Posts Tagged ‘2012 election’

New York Times Woefully Examines The Likelihood Of Another Republican Asskicking House Election In 2012. Then Consider The Implications For Obama.

July 30, 2012

This caught my eye, given all the various predictions and hand-wringing over all the many polls:

For House Democrats 2012 will be at least as bad as 2010, but chances are it will be worse
By Kevin “Coach” Collins, on July 28th, 2012

“If this were just our candidates versus their candidates, I would sign an affidavit that we would pick up 35 seats” so says Congressman Steve Israel the Democrat in charge of getting the House back. This false bravado sums up a big part of the Democrats’ problem: not being able to acknowledge there is a problem.

A hand wringing New York Times analysis lays out the grim situation for its Party:

“The overall dynamic favors Republicans, who look poised to maintain their hold on the House. More Democrats than Republicans have retired in districts where they were endangered, and more Republicans benefited from the decennial redistricting, leaving the Democrats with too small a cushion of Teflon incumbents as they try to regain a majority in the House. Of the 80 races viewed as most competitive by The New York Times, based on polls and interviews with independent analysts, 32 are leaning Republican, 23 are leaning Democratic and 25 are tossups.”

The reality is that these numbers indicate the GOP is poised to win over 50 of these race and maybe more. Because of the cumulative effect of both elections this would be worse than 2010 for the Democrats who could see their numbers fall to the fewest since 1931.

Why this will happen

With less than four months to go compared to 2008 conservative Republican enthusiasm is 16 points higher and liberal Democrat enthusiasm is 22 points lower.

Democrats from local candidates to Barack Obama have no coherent plausible message.

Together they have made America sick so what can they say?

They can’t even keep their “We hate” list straight. They’ve tried to get their base to hate Bain Capital, but couldn’t make their charges stick because they are lies. They’re still trying to get their base to hate the TEA party but every charge they make is a lie so it falls flat. Now they are telling their Christian base to hate Christian doctrine and love Democrats which is also doomed to failure.

There is no group Obama lost in 2008 that he is winning now and no group (not even African Americans) he won in 2008 that he is doing better with today. Now that voters have a clearer idea of what he is all about, Barack Obama will be an even bigger drag on his Party this year than he was in 2010 when the GOP took 63 seats in a landslide not seen since 1938.

Americans are NOT going to the polls to vote against Barack Obama then vote for a Democrat in their Congressional district as Mister Israel fantasizes. Come November Democrat policies will sink them in large numbers.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative, use this link:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/politics/republicans-and-democrats-fight-for-control-of-the-house.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

To read about how hypocritical the Democrats have been over the past 200 years. Get you copy of Coach’s new book Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at:http://crooksthugsandbigots.com

Here is the map the New York Times created.  It is interactive if you go to the article available (again) here:

I admit, it might be my eyes are messed up or something.  But I don’t see the blue tidal wave of adoration for Obama.  I see the red of a bunch or Republicans rising up in righteous outrage.

We’re seeing a lot of polls coming out that apparently favor Obama.  They have two major weaknesses:

1) Flawed polling methodology.  Recently we had a poll that had Obama up by six points over Romney.  What you have to dig a little more into is the fact that the poll had a sampling distribution that favored Democrats by 11 points over Republicans.  That’s a 2008 model.  Well, please understand: 2008 went bye-bye for Obama.  He’s simply not going to have the sort of overwhelming Democrat tide that he had in 2008 – and any polling methodology that assumes he will is deeply flawed and in fact biased.

When we can routinely point to polls that skew toward Democrats by seventeen points, we can point to an invalid poll.

2) Voter turnout.  I’m not hearing predictions that Democrats will vote for Romney in substantial numbers the way we had “Reagan Democrats.”  The question is, how energized are Democrats to show up and vote?  The fact of the matter is that voter enthusiasm was ALL in Democrats’ favor in 2008 – and the fact of the matter is that it is now a mirror image with the same levels of enthusiasm now favoring Republicans.  The most heavily Democrat voter groups such as blacks and youth are already showing a substantial enthusiasm gap which predict that they will NOT turn out the way they did in 2008.

Fittingly, Democrats have been dropping out in such droves rather than be seen with Obama that Nancy Pelosi has suggested that Democrats should just skip the whole damn thing altogether:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says Democratic members should stay home and campaign in their districts rather than go to the party’s national convention in North Carolina.

“I’m not encouraging anyone to go to the convention, having nothing to do with anything except I think they should stay home, campaign in their districts, use their financial and political resources to help them win their election,” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview for POLITICO Live’s “On Congress,” a new weekly show to be streamed live on POLITICO’s website and broadcast on NewsChannel 8 on Wednesdays.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I find this historic. I don’t believe any party leader has ever called for that party to abandon their own national convention.

To add insult to injury for Democrats, the labor unions that form the backbone of the Democrat Party machine are literally planning on holding their own convention and tuning out the DNC Convention in North Carolina:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three weeks before the Democratic National Convention this summer, union leaders plan to hold their own “shadow convention” to promote labor issues they believe too many elected officials are ignoring.

The union gathering in Philadelphia on Aug. 11 was inspired by the anger many labor officials felt after Democrats decided to stage their nominating convention in North Carolina, a right-to-work state that is the least unionized in the country.

Most unions are still planning to attend the Charlotte, N.C., convention, but more than a dozen are boycotting it. Other unions are not spending big money on the convention as they have in the past.

Does this sound positive for Democrats?  And compare these developments to when Obama was parading around as “the messiah” at the enormous 2008 Democratic National Convention with an ostentatatious Grecian Temple platform to magnify his wonderful wonderfulness.

Numerous polls are assuming it’s Obama messiah magic all over again with their assumptions, but reality seems to be screaming a very different message.

Here’s another example: Democrats are refusing to pay their dues to the Democrat Party to the tune of a full third of the entire caucus not paying ANYTHING to go with an even larger group who have only paid a portion:

Prying open members’ fists is an election year ritual for leaders of both parties, but Democrats contend this time around has been particularly frustrating. Facing a team of deep-pocketed Republican outside groups poised to swamp them in TV ad spending — and with the party not benefiting from the kind of wave conditions that lifted Republicans two years ago — Democrats say the stinginess of their lawmakers has left them severely weakened as the fall campaign season approaches.

Democrats say they’ve tried just about everything to get their colleagues to open their wallets. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has told members that unless they pay their dues in full, they won’t get to partake in the committee’s Democratic National Convention package, complete with access to much sought-after hotel rooms and parties. And in early June, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to shame her members into giving, distributing notes to each of them with a request for cash and asking them if they are part of “the team.”

The push hasn’t had much success. As of June 30, 64 Democrats — around one-third of the entire caucus — hadn’t paid anything to the DCCC, according to a party document provided to POLITICO. Another 109 members had paid only a portion of what they owe in dues, which are calculated based on seniority and committee assignments.

In June, GOP members flooded the National Republican Congressional Committee with nearly $6.4 million. The DCCC secured just $1.8 million from Democratic lawmakers.

THAT is a Democrat enthusiasm gap.  This isn’t a happy, enthused, energized party saying let’s work together to win with and for our messiah.  This is a bunch of professional politicians who see a lot of numbers that the rest of us don’t get to see who are saying in several important ways, “It’s every DemocRAT for himself.”

To other factors promise to make what Democrats are already seeing as really, really bad even WORSE:

1) Money.  Obama raised more money in 2008 than any politician in the entire history of the world.  Guess what’s happened since?  Obama has alienated and frankly enraged many of the deep pockets that he won in 2008 with his lies and empty promises and meaningless rhetoric.  The advantage is now on Romney’s side.  Obama is going deep into the hole now to spend money while Romney is unable to open the floodgates until he is the official GOP nominee, but come August Romney will be able to release the hounds on Obama.  Obama has been attempting – apparently without much success – to demonize Romney and “frame” him before he is able to spend money to answer all the lies in all the bogus Obama ads.  If Romney is able to weather this storm, the worm will begin to turn come August after the GOP Convention.

2) The economy.  Job growth is slowing to so far below the threshold needed just to keep up with population growth it isn’t funny.  We just saw that GDP growth is so meager that we are very close to stall speed and a dreaded double-dip recession.  Consumer confidence is plunging.  Record numbers of Americans are on food stamps compared to any other time in US history and we’ve got more Americans filing for disability than we’ve got Americans getting jobs.  This is by far and away the WEAKEST and most miserable “recovery” in US history because Obama’s policies are so wrong and he simply will not LET the economy recover.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the economy will get any better between now and election day and damn GOOD reason to believe it will be getting WORSE.  Nouriel Roubini, an economist who is famous for having predicted the 2008 economic implosion, believes that the economy will get WORSE.  Economist Peter Morici is writing about a soon-coming economic collapse.

That’s the real record Obama is running on: from bad to worse.

Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, there is absolutely no way the CIA and the SEALs could have got Obama.  Why?  Because getting bin Laden was a miracle, and only messiah Obama could possibly have ever performed this miracle.  Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, the US economy would still be losing 700,000 jobs a month, and only messiah Obama had the superhuman wisdom to lead America to the worst “recovery” in the history of the nation.  The only way “pathetic” can be viewed as “glorious” is if we ignore the reality that 1) no recession has EVER lasted forever and it wouldn’t have lasted forever if George Bush were president, either, and that 2) that most US recessions last less than 18 months with 3) recoveries generally being the strongest when the recessions have been deepest.  Which is to say that if Obama wasn’t an abject failure we’d have GDP growth of 10 percent the way we did when Ronald Reagan was running en route to a landslide re-election.

Obama has to ignore all of that.  He has to say, “This economic holocaust that you see all around you is really a Utopia.  And the Promised Land is right around the corner, ye herd of mindless animals.”

All that said, I’m not going to predict that Mitt Romney wins in a landslide.  Or even that he wins at all.

Why?  Because this is God damn America, just like I told you it would be back in November 4 of 2008.  God damn America is not a land of wise and good people; no, it is a land of fools and wicked people.  And fools and wicked people pursue their own destruction until God gives it to them the way they deserve.

If we re-elect Obama – and 2008 proved there are more than enough fools and wicked people to pull it off – we will get the fools’ end that we demand God give us.

It’s going to come fast, too.  Because Taxmageddon is coming.  And given that the Republicans are going to retake the House, if Obama wins, every American will find himself or herself paying taxes right out of their ass.  And given that pretty much every economist agrees that “taxmageddon” will amount to a double-dip recession, the re-election of Obama will amount to a double-dip recession.  And America will deserve it in spades.

The sequestration that is also looming over America because Barack Obama is a fool and a failure who cannot and will not lead are another nuclear trigger for this double-dip recession: as many as 1.53 million defense sector workers will get their pink slips right before and right after the election unless Obama pulls his skull out of his ass.  And given that Obama has had his skull up his ass his entire life, that isn’t very likely.  Instead, Obama has actually promised to veto any attempt to keep these 1.53 million workers employed.  Which makes the 100,000 jobs that Obama has already pissed away with his idiotic radical environmentalist lobby-owned killing of the Keystone Pipeline look like chump change.

Democrats are already firmly on record vowing to take America off the fiscal cliff unless Republicans abandon all sanity and join them in their Marxist class warfare against job creators and investors:

Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 15, Washington Post
Democrats are making increasingly explicit threats about their willingness to let nearly $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest households.

Either everybody should get a tax cut or everybody should get taxed up the wazoo.  If you think that somebody else ought to have their taxes raised, YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED.  By the measure that ye judged, YE shall be judged.  You want someone else to pay so you can skate?  You should be taxed until you can’t feed your kids; you should be taxed until you can’t make your house payments; you should be taxed until your car is repossessed.  All of you wicked fools should get both barrels of what you want to inflict on other people.

The only great thing about Mitt Romney is that he is not Barack Hussein Obama.

I’m not enthusiastic about Mitt Romney in any other respect.  His entire career is of being a liberal-leaning moderate – contrary to the demonic Obama ads that depict him as some kind of fire-breathing rightwing conservative fanatic.  But I am TOTALLY enthusiastic about ridding this nation of the scourge of the worst president in our entire history.  And I will crawl out of my death bed through broken glass to vote for Romney for that very reason.

Dick Morris Cites Rasmussen Poll: 21% Of Democrats Have Left The Democrat Party Of Hopey Changey

January 9, 2012

Sure hope this is true:

21% OF DEMS HAVE LEFT PARTY

According to the latest Rasmussen Poll, 21% — more than one in five — Democrats have abandoned the Party since Obama’s election as president. While most have become Independents, identification with the Republican Party has also risen not only since 2008 but also even since the GOP’s 2010 victory.

Rasmussen, who tracks voters’ party identification (self-described) every month, shows that Democratic Party identification, has dropped by eight points (or 21%) since Obama’s election in November, 2008 while Republican Party identification has risen by three points over the same period. Despite speculation in the liberal media that the Republicans in Congress have mishandled their mandate since winning the House in 2010, the Republican edge over the Democratic Party has grown from 1.3% in November of 2010 to 2.7% in December of 2011.

Changes in party identification are the most fundamental – and important – measure of political opinion in the country. They are like tectonic plates that shift beneath the surface of the political earth, sending quakes through the system. A shift of such an order of magnitude will rank high on the political Richter scale in 2012.

So dramatic a shift, totaling eleven points since Obama’s election (Dems down by 8, Republicans up by 3) means that had Obama faced McCain in the current political environment, he would have won by five rather than losing by six.

But even that doesn’t tell the story. Surveys of Independents find that they have long since jumped from the Obama ship. His job approval among Independents consistently ranks in the low 30s. He cannot expect much relief from that corner.

All these stats point to a mammoth upset in the making in the 2012 election, sweeping Republicans into the White House and delivering control of the Senate by a good margin. Already, Republicans are likely to take over Democratic seats in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Missouri, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They may lose in Massachusetts and will probably hold on to their seats in Arizona and Nevada despite the retirement of their incumbents there. That means a GOP dominated Senate by the margin 56-44.

If these data cause Republicans (hopefully wealthy ones) in Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Minnesota to consider entering U.S. Senate races against the Democratic incumbents in those states, it could cause the GOP to get sixty votes in the Senate. The party identification data indicates that this goal is distinctly within reach if we get good candidates in a few more states.

Don’t listen to the media induced pessimism. A gigantic upset is in the making!

Related posts:

  1. REPUBLICAN PARTY BENEFITS FROM OBAMA ERRORS The conventional wisdom holds that the parties in Congress are…
  2. FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES Is FOX News “an arm of the Republican Party” as…
  3. DON’T LET THE DEMS HOLD OUR TROOPS HOSTAGE If the government shuts down will our troops be paid?…
  4. DEMS WILL WIN DEBT DEBATE; REPUBS WILL WIN ELECTION In the parlance of Washington, the Democrats are going to…
  5. CANDIDATE AND PARTY: THE OBAMA DEFICIT Published on TheHill.com on September 16, 2008 There appears to…

I haven’t found Dick Morris’ prognostications about what is going to happen in politics to be too terribly accurate.  But hopefully we can count on his ability to read Rasmussen polling data.

Obama REPEATEDLY IGNORED GENERALS As He Pursued His Political Policy Of First Surge Then Cut-And-Run In Afghanistan

June 29, 2011

Is Obama succeeding in Afghanistan?  Consider this little factoid: There are 280 provinces in Afghanistan; AND ONLY 29 OF THEM ARE UNDER U.S. OR AFGHAN CONTROL!!!

That’s what I call “failure.”  Obama is a failed president on every single front, both domestically and internationally.  More on that below.

What we have immediately below is documented proof that not only did Barack Hussein ignore his generals’ (and even both the senior Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers!!!) regarding military policy and strategy, but he that HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about it.

At what point do we demand the impeachment of this lying, corrupt dishonest fraud???

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military’s Advice on Afghanistan
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

Allen’s claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”

The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.”

(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.)

So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military’s range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president’s policy was within that range of options. Who is right?

We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration’s decision was “more aggressive” than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan’s “fighting season” typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year’s fighting season.

Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn’t military considerations that produced such a timeline but “risks having to do with other considerations.”

Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks for doing the call.  I’ve got a couple, but I’ll be quick.  Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?  And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it?  Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014?  And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, I’ll take part of that.  In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown.  There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out — so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number.

That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there’s a broad understanding among the national security team that there’s an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces.

So, to your first question, I would certainly — I would characterize it that way. There were a range.  Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.

There is no question which side is lying and which side is telling the truth.  BARACK OBAMA IS A LIAR AND A FOOL.

Let’s go back and contemplate how cynical and dishonest the Obama administration has been all along in its political game plan played with the lives of American servicemen:

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the  Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what  the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high  political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked  about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats  raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war”  and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.  In  retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading.  Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it  was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a  way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war.  It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the  Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just  against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as  a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is  the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on  terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but  stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a  few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in  conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t  win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in  a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no  way out.

More on this utterly hypocritical and cynical chutzpah here.  Which is even more maddening given the fact that the liberals who screamed about the two wars Bush got us in are almnost completely mum about the FIVE WARS Obama has us in.

And these same total pieces of cockroach scum who cynically pitched Afghanistan as “the good war” and Iraq as “the bad war” as a political ploy for Obama Democrats to demonize Bush and our American troops while pretending to remain pro-American security are now both taking credit for what they called “the bad war” in Iraq

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could  be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going  to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the  summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually  moving toward a representative government.”

– while cutting and running in defeat from what they claimed was “the good war.”

By the way, Obama has NEVER bothered to listen to his generals in Afghanistan.  Which is why he is the clearest and most present threat to our national security.

Let’s consider what Obama did: after demonizing Bush – who was successful in Iraq where he chose to fight – Obama dragged us into the quagmire of Afghanistan.  He wanted a “political” surge.  Germany’s leftist Der Speigel rightly said Obama’s “new strategy for Afghanistan” “seemed like a campaign speech.”  And then they said:

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into  Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again.

Which reminds us that conservatives SAID the policy of “timetables” would never work and would fail.  And here we are now proving that assessment was 100% correct as we begin to cut-and-run having accomplished NOTHING but a “surge” of dead Americans and a “surge” in American bankruptcy.

What did I say back in December of 2009?  My title: “Obama’s Message To Taliban Re: Afghanistan: ‘Just Keep Fighting And Wait Us Out And It’ll Be All Yours’” should say it all.

Obama refused to listen to his generals when he refused to give them enough troops to begin with.  He compounded that stupid error by ignoring his generals and mandating a timetable for pullout that FURTHER guaranteed failure.  And now he’s AGAIN refusing to listen to his generals as he cuts-and-runs far faster than they can accommodate.

And the only thing more stupid that Obama can do is to export this policy of stupidly refusing to listen to his military experts.  Which is exactly what he did in Libya when he got us in there under utterly false pretenses:

“It was reported in March that Gates, along with Counterterrorism Chief John  Brennan and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, privately advised the  president to avoid military involvement in Libya — but they were overruled…”

Now we face an unmitigated debacle in Afghanistan as Obama cuts-and-runs.  We will be pulling troops out exactly when we most need them in the height of the fighting season.  And why?  Because Obama cynically wants to bring the troops home in time to bolster his pathetic campaign for a second term.

As a final comment about the Democrats’ fundamental hypocrisy, here’s a piece from 2004 Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry demanding that Bush “listen to his generals.”  Bush DID listen to his generals – which was why HE TURNED IRAQ AROUND INTO WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NOW SAYS IS “ONE OF THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.”

Here’s my question: where are you NOW, Kerry, you hypocrite coward???

Obama and Democrats have owed George Bush and Dick Cheney abject apologies for their lies and demagoguery of these two men for years.

Democrats are VERMIN.  They have been vermin for most of the last 50 years.  They have been documented vermin on American foreign policy all over the world.  And we need to keep reminding Americans as to what verminous rat bastards they have been and continue to be.

Obama will be an abject disaster for American foreign policy for decades to come.  And fighting under Obama’s foreign policy is exactly like Vietnam (or shall we call it “echoes of Vietnam”?).

Just like conservatives warned all along.

The moment I saw the “Jeremiah Wright” videos I realized that Barack Obama was a truly evil human being who would lead America to ruin.  It was like an apocalyptic vision of warning.  And it has turned out to be even worse than I feared…

Obama Cooking Up A Nasty Batch Of Poison Stew For Democrats With Shocking Inflation

May 13, 2011

If you listen to the mainstream media, Obama is unbeatable.  Which is really quite bizarre, given the state of the “it’s the economy, stupid.”

Inflation: Poison for Obama in 2012
By Nina Easton, senior editor-at-large @CNNMoney May 9, 2011: 7:22 AM ET

FORTUNE — One of my most vivid memories from 1974 was the gas station at the foot of the hill below my Southern California high school — car lines snaking out into the street, heralding the failure of the government’s price controls and lame ideas such as odd-even rationing. That also was the year President Gerald Ford cooked up an equally goofy plan: Whip Inflation Now, or WIN.

As Ford unveiled WIN to a joint session of Congress on Oct. 8, his bulbous forehead gleaming with sweat, he truly believed he was giving voice to a momentous occasion — on a par with F.D.R.’s call to action at the depth of the Great Depression. How could he know that, four decades later, people would still ridicule his pleas to farmers to grow more food, to citizens to “drive less, heat less,” and — the worst — to supporters to wear those ridiculous WIN buttons that the smart set turned upside down to declare “Need Immediate Money”?

That government leaders would embrace such silliness — it was Nixon who instituted the Stalinesque wage and price controls that set the stage for Ford’s call to citizen action — stands as a powerful testament to how much inflation unnerves the body politic. We haven’t experienced real inflation in more than a generation, so this economic blight is mostly an uncertain stranger to pollsters and political strategists — as well as to voters under 50. But if inflation warnings are right, this stranger could become the dark horse of the 2012 election and beyond.

We know that inflation distorts economic behavior. In the 1970s a combination of high tax rates and inflation prompted investors to flee production in favor of protection. “Give me shelter,” recalls Michael Barone, principal co-author of the annual Almanac of American Politics, referring to not only tax behavior but also investments in assets like real estate to beat inflation rates. But inflation also affects voting behavior — and could exacerbate already widespread anxiety and uncertainty about a struggling economy and President Obama’s reaction to it. With rising prices on everything from big-ticket items like college tuition to food and gas, consumers “feel they don’t have any safe ground to stand on,” Barone notes.

As both President Carter and the late President Ford could attest, that’s not a good place for an incumbent to be. John Huizinga, an economist at the University of Chicago, rightly notes that while unemployment affects some people — and rattles many more — “inflation affects everyone.” Huizinga co-authored a 1982 study that opened with the conventional wisdom of that era: “It is well known … that the public regards inflation as a more serious problem than unemployment.” Looking back, that seems astonishing. While the double-digit inflation of the 1970s had inched down to 8%, unemployment at that time was still a whopping 9.7%.

By historical standards, the latest consumer price index showing a 1.2% annual rise remains super low. But consumers are being hit with hikes to two key components that aren’t included in that number — gas and food. Consumer Growth Partners recently called the rise in grocery prices (6.5% in the first quarter) “the sharpest in a generation.” And gas prices are pushing toward $4 a gallon. Including gas and food, the annual inflation rate is more than double the rise in the CPI.

Even if systemwide inflation doesn’t return in this election cycle, rising gas and food prices will be on the minds of voters. President Obama already faces an unemployment rate that has only recently slipped below 9%, worsened by long-term jobless rates unprecedented since World War II. The Congressional Budget Office now predicts an unemployment rate of 8.2% on Election Day 2012; no President since F.D.R. has been reelected with unemployment over 8%. (President Reagan, facing a similarly painful recession, was elected with a 7.2% jobless rate.)

Add inflation to that mix and it could become a poisonous stew for Democrats. And we’ll know the President is in real trouble if his staff starts handing out buttons.

There’s a video (apparently unrelated to the above article) at the site with the title, “Fed has more to worry about.”  At just before the 2:30 mark, the expert guest says (and this is not a completely accurate transcript, but it’s pretty close):

“A lot of people think that what they’re going to do is raise interest rates and it’s going to turn into a replay of the Hooverism of the 1930s in this country where they raised rates just as the economy was beginning to creep forward.  And then you just end up with another big recession.”

And, of course, in this case, “another big recession” was otherwise known as THE GREAT FREAKING DEPRESSION!!!

Thanks to Obama and his Fed’s incredibly risky and immoral policies, shockingly high interest rates are a fait accompli.  You don’t spend (“throw away” on political patronate pork is more accurate) the trillions of dollars that these fools have spent; and you don’t simply create money out of thin air the way these clowns have done with their QE1 and their QE2 and very shortly QE3 and just get away with it.

The Fed is going to be forced to raise interest rates.  That is simply a fact.  The Obama Federal Reserve is about the only entity on planet earth that refuses to recognize that inflation is becoming a huge problem.  And the moment they ARE forced to ultimately raise rates, you’re going to start to see really ugly get really really really ugly.  Because there’s almost no possible way now that we’re going to be out of our economic woes before the Fed is forced to deal with inflation.

And yes, oh yes, inflation is most definitely here.

This was the Jimmy Carter problem.  And as people like me have been pointing out all along:

It took Ronald Reagan to get America out of a death spiral last time.  Sadly, this time there may not BE another Ronald Reagan.  And this time it may well just be too late.

The beast is coming.