF shelled out $33.2 million.

In Florida, the super PAC outspent the campaign, $8.8 million to $6.7 million. (The campaign can get more spots per dollar because of more favorable rates.) In Michigan, it was $2.3 million to $1.5 million. In Ohio, ROF outspent the campaign, $2.3 million to $1.5 million.

Now Republicans are applying this approach – on steroids – to the remainder of the campaign:

—Groups affiliated with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are among the biggest behind-the-scenes players in Republican politics, will spend the most of any outside outfit on either side: roughly $395 million for issue and political advocacy by groups they support – twice the amount they previously had been expected to commit.

“People are energized because the future of our country and economy is at stake,” said an ally familiar with the Koch effort.

The flagship group in the Koch network is Americans for Prosperity, which gets about half its funds from other donors.

— American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS) plan to do about two-thirds of their spending on advocacy related to the presidential race, and the rest relating to House and Senate races. Crossroads (a super PAC) was founded in April 2010, Crossroads GPS (a 501(c)4 non-profit group) started the next month.

—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a goal of $100 million, according to outsiders familiar with the plans. All of that will be focused on congressional races, with the House as the top priority – what organizers call “the first insurance policy” if Obama were to get reelected.

But the Chamber’s message, which includes attacks on Obama’s health-care plan, can be expected to help Romney in several states with competitive Senate races that are also presidential battlegrounds – Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin.

—The YG Action Fund, the super PAC started by aides of the two self-styled “Young Guns” – House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — has a goal of raising about $30 million, including the YG Network.

—American Action Network, chaired by former senator Norm Coleman, raised about $30 million in the 2010 election cycle and is likely to try to at least match that amount in 2012, with most of that going toward congressional races.

—The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC supported by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other House GOP leaders, has reported raising $5 million so far.

—The pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, is likely to raise $50 million to $100 million for the general election. “They saw that the spending worked before, and with the race this competitive, it will be even easier for them to raise money now,” said a source close to the group.

Charlie Spies, co-founder and counsel of Restore Our Future, said: “While there are multiple other groups doing important work to assist Republicans up and down the ticket, ROF is the only group dedicated solely to electing Mitt Romney, and targeting every dollar that we raise towards supporting him. ROF will spend our resources fighting back against the Obama team’s distortions and smears.”

—FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey-led tea party outfit that has backed challengers in GOP congressional primaries, is expected to spend $30 million or more on issue advocacy, campaign ads and organizing — between its super PAC and 501(c)4.

—The Republican Jewish Coalition, a 501(c)4 group that works closely with the Crossroads outfits and the American Action Network, plans to spend more than $6 million on “the largest, most expensive, most sophisticated outreach effort ever undertaken in the Jewish community,” according to a source familiar with its plans.

—Club for Growth plans spending in congressional races but does not reveal totals.

It’s important to step back for a moment to understand the currents racing through the money chase right now. Republicans, back in the era of soft money, dominated fundraising, thanks in large part to big business donors. But when soft money was outlawed in 2002, a lot of business donors got uneasy about feeding their money through outside groups. Many sat out. At the same time, liberals got into the business of using tax-exempt and other groups to build their own web of think tanks, media monitors, vote-trackers and advocacy groups to influence politics. Rich liberals such as George Soros and union leaders funded much of it.

By the time 2008 rolled around, Obama and the Democrats were rolling over Republicans in the race for campaign cash raised in limited chunks, and Obama largely discouraged big-money outside efforts. Things have changed rapidly – and, in some respects, radically — since then.

First, Citizens United made it easy and less risky for rich donors to get back in the game. Second, a subsequent lower court case paved the way for the creation of super PACs, giving mega-donors arguably the most effective vehicle for funding ads in the modern campaign finance era. Third and perhaps most important, Obama scared many free-market millionaires into action with what they perceive as his outright hostility to capitalism.

So that’s the backdrop and that’s the outcome.  Just remember, it sure wasn’t Republicans who broke their word on the public financing system that had always worked before.  It wasn’t Republicans who then destroyed that public financing system and threw the political fundraising process into the sewer (probably for all time).  It wasn’t a Republican who became the first one billion dollar political whore.  It sure wasn’t a Republican who schmoozed huge sums of cash in secret through third parties from an elderly but apparently horny heiress.

Now Democrats are in a hell-hole of their own making: the fools who pissed on the public matching funds system are now forced to either match Republicans who are holy in their rage against an evil man, or to reach deeply into their pockets and somehow find a billion dollars to purchase the gold-plated turd a.k.a. Barack Obama.

And apparently it’s hard for Democrats to find their wallets given the fact that they have to hold their noses with one hand around their “messiah.”

Advertisements

Jay Leno Says Republicans Willing To Laugh At Themselves, Democrats Get Paranoid And Run To Focus Groups

April 24, 2012

“Asking a comedian to make fun of Obama is like asking a priest to mock Christ.” — Greg Gutfeld

I’m not a humorless opinion-poll-zombie, that’s why I vote Republican.

Jay Leno: Republicans ‘Laugh at Themselves More’ Than Democrats
By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2012 | 17:36

A very common media contention is that liberals have a far greater sense of humor than conservatives.

Tonight Show host Jay Leno dispelled this myth this week in a Press Pass interview with NBC’s David Gregory wherein he told the Meet the Press moderator, “Democrats and Republicans are interesting because Republicans really laugh at themselves more” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: You know, I remember, we were just talking about this, covering then Governor Bush when he came on the show back in 2000. You him on, you had Al Gore. And one of the things Bush did so well was that he was creat with you, you know, he could be funny. What about Mitt Romney? What was your take? He was here recently

JAY LENO: You know, Democrats and Republicans are interesting because Republicans really laugh at themselves more. Like when Bush came on it was, “We want to do a skit. We’re kind of making fun”–“Yeah, go ahead.” And the skit was we were going, we were play “Jeopary!”, and we had Bush going, “What is this?” “What is that?” “What is this?” Like as if he didn’t know. And then it was course like “Jeopardy!” He was answering the questions like Alex Trebek. And we just walked up, “Can we do the sketch?” “Yeah, fine.”

We went up to Al Gore. We want to do this skit. Hang on. And there was a focus group and then media people came in. Where will Al be sitting? OK, now will Al have the punch–well, it’s just, we don’t have to do it. It’s, it’s not a big. And, you know, in the dressing room, Al Gore was very engaging and very funny and very loose.

GREGORY: Yeah. yeah.

LENO: But once the camera came on, oh, no.

GREGORY: But this is a key test. Will you go on “The Tonight Show” and let it rip if you’re a politician? Right? Isn’t that, I mean, it’s a test from their side of it.

LENO: Yeah. I mean, I mean, we, I remember we had John Kerry on and he came on on a motorcycle and had a beer, and it just seemed like we’re pushing a little too hard here. I mean, I like John Kerry, but I just felt like, really? He rode the bike on a ramp, you know, had the leather jacket. He’s a regular guy, by golly. You know? It was very funny.

The other thing that was interesting about this interview was that in the entire sixteen minutes, Barack Obama’s name was only mentioned once.

Gregory and Leno spent far more time chatting about the latter’s take on George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney.

The only mention of Obama was a very brief clip of a spoof video Leno’s team created of the current president singing Al Green’s “So In Love With You” to Dmitry Medvedev.

After the clip, Gregory asked, “Is he easy to make fun of, this president?”

Leno replied, “Well, Clinton and Bush was the golden age of comedy.”

And believe it or not, that was all Gregory and Leno had to say about Obama – roughly 30 seconds out of sixteen minutes.

Which validates Greg Gutfeld’s observation this week that “Asking a comedian to make fun of Obama is like asking a priest to mock Christ.”

Pretty sad.

I think it says something profound that priests ARE mocking Obama even as the comedians are worshiping Barry Hussein like Christ.

I Will Be (Holding My Nose And) Voting For Mitt Romney

April 10, 2012

Well, it’s all but official at this point.  Rick Santorum just bowed out (to my relief) and Newt Gingrich will very likely follow Santorum to the exit.  Ron Paul, of course, will stay in the race and as long as he doesn’t wake up deciding to run as a third-party candidate, that’s fine.

I predicted Mitt Romney would be the nominee back in December – not that that was all that incredibly bold of a prediction.

What happened to the conservative Republican candidate?  Well, let’s put it in terms of a dog fight: the conservative dogs chewed each other up and ate each other’s votes while Romney ploughed ahead as the moderate.  At times, amazingly, Romney was literally untouched in debates as the conservatives bashed each other to shreds trying to position themselves as the “real” conservatives with their rivals being pseudo-conservatives.

What I kept hoping to see was a GOP nomination in which all the candidates took on Obama’s failure of leadership and Obama’s failed policies and let the electorate see who could do a better job taking the fight to Obama.  But such was never to be.  It is for that reason that I am relieved to see a nominee emerge – even if I am anything but happy with that nominee.

Romney could still jazz me up with his VP pick, mind you; that’s what happened when “Maverick” (that’s code for “R.I.N.O.”) John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.  If Romney were to pick a Marco Rubio or a Nikki Haley, it would do much to improve my mood.

I wanted a real conservative to win the nomination.  I was hoping that we would have a Reagan rise up the way we had the last time an abject Democrat failure (that would be Carter) brought the nation to its knees.  It never happened.  It never happened; in fact, in hindsight I believe I can say that such a candidate never even ran to begin with.

So what do I want now?  I want Obama out of office.  I want “God damn America” to be in the Hall of Shame.

It’s not that I believe in my gut that Mitt Romney will be a great president; it’s that I believe in my gut that this nation cannot survive another term of Obama freed from having to worry about re-election and able to impose his “fundamental transformation” as the nation collapses all around him.  If you think that what’s been happening has been bad (88 million Americans simply dropping out of the workforce altogether; real unemployment at 10.9% if measured by the labor participation rate that Bush handed to Obama), you aint seen nothin’ yet.

In the God damn America that Obama has shaped this nation into, you don’t get a terrible president versus a great candidate; you get a terrible president versus a less-terrible candidate.  A line from a book I’m reading points out this dilemma is hardly anything new:

Hitler and Mussolini were rivals for the political affections of different constituencies in Austria, namely the Austrian Nazis and the clerical-authoritarians gathered around Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss.  For many Austrians, the Dollfuss regime presented them with the familiar dilemma of supporting, or tolerating, a lesser evil to forestall something infinitely worse. — Moral Combat by Michael Burleigh, p. 29

And welcome to the hell of choosing between merely mediocre Mitt or genuinely evil Obama.

Which is why as uninspired as I am by Mitt Romney, I am very inspired indeed to replace Barack Obama.

Before Obama implodes America with mindboggling debt that is only going to soar even more out of control with ObamaCare and other incredibly foolish policies.

One more thing: what will be Obama’s strategy against Romney?  To demonize him as no candidate has ever been demonized before.

Obama ran on “hope and change”; it was all a lie from hell – the kind of lie of glorious false promises and empty rhetoric that the world will soon see again when Antichrist comes:

Obama has been going from fundraiser to fundraiser in unprecedented fashion to raise a billion dollars that will allow him to demagogue and demonize like this earth has never seen.  Obama knows that he cannot possibly win on his failed record; he knows he has to pour fiery hate on top of the gasoline of pitting races against one another, pitting men against women, and pitting income level against income level ala Karl Marx. 

Here is a tried and true secret to how to run against a R.I.N.O. (that’s “Republican-In-Name-Only”) Republican: deceitfully frame him as an ultra-conservative.  Obama did this to John McCain and he’s already starting to do it to Mitt Romney, and here’s why it works: actual conservatives already know full damn well that it’s a hilarious lie that Mitt Romney is a “dangerous right-wing conservative” and are de-energized to support him, but the far more moderate and far more ignorant masses don’t know that – and Obama can use his giant campaign warchest that dwarfs anything history has ever seen because Obama has sold out America to special interests to turn the Republican nominee into a “right-wing bogeyman.”

A lot of Republicans are WISHING Mitt Romney were anything remotely CLOSE to a right-wing bogeyman.  But the people who still haven’t even yet bothered to tune into the election aren’t going to know anything.  And between an ocean of Obama attack ads and the mainstream media they’ll “know” exactly what they’re told to know.

Obama is going to try to frame Mitt Romney as a candidate who only cares about the rich.  But LOOK AT OBAMA’S TOP DONORS TO SEE THE TRUTH: Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan!?!?!?

How DARE this whore who has grabbed more money from more rich people than ANY political leader in the history of the human race play class warfare.  But the two things that Obama knows are that the mainstream media are his propaganda wing and that the American people are ignorant and willing to believe lies.

So you’re not inspired by Mitt Romney?  Please join the club.  But you’d better vote for him or you’re going to get hell on earth.

 

Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

January 31, 2012

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.

Hey, Newt and Mitt: YOU BOTH HAVE ALL KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO ANSWER FOR

Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.

A Few Thoughts On Iowa And The Current GOP Field

January 4, 2012

Well, the final tally was counted last night, and Mitt Romney edged out Rick Santorum by eight votes.

That’s got to drive you nuts; they say this stretch between Iowa and Super Tuesday is the hardest and most stressful and arduous period in all of politics; and Rick Santorum enters this stretch realizing if he’d just shaken as few as five more hands…

Romney kind of won (a meager technical victory) and Santorum kind of won (by winning the surge of the last few days of the race).  Both candidates will legitimately be able to claim victory.  The question is who will most effectively be able to take advantage of the victory they won in Iowa in the coming days.

At this point in the GOP contest, the race boils down to one of “the establishment candidate deemed most likely to win” versus the candidate we’d vote for if we were going to actually vote our values.  I don’t say it that way to say we should all necessarily be voting for Rick Santorum; I myself would rather have a President Mitt Romney than a defeated GOP contestant Rick Santorum.  We all have to do that calculus: which Republican candidate has the best chance of actually winning?  

I believe along with Charles Krauthammer that we should elect the most conservative candidate who can win.  And I don’t profess to know which candidate that is.

It could be Mitt Romney; it could be that Rick Santorum simply won’t be able to get those millions that will be able to compete with Obama’s billion (and isn’t it interesting that the same president who has so self-righteously eschewed “the system” would be the one who has amassed more money from that system than any other candidate in the history of the entire human race?).

If we’re talking big money, the guy is probably Romney; he has been the only money-raiser who has demonstrated an ability to compete with the Money-Raiser-in-Chief who sits on the White House throne.

But there’s a rub:

We need a candidate who can unite the party, yes, but we also need a candidate who can successfully unite both the big donors who fund the party and the conservatives who would serve as the willing foot soldiers to help carry the message.  You need money to win or you can’t win; and you just as much need inspired volunteers to win or you can’t win.

Romney can raise the bucks – probably better than any Republican in the field.  But can Romney inspire the troops?

He sure aint inspired me yet.  The best thing I can say about Mitt Romney is that at least he would at least be better than Obama (and frankly you’d have to go with guys with names like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong Il to point out people who would be worse than Obama).

But can Santorum inspire the conservative troops?  Think about it: Santorum represents the fifth candidate in a chain of candidates whom conservatives have tried to back as the “anti-Romney” choice.  He’s the fifth choice at this point.  That doesn’t mean he can’t truly rise to the occasion; it does mean he’s got an awfully long way to go to get there.

Romney has got the money; Santorum was able to get people to work like dogs for him in the final few days of the Iowa Caucus.  We need a Republican who can do both and do it on a national level.

I said a couple of weeks ago that I feared that neither Santorum or any other conservative would be able to rise that far in the time remaining.  And so allow me to talk about Romney for a few moments.

This is what happened to the Republican Party last year: we needed a visionary leader, and we got John McCain – a RINO who couldn’t be counted upon to stand up and deliver the conservative message and the conservative worldview.  My fear all along is that Mitt Romney is a John McCain with better hair and teeth.

What did the left do to that RINO McCain who had reached out so many times to Democrats?  Basically, this:

They turned him into some kind of arch-über-conservative that would frighten away independents.  And of course actual conservatives knew that the brand wasn’t true.  So damned near everybody was turned off to McCain.

McCain talked about remaining in Iraq the way we’ve remained in Germany and South Korea; not as “bloodthirsty warmongers,” but as guarantors to safeguard and protect what we had won with too much blood and treasure.  That was a message that Obama and his minions proceeded to twist and distort so they could deceive the American people into voting for a fraud who would fail.

And they’ll try to do the same thing to Mitt Romney, mark my words.  It doesn’t matter if he’s not a real conservative and every conservative knows he’s not a real conservative; liberals don’t give a flying damn about what’s real; they are all about rhetoric, and they’ll try to use their bogus, vicious rhetoric again.  It’s all they’ve got; it’s all they are.

I’ll vote for Mitt Romney and I’ll vote for Rick Santorum.  But I’ll sure be wishing for Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was a conservative whom the Democrat and Republican establishments both agreed couldn’t win when he captured the Republican nomination.  In fact, when he defeated the establishment candidate George H.W. Bush, the Jimmy Carter campaign staff literally opened champagne bottles and toasted one another.

Reagan shove that bottle right up… well, you know where.  He defeated Carter in the biggest landslide against an incumbant anyone alive had ever seen.

But Obama has given us God damn America, and in God damn America you don’t get a Reagan because you don’t deserve a Reagan.

In God damn America, Americams sow the wind and reaps the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

God damn America is a land that believes lies because they would rather believe lies than face reality.

Obama has buried America in $6 TRILLION in debt in only three years; after demonizing Bush for handing America $4 trillion in eight years.  God damn America shrugs off that truth just as it shrugs off every other truth.

We’re down to three Republican candidates, and all three of them are deeply flawed even while all three of them remain far superior to the Liar-in-Chief we’ve got now.

I believe this nation – and this world – is in the last days.  I believe we’ve kicked the can down the road until there’s no more road to kick the can down any more, and we are about to pay for it with a Great Depression that will make the last one look like a walk on the beach.

A vote for the Republican challenger would be a vote against that fate; but if we are God damn America, we are too much a nation of fools to care about disaster, aren’t we?

November 2012 is going to come fast.  And America doesn’t seem to handle deadlines very well.  We’ve got a huge choice to make; and my fear is that the American people will vote to kick the can down the road just as they have demanded their representatives do over and over again.  Until certain doom overtakes us.

One thing is certain: we don’t have enough road for Obama.  A vote for Obama is a vote for fiscal implosion and national suicide.  And that is precisely the choice that God damn America would make.

Here’s the essence of the 2012 race in all probability: the Republican Party will be uninspired because they will have an uninpsiring leader; the Democrat Party will be uninspired because their leader is a fraud and a failure.  Will the uninspired Republicans be more determined to get Obama out, or will the uninspired Democrats be more determined to keep their failure in?

I hope I haven’t come across as overly optimistic about our choices as Americans.

There’s only one candidate for your heart that will save you from the hell that is coming: and He isn’t a Republican.  He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

I’ll vote in the election; but I’ve put my trust in Jesus.

Obama, Democrats Say To Hell With White Working Class. I Say To Hell With Obama And Democrats.

November 28, 2011

It’s fascinating to try to figure out whatever you want to call the “thought process” of the diseased liberal mind.

It’s fine for Barack Obama and the Democrat Party to abandon the white working class; it’s racist for conservatives to point out the fact that Obama and Democrats are doing what they are in fact doing.  Slate’s David Weigel is disturbed that Fox Nation would title the following the New York Times piece as “Obama Campaign Plans To Abandon White Working Class.”  Even as he himself quotes Edsall as pointing out that:

preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment… and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”

On Weigel’s own quote from Edsel and on his own acknowledgment, of course, Democrats are clearly pushing a race-based strategy.  And completely abandoning working class whites.

It is also a strategy of egghead intellectual ivory tower white plantation owner “massahs” who are in “coalition” with poor, stupid, ignorant black and brown-skinned inferiors who need whitey massah’s benevolent wisdom and direction lest they degenerate back into the apelike savagery from which they so-recently shambled from.  Because when you see a phrase describing “voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment,” think “elitist white massah.”

Another, possibly even bigger admission, that comes out of the piece below is the tacit admission that every single time a Democrat claimed to represent the working class, they were in actual fact lying demagogues.  Because “working class Americans” largely vote REPUBLICAN and HAVE BEEN VOTING REPUBLICAN.  That acknowledgement largely doesn’t sell well, so liberal demon-possessed cockroaches in the media and political circles have created a fake truth rather than admit the truth that the Democrat Party today is composed of: pseudo-intellectual white Marxists, hypocrite white crony capitalists who demand government control so that they can benefit from all the pork and boondoggles such government largesse creates, and parasites of all colors who will gladly sell their souls (not to mention their votes) for another welfare check.  And of course useful idiots (also of all races) who haven’t ever once ever been able to think for themselves.

Versus the people who want to be self-sufficient and not worship at the altar of government control, regulation and subsidy, who left the Democrat Party twenty years ago.

Democrats don’t give a damn about the working class; they piss on the working class.  The only “working class” (deceitfully defined by the mainstream media as “THE” working class) are communist unions who exploit all the other actual workers by forcing them to provide union workers with enormous and unfair compensation and benefit packages that will ultimately implode America.

A third point is that this isn’t about “intelligence” or even so much about “education.”  This is about the Democrats pursuing the white elitists who have benefitted from “the system” created by crony capitalism in the promise that if these keep voting Democrat, they will ergo keep benefitting from the crony capitalism socialism that Democrats will continue imposing.

November 27, 2011, 11:34 pm
The Future of the Obama Coalition
By THOMAS B. EDSALL

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.

In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.

Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:  Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?

For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”

In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”

In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”

Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.

Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.

In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.

The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.

The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.

One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.

Allow me to rephrase the Democrat strategy in a nutshell: “If you vote for us, we Democrats are such cynical, un-American slime that we will take what somebody else worked for and earned and we will “redistribute” it to you.  After, that is, your white superiors who do your thinking for you take a giant chunk of all that money they used the force of government to steal for themselves.”

This is why I rightly and correctly call Democrats things like “traitors” and “cockroaches.”

It’s why even brief exposure to an American flag creates Republicans:

Shock Study: U.S. Flag Only Boosts GOP
By Paul Bedard
Posted: July 20, 2011

Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes and voting behavior even though most don’t believe it will impact their politics, according to a new two-year study just published in the scholarly Psychological Science.

What’s more, according to three authors from the University Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, the impact had staying power.

“A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants’ Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months,” the study found. “These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.”

It’s why doing something as innocuous as going to a Fourth of July parade makes people Republican:

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
June 30, 2011

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.

But there are vile people in this country who hate America and despise Americans even as they demand to parasitically leech off of those Americans.  And these vermin call themselves “Democrats.”

Thomas Edsell in his concluding sentences says of this racist-based Democrat strategy:

“One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics…”

I am reminded of Jesus’ warning concerning the last days: race shall rise against race.  Which of course is exactly what liberals want, as long as they can cynically exploit that conflict.

Mark my words: all the people who vote for Obama and the Democrat Party will one day soon be gladly voting for the Antichrist-beast from the pages of the Book of Revelation.

Obstructionist Senate Democrats Block Obama’s Jobs Bill

October 5, 2011

Can’t blame Republicans for blocking Obama’s jobs bill about which he has said “Pass this bill!” more than a million times.

If you really want to know which party is the real “obstructionists,” it’s your DemocRATS:

Senate Democrats forced to block Obama’s jobs bill
by Stephen Dinan

Senate Republicans tried to make Democrats hold a quick vote on President Obama’s jobs-stimulus bill Tuesday, but were blocked by Senate Majority Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is sponsoring Mr. Obama’s bill but who said other matters take priority.

Mr. Obama has traveled the country calling for Congress to pass his plan immediately — including most recently Tuesday afternoon in Texas — but the tax increases included in his bill are opposed by Republicans and even many Democrats.

With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, tried to force a vote, which presumably would have resulted in a humiliating defeat for the White House.

“I’d like to give him that vote,” Mr. McConnell said.

The Senate is currently debating a bill that would push for compensatory tariffs on exports from countries that manipulate their currency — which is designed to punish China.

Mr. Reid said that bill has been waiting for years, and takes precedence over the president’s jobs-stimulus. He tried to get an agreement to short-circuit a filibuster and bring up the president’s bill later this month, but Mr. McConnell objected that.

“What a charade we have going on here,” Mr. Reid fired back, calling Republicans’ effort “ridiculous on its face.”

Mr. Reid said “a majority of the Senate” supports Mr. Obama’s bill, and said the president’s repeated calls for immediate action were aimed at Republicans last month, when Congress was fighting over how to add emergency disaster relief to a stopgap spending bill.

“Of course the president was calling for his jobs bill, recognizing that what was going on here … was a waste of time,” Mr. Reid said.

But even after the disaster funding situation was resolved, Mr. Obama has continued to pressure Congress.

Meanwhile, the White House has refused to say whether it supports the China bill Mr. Reid has prioritized ahead of the jobs measure

I like the creative title to this article.  “Democrats forced to block Obama’s jobs bill.”  It reads sort of like, “Hiker forced to cut off own leg.”

Republicans are literally trying to force Democrats to vote on Obama’s jobs bill.  But Democrats don’t WANT to vote on Obama’s jobs bill.  Even as Democrats demonically, deceitfully and frankly dumbassedly demagogue Republicans as “obstructionists.”

Democrats’ skulls should explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.

Jews May Vote Against Hitler Because ‘They Feel They Want To Protect Their Wealth’ (Oops, Did I Say Hitler? I Meant To Say Obama)

September 14, 2011

Democrats are racists from the party of racism.

People tend to forget that.  But Democrats fought a vicious war to protect slavery; and then they began the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party; and so on.

Well, here we are in late 2011, and the blatant Antisemitism of the Democrat liberal base is in full swing on the evening of a vert humiliating election disaster (well, make that yet another in a series of humiliating election disasters dating back to the first chance voters got to show Democrats just how much they suck when Republicans took Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat away in liberal Massachusetts):

Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Waxman: Jews May Vote Against Obama Because ‘They Feel They Want to Protect Their Wealth’
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 7:55 AM
 
Republican Bob Turner is poised to win the special election in NY-9 today and loathsome Democrat Henry Waxman offers his unique spin why Jewish voters are fleeing Obama in droves.

“If Turner wins on Tuesday, it will be largely due to the incredible unpopularity of Barack Obama dragging his party down in the district,” wrote Tom Jensen of the Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling, one of the firms whose poll had Turner in the lead.

The PPP poll found that Democratic candidate David Weprin has a net positive approval rating, but the president’s job approval rating had slipped to 31 percent in the district, which he won with 55 percent in 2008.

“If Obama’s approval in the district was even 40 percent Weprin would almost definitely be headed to Congress,” Jensen wrote. “He’s getting dragged down by something bigger than himself.”

A Democratic strategist said Obama has become such a problem for down-ticket Democrats that he was wary of encouraging candidates to run next year. “I’m warning my clients — ‘Don’t run in 2012.’ I don’t want to see good candidates lose by 12 to 15 points because of the president,” said the strategist.

National Democrats have parachuted in since the race tightened: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending $500,000 on television ads in the highly expensive media market, while the Democratic outside group House Majority PAC has spent an additional $100,000.

The race might point to another trend: a softening in Obama support from the Jewish community, which strongly backed him in 2008. The district has one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in the country.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a prominent Jewish congressman, said the Jewish vote is a concern for his party.

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

What does that say about Obama? Basically, if you want to protect your wealth, be you Jewish or whatever, don’t vote for Obama.

Thanks for that ringing endorsement, Nostrilitus.

Faced with a six-point deficit in the polls (which local TV and radio call “razor thin” and “too close to call”), the desperate Democrats called in aging Lothario Bill Clinton for some robo-calls, where he repeated the typical Democrat lies.

“Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to ask you to support David Weprin in today’s special election for Congress. The New York Times endorsed David. They support him for the same reasons I do: because he’ll stand up for the middle class, he’ll support a good program to put Americans back to work, and he’ll oppose the Tea Party plan to destroy Medicare. Again, it’s President Bill Clinton, I’m proud to support David Weprin for Congress and I hope you will too. Thanks.”

They have nothing to offer but fear itself.

Black conservatives – and now Jews – can readily attest that sacred minorities can become instantly evil villains; all they have to do is vote against Democrats.

You’d better tow the damn Democrat line, minorities.  Because there is a racist and vicious Democrat Party just waiting to pour hate on you if you don’t vote the way they want you to.

Which, interestingly, was EXACTLY how the Democrats were acting in the Civil War days, too.

Look at how liberals “de-blackificated” Clarence Thomas:

What do liberals want to do with Clarence Thomas?  “String him up.”  “Send him back to the fields.”

David Horowitz once called blacks the “human shields of the Democrat Party.”

But it’s funny how quickly the white liberal establishment will throw one of its shields into the fire and burn it.

For the record, Jews haven’t “misunderstood” a damn thing.  Barack Obama – whose spiritual mentor and pastor for 23 years (Jeremiah Wright) was a hard-core anti-Semite himself has been more anti-Israel than any American president in the entire existence of Israel since its 1948 birth.

Thanks directly to Barack Hussein Obama, Israel is more exposed and is in greater danger than at any time since it was threatened with extermination in 1948.  To argue first that Jews aren’t smart enough to understand that an Antisemitic president has put their nation in direct jeopardy even as he has groveled before Israel’s most dangerous enemies, and then to argue secondly that somehow they are wrong for wanting to vote in their own clear economic interests, takes some incredibly amazing chutzpah.

Republican Bob Turner Wins Weiner’s Seat (Held By Democrats Since 1923) In MAJOR Obama Buttkicking

September 13, 2011

The überliberal Los Angeles Times said this about the Weiner seat race Saturday, September 10:

The district has not been represented by a Republican since 1923. But Weiner’s departure, coupled with voter discontent over President Obama’s handling of the economy, could change that Tuesday when the district votes in a special election to fill the seat.

“If Turner wins, it’s going to be perceived to be, and in some sense really will be, a referendum on Obama,” said Douglas Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York.

As Obama struggles to gain footing on a wobbly economy, his party has begun a frantic effort to avoid the embarrassment of losing the seat.

[…]

“Democrats need to keep this seat just to save face,” Malone said. “Not only is the money flowing, but all of these elected [Democratic] officials, they’re all asking their staff members if they could take time out to go campaign for Weprin.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee invested about $500,000 on a last-minute advertising campaign. House Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC, has spent at least $100,000 to run its own ad assailing Turner for his “tea party” ties.

That’s a lot of money in a race in which the candidates had raised $654,755 combined by late August.

Turner’s campaign got a small boost from the National Organization for Marriage. The group pledged to spend $75,000 to oppose Weprin, who in June voted for the bill that legalized same-sex marriage in New York.

National Republican Party groups had yet to spend significantly on the race, suggesting that the party might have less faith in Turner than his late boost in the polls might suggest. But even a close race — Turner won just 39% of the vote in his run against Weiner in 2010 — would be enough to embarrass Democrats.

“Even if Turner comes up short, it’s sort of a feather in the cap of the Republican Party,” Malone said.

Well, now Democrats aren’t just “embarassed.”  They’re crunched like the nasty little disease-carrying roaches they are.

Not only did Democrats lose the seat, but they lost it to a guy who “launched conservativer provacateur Rush Limbaugh’s talk show.”

Even with a 3-1 advantage in Democrat regirstration over Republican registration, it wasn’t really even close:

With about 70 percent of precincts reporting late Tuesday, Turner had 53 percent of the vote to Weprin’s 47 percent.

The also überliberal Washington Post wrote it up thus:

Republican Bob Turner wins New York special election
Posted by Rachel Weinerat 11:58 PM ET, 09/13/2011

Businessman Bob Turner (R) defeated state Assemblyman David Weprin (D) in the special election for the House seat held by former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (D).

Turner’s victory is regarded as an upset given the Democratic history of the 9th district, which takes in portions of Brooklyn and Queens, as well as the fact that President Obama carried the seat by 11 points in 2008.

“New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in a statement after Turner’s win.

Mary Altaffer

AP

Republican Bob Turner won a New York seat that Democrats expected to hold.

Although the district may well be eliminated by Empire State line-drawers tasked with cutting down New York’s congressional delegation by two seat before 2012, the result will buoy Republicans hopes heading into 2012 and spur anxiety among Democrats.

Republicans also easily held a seat in Nevada’s GOP-heavy 2nd district, which has never elected a Democrat. State Sen. Mark Amodei (R) beat state Treasurer Kate Marshall (D) in a special election for the House seat left open by Sen. Dean Heller (R), who was appointed to replace Sen. John Ensign (R). Ensign resigned earlier this year over a scandal involving an aide.

The New York seat, which was vacated by Weiner earlier this year following relevations of his involvement in a series of online liaisons with women who weren’t his wife, was initially considered safe for Democrats.

While it’s conservative by New York City standards, Democrats still have a 3-to-1 registration advantage in the district.

Republicans sought to turn the race into a referendum on President Obama, tying Weprin to the surprisingly unpopular commander-in-chief at every turn. (Obama’s approval rating was at 43 percent in the district, according to a survey conducted by Siena Research Institute).

Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cast the result as a rebuke of Obama’s new jobs plan.

Obama’s position on Israel became, fairly or not, an effective wedge against Weprin. The Democratic candidate tried to distance himself from Obama’s assertion that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders but Turner effectively linked that position, deeply unpopular in the district’s Jewish community, to his Democratic rival.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner and explained that a victory by the Republican would be the best way for Democrats to send a message to the President.

The National Jewish Democratic Council disputed the idea that Israel was a major factor.

“In the end, in this difficult economy, Americans — including in New York’s Ninth District — are hurting,” said National Jewish Democratic Council President David Harris. “In this atypical district, they’ve reacted atypically.”

In the run-up to Tuesday’s vote, Democratic party leaders were doing everything they could to de-couple those vote from any sort of national trend.

As evidence they cited the fact that Democratic performance in the district has been eroding for years. In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore got 67 percent of the vote; Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) got only 56 percent in 2004, and Barack Obama 55 percent in 2008.

Moreover, Democratic strategists noted that they had a fairly weak candidate in Weprin, whose campaign was plagued by gaffes. He was chosen by party leaders largely because he promised not to challenge another incumbent in 2012, should his seat be eliminated in redistricting.

With New York slated to lose two seats due to growth over the last decade that lagged the national average, the 9th is considered ripe territory to be eliminated although no formal redistricting discussions have taken place.

As we’ve written, special elections are notoriously unreliable as predictors of future results. But for now, Democrats have reason to be spooked.

If Democrats had any wisdom at all, they were be spooked about the fact that very nearly all of them are going to burn in hell forever someday.  But as it is they’re more “spooked” the way cockroaches are spooked when you turn on the light in the kitchen.

The granddaddy of überliberalism New York Times said that Democrats were getting real scared about Obama’s chances of getting re-elected just a couple of days ago.  How do you think they feel tonight after losing a seat they’d held for almost a hundred years?

Democrats are following their failed president straight into the disaster they deserve. Leprosy is more popular than this total loser.

New York Times: Democrats Growing Increasingly Frightened Over Failure-In-Chief Obama’s Re-Election Chances

September 12, 2011

Most New York Slimes articles are simply pure leftwing drivel, of course.  But it is nice to read an article in which these leftwing propagandists look at one another with wide-eyes and admit they are terrified:

September 10, 2011
Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Chances
By MICHAEL BARBARO, JEFF ZELENY and MONICA DAVEY

Democrats are expressing growing alarm about President Obama’s re-election prospects and, in interviews, are openly acknowledging anxiety about the White House’s ability to strengthen the president’s standing over the next 14 months.

Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing to two leading candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who have executive experience and messages built around job creation.

And in a campaign cycle in which Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year’s midterm elections, some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

“In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. “There is tremendous discontent with his direction.”

The president’s economic address last week offered a measure of solace to discouraged Democrats by employing an assertive and scrappy style that many supporters complain has been absent for the last year as he has struggled to rise above Washington gridlock. Several Democrats suggested that he watch a tape of the jobs speech over and over and use it as a guide until the election.

But a survey of two dozen Democratic officials found a palpable sense of concern that transcended a single week of ups and downs. The conversations signaled a change in mood from only a few months ago, when Democrats widely believed that Mr. Obama’s path to re-election, while challenging, was secure.

“The frustrations are real,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who was the state chairman of Mr. Obama’s campaign four years ago. “I think we know that there is a Barack Obama that’s deep in there, but he’s got to synchronize it with passion and principles.”

There is little cause for immediate optimism, with polls showing Mr. Obama at one of the lowest points of his presidency.

His own economic advisers concede that the unemployment rate, currently 9.1 percent, is unlikely to drop substantially over the next year, creating a daunting obstacle to re-election.

Liberals have grown frustrated by some of his actions, like the decision this month to drop tougher air-quality standards.

And polling suggests that the president’s yearlong effort to reclaim the political center has so far yielded little in the way of additional support from the moderates and independents who tend to decide presidential elections.

“The alarms have already gone off in the Democratic grass roots,” said Robert Zimmerman, a member of the Democratic National Committee from New York, who hopes the president’s jobs plan can be a turning point. “If the Obama administration hasn’t heard them, they should check the wiring of their alarm system.”

At a gathering of the Democratic National Committee in Chicago this weekend, some party leaders sounded upbeat after they toured the Obama campaign headquarters. But others expressed anxiety that Mr. Obama’s accomplishments were not being conveyed loudly enough to ordinary people, that Republican lawmakers were making it impossible for him to get more done, and that Mr. Obama’s conciliatory approach might be translating to some voters as weakness.

“Now that they’re slapping him in the side of the face, he’s coming back,” said William George, a committee member from Pennsylvania. “He needs to start stomping his foot and pounding the desk.” At the White House and at Mr. Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago, officials bristled at the critiques, which they dismissed as familiar intraparty carping and second-guessing that would give way to unity and enthusiasm once the nation is facing a clear choice between the president and the Republican nominee.

Jim Messina, the campaign manager for the president’s re-election, said the criticism was largely a “Washington conversation” that did not match up with the on-the-ground enthusiasm for Mr. Obama among his network of supporters. Yet even without a primary challenger, the campaign purposefully started its effort early to allow concerns from supporters to be aired.

To reassure nervous Democrats, the president’s campaign aides are traveling the country with PowerPoint presentations that spell out Mr. Obama’s path to re-election. Their pitch is that Mr. Obama’s appeal has grown in traditionally Republican states like Arizona, where there are fast-growing Hispanic populations, and that Republicans have alienated independent voters with “extreme” positions on popular programs like Medicare.

“We always knew 2011 was, in part, a conversation with our supporters and a time to tell the story to our base to make sure they understand what he has gotten done,” Mr. Messina said. “Our supporters are reasonable and need to be reminded about the things we’ve done.”

He added: “No one is calling me up and yelling. They are people saying: ‘How can we get the word out? How do we better talk about it?’ ”

For Mr. Obama’s strongest supporters, his jobs speech on Thursday night to a joint session of Congress seemed to affirm their belief that after a rough patch, the White House had seized the upper hand, however temporarily, in both substantive and political terms.

After ceding much of the debate over the economy to Republicans, they said, Mr. Obama had framed next year’s election as a struggle between a president with a plan for creating jobs and reducing the deficit and a Republican Party that would rather score political points and adhere slavishly to ideological positions than address the needs of Americans.

Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who attended the speech, described a changed president, no longer so reluctant to be outwardly aggressive. “He seemed liberated for the fight and very confident in his own skin,” Mr. O’Malley said.

But given the risk of voters’ locking in judgments that Mr. Obama’s presidency has failed to address the economy adequately or to deliver on its promise of changing Washington, many Democrats said that both the speech and Mr. Obama’s change in tone had been long overdue.

“He should have given it earlier,” said Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio said, “He’s got to engage, make the contrast and occasionally be combative.”

The president is already embracing the suggestion that he spend more time outside Washington, which emerged as a recurring theme in the interviews with Democrats. He promoted his economic plan in Virginia on Friday and has trips to North Carolina and Ohio on tap this week.

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Chicago, Mannie Rodriguez, a committee member from Colorado, said Democrats needed to find a new blast of energy — something to remind them of what they felt in 2008 when Mr. Obama was elected on a slogan of hope and change.

“We need to work more on the message,” Mr. Rodriguez said, adding that much of Mr. Obama’s challenge stems from a group of Republicans who “simply say no” to all of his advances. “We have to re-energize people and get them back to the party.”

In many parts of the country, Democrats are still reeling from the punishing defeat in the 2010 elections, which gave Republicans control of a majority of governor’s seats and legislative chambers. State Democratic leaders are criticizing the White House with candor, fretting aloud about the president’s electoral vulnerability.

“If the election were held today, it would be extremely close here in Florida,” said Jon M. Ausman, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Florida.

Problems for Mr. Obama in Florida, Mr. Ausman said, could trickle down into next year’s Senate race there, where Bill Nelson, a Democrat, faces re-election. “Too many people here have lost their jobs,” Mr. Ausman said.

For all the hand-wringing among Democrats, some party leaders say Mr. Obama has time to reverse his slipping fortunes — but not much.

“I think there’s an uneasy feeling, but it’s a little early for an ulcer to develop,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia. “Obviously, the dark cloud over everything is the economic performance.”

Mr. DeFazio recalled attending a dozen or so town-hall-style meetings recently in his district, a slice of western Oregon that Mr. Obama carried in 2008 by 11 percentage points. Mr. DeFazio said party loyalists had bluntly said they were reconsidering their support.

“I have one heck of a lot of Democrats saying, ‘I voted for him before, don’t know if I can do it again,’ ” he said.

This is getting to be an increasingly far cry from the days that Democrats owned everything and Obama was refusing to so much as give Republicans the time of day while telling them, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”  Now this same group of hypocrite fascists are crying and whining and demonizing because Republicans are refusing to compromise with them almost as much as Democrats refused to compromise with Republicans just a couple of years ago.

I tried to warn Democrats about the consequences of their reckless and frankly evil actions.  Back in March of 2010, I wrote:

You Democrats, don’t you think for a SECOND that what you are doing now won’t one day come back at you with a vengeance that will leave you even more stunned and terrified than conservatives are today.

In an article from February, I wrote regarding Obama’s abandonment of the Defense of Marriage Act – which just happened to be the law of the land, for what little that is worth any more – in boldface red font:

Just remember this, Democrats. If Obama gets away with this, the next Republican president has the right by precedent to decide which laws HE wants to ignore. And you will have supported that right by supporting what Barry Hussein is doing right now.

And that was before Obama decided that the law meant nothing when it came to illegal immigration, too.

I have pointed it out over and over again.  Democrats have become true fascists.  They have repeatedly stomped on the faces of the American people, even after the people gave them a massive warning in November 2010 with the largest political asskicking in midterm election history.

The thing that should make Democrats the most terrified is that we conservatives are finally starting to learn that to treat you people with anything other than pure contempt is dangerous.  And we have nothing other than DEMOCRATS’ OWN VILE EXAMPLE to learn said lesson.

What’s going to happen when Republicans start running as roughshod over the law to advance their special interests as Obama and his cockroach Democrat Party have been doing?

Some Democrat “strategists” like Bob Beckell are stupidly cheering Rick Perry as some unelectable conservative hillbilly.  I pointed out the following:

As one example of how this phenomenon turns out, it is said that the Carter campaign team actually toasted champagne the night Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to become the Republican nominee. Because, of course, George H.W. Bush was the “establishment” Republican and Ronald Reagan was the crazy rightwing bomb-throwing governor who didn’t stand a chance. At least not until Ronald Reagan grabbed the Carter team’s champagne bottle and shoved it right down Jimmy Carter’s pencil-neck in one of the worst elections blowouts in history:

That champagne bottle is going to hurt you all kinds of ways going in this time, Democrats.  Because Rick Perry is going to shove it up a different orifice this time.  And he’s going to shove it in sideways.

You damn better be scared, Democrats.  Because you deserve hell, and you’re about to get what’s coming to you.