Word Association Presidential Style

Presidential periods can be summed up in single words, and I don’t just mean presidential agendas. I mean in the broader scope of things. You can define an era using single words and do so remarkably well. At this point, I think we can define Obama’s era, so let’s do that. In fact, I think you’ll find his word to be surprisingly fitting. Read on.

Before getting to Obama, let’s back up so you can see what I mean. The word that described Jimmy Carter’s administration was “malaise.” Everything seemed to be grinding to a halt and nobody cared about anything. There was a real sense that the world’s better days were behind it and everyone was just waiting for the lights to go out. If you don’t believe me, just watch a few episodes of Barney Miller and you’ll get the vibe of the era. . . rundown, resigned, defeated. People even talked about the Presidency being too big of a job for one man.

If I had to pick a word for Reagan’s era, it would be “deregulation.” Reagan privatized government functions, slashed regulations, and devolved power to the people. But most importantly, Reagan instilled the idea that America was a do-it-yourself nation and we didn’t need Washington telling us how.

Then came Bush Sr. His word was “multilateral” because he wanted everyone to hold hands and play follow the consensus on everything from budgets to war, which is exactly how horrible, gutless decisions get made. It’s a thousand points of pathetic if you ask me. Fitting with Bush’s timid mindset, this was the age of “consensus leadership” in management schools, as if there can be such a thing. . . leading from behind.

Bill Clinton’s word was “pretend.” Heh heh. Good old Bill did what anyone married to Hillary would have done... he pretended he wasn’t married and he dragged a $10 bill through a trailer park and a cigar through an intern. But Bill was hardly alone in his peckerdilloes, hence, this word defines his era. Indeed, the people who pursued him so obsessively had likewise been buggering the interns as they pretended they were Christian soldiers in good standing. Bill friends and biggest supporters were all Hollywood types, i.e. the land of make-believe. His foreign policy was make-believe as well as he pretended that launching a couple cruise missiles would wipe out terrorism. The stock market was all pretend too as companies with no prospects of ever making money were valued higher than the world’s greatest cash cows. . . tech-bubble make-believe.

W’s word was “incompetent.” Bush took office under a cloud of incompetence in our electoral system as we got to watch some truly incompetent people count hanging chads. Then Bush stepped in with incompetent political messaging combined with an incompetent defense of conservatism, incompetent handling of regulations, incompetent handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, and incompetent handling of budgets. But he wasn’t exactly alone. Incompetent car companies and banks collapsed after incompetent regulators assure them of bailouts. Why? Because they made loans to people who weren’t competent to pay them back and they traded in these things even though they weren’t competent to understand them and their insurers weren’t competent enough to value what they had insured.

And now we know Obama’s word: “frustration.”

In a broader sense, Obama’s term has been nothing but frustration: people are frustrated finding jobs. They are frustrated that their homes lost value. They are frustrated there is nowhere to invest. They are frustrated that nothing seems to want to get better. Europe is frustrated by its never-ending Eurozone crises. The world is frustrated by pirates, petty dictators with nuclear missiles, and a never-ending supply of terrorists.

Obama specifically has been huge on frustration. He frustrated moderate/conservative whites who thought voting for him would mean a shift to the right for the Democrats, an end to racial strife, and a less polarized political system. That didn’t happen because Obama has zero ability to create consensus or to work with those he doesn’t like. He is polarization personified. Conservatives have been frustrated by a budget that has gone out of control, Obama’s destruction of our healthcare system, and our inability to win the public to our side.

Liberals are frustrated because Obama can’t seem to pass anything they wanted. And some of them are starting to realize that (1) this is because Obama is lazy and (2) this is because the Democrats are lying about their intent to pass things. Think about the things Obama dangled before their selfish eyes:

● universal medical coverage
● an assault weapon ban, gun registration, and an assortment of measures to slowly end the private ownership of guns
● cap and trade
● an end to corporate privilege
● ending too-big-too fail and regulating big banks
● gay marriage
● illegal alien amnesty
● an equal pay law for women
● national back-door unionization through the NLRB
● and so on...

So far, all he’s delivered has been money for big business and a “healthcare” plan that puts people at the mercy of big insurers. . . something even his supporters are seeing as a pending disaster. Beyond this, leftist journalists are getting frustrating dealing with him personally. Late-night comedians have been frustrated by their inability to poke fun at such a soft target. Foreign governments are getting frustrated at the constant sleights and uncooperativeness of Obama’s administration. Leftists are frustrated that they sold their souls to this man with the idea being he would stop things like drone attacks and global warming and now they are being played.

I suspect that looking back at this period in time, future historians will call this period a Dark Ages for leadership, with the exception of Reagan. But even before we get to that, I think we’ve found Obama’s word... frustration. Watch for it as we move to the end of his term.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama v. Welfare Reform: Destroying What Works

A poll this month by The Hill found that while two-thirds of Americans believe Obama has indeed transformed America, 56% of those voters believe Obama changed the country in a negative way. Only 35% believe he changed the country for the better. And if you want an example of the types of things Obama has done to generate this kind of animosity, consider what he’s doing to welfare reform.

For decades, the Republicans pushed the idea of welfare reform. Specifically, they wanted to encourage people to get off welfare and start working. The Democrats, however, flat out refused to allow any attempt to make such a change. Indeed, any time the issue came up, they would whine that the Republicans were looking to throw single mothers and their children out into the streets to starve.

In 1994, the Republicans finally got control over the Congress for the first time since 1952. Along with a Republican Senate and a weakened and unprincipled Bill Clinton in the White House, they set out to change America. One area they targeted was welfare reform. To that end, in 1996, they passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This fundamentally changed the way welfare works in America by:

● Ending welfare as an entitlement,
● Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid from federal funds,
● Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of benefits,
● Encouraging two-parent families, and
● Enhancing enforcement of child support.

This bill also gave the states vast discretion in how to achieve these rules. Clinton signed this bill after vetoing the first two attempts. And while liberals hated the reform at the time, it’s now been recognized as a significant success, having cut the number of welfare cases by 53% and reversing an unabated upward trend which began in the 1960. Clinton even claims it as one of his biggest achievements.

So guess what Obama wants to do now? Obama has started handing out waivers to states to eliminate the work requirements contained in the bill. Unbelievable. He is attacking a bill which everyone except the extreme left admits worked magnificently. And in a perverse bit of reasoning, Team Obama claims this change is intended to help parents “successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.” So by eliminating the requirement that people find work, we are helping them prepare to find work. Huh?

Fortunately, the Republicans aren’t sitting still for this. Romney said on Friday:

“The success of bipartisan welfare reform, passed under President Clinton, has rested on the obligation of work. The president’s action is completely misdirected. Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan charged that, “President Obama will make it harder for Americans to escape poverty. He is hurting the very people he claims to help.” Others are calling this “a blatant violation of the law.” Rep. Dave Camp called this move “a brazen and unwarranted unraveling” of the law that “ends welfare reform as we know it.” And Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina said,

“You don’t improve people’s lives with handouts, you improve people’s lives by showing them, as I learned growing up in the inner city in a single parent household, that you can think and work your way out of poverty.”

It’s amazing how Obama keeps trying to refight the battles the left lost in the past and how he doesn’t care that history has proven his side wrong. It’s even more amazing how ready he is to trap a whole new generation on welfare. But keep in mind, there is method here. As we’ve discussed before, almost 50% of Americans now draw their living from government benefits in some form. These people are much more likely to vote Democratic because that is the party who promises to keep the spigot flowing. This weakening of welfare reform is nothing more than an attempt by Obama to add more people to the government dole, much like Obamacare was an attempt to increase the number of people on Medicaid and to hook the middle class on health care subsidies. Obama is trying to snare people into government dependence.

This needs to end.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

William Jefferson STFU Clinton

Oh boy, Bill is back! That’s right, former President Bill “trailer-park ten-dollar-bill dragger, depends-what-‘is’-means” Clinton, and he’s talking up a storm. And as you would expect, he’s causing Obama all kinds of problems. Ha ha.

So get this. . . some fool in the Obama Administration apparently decided to let Bill Clinton act as a campaign surrogate. They either knew nothing about Bill or they have decided that the country would be better off with Romney as president. And to no one’s great surprise, Bill has gone off half-cocked all over the place.

First, Billy Boy forgot whose side he was on and he praised Mitt Romney’s “sterling business career.” The timing on this couldn’t have been worse because Obama was already struggling to explain why his attacks on Bain Capital were appropriate, were relevant, and didn’t make him a socialist. . . like Rick Santorum.

Then Bill said that he would extend the Bush tax cuts until 2013, i.e. until after the election. This was both deeply cynical and it flew right in the face of Obama’s sworn opposition to extending those tax cuts. Clinton has since had to apologize for saying what he truly believed. . . an apology he delivered with the usual self-aggrandizement and a chuckle.

In and of themselves these statements wouldn’t be that bad, except Clinton’s supposed to be representing Obama and his timing couldn’t have been worse. Indeed, the timing is horrible because Obama’s campaign has been flailing. They haven’t been able to find anything to use to promote Obama or to tear down Romney. To the contrary, everything they’ve tried has blown up in their faces. In many ways, Obama has become the Coyote to Romney’s Roadrunner. And having Elmer Pudd shooting off his mouth isn’t helping. Every news cycle that gets wasted with Clinton contradicting one of Obama’s policies or the White House trying to explain away Clinton’s latest gaff, or with Bill trying to remind voters that he was a better President that Bush or Obama (“Remember me? I'm the only guy that gave you four surplus budgets out of the eight I sent.”), has been another precious news cycle wasted as Obama struggles to gain traction. Moreover, rather that focusing on Romney, the left has become obsessed now with trying to figure out if Bill is doing this intentionally to hurt Obama or what his real motives could be. And whether the public pays attention to the specifics or not, it’s obvious this is blue-on-blue fire, and that makes Obama’s campaign look disorganized, dis-unified and endangered.

So why is Clinton doing this? Some speculate this is an attempt to bring the Democratic Party back from the class warfare rhetoric which will doom it. I doubt that because Clinton has show no interest in helping the Democratic Party.

Others speculate this is payback for Obama beating Hillary (and Obama’s repeated humiliation of her, like his joke about her drunk-texting him). Could be. Some speculate Clinton wants Obama to lose so Hillary can rise up and run for President again. That doesn’t really make a lot of sense though. For one thing, Hillary looks horrible and I don’t just mean physically. She’s been the butt of jokes now and has no public achievements to show for her time on Team Obama. Plus, she’s been close enough to Obama to be tarred with his failure if he loses. Not to mention, she’ll never beat Andrew Cuomo, who I suspect will easily be the nominee in 2020 anyway.

Sure, these could all be his motives. But for my money, it’s much more likely Clinton is doing this to make the one person he truly loves happy: himself. By talking up his own administration and by contrasting himself with Obama (and Bush), Clinton makes sure that he’s remembered as the last “great” President. . . remember how good it was under ME, everybody? Indeed, he wouldn’t want an Obama success to stain his legacy.

Obama should have known this before he choose Clinton. Asking Clinton to act as your spokesman is like hiring Narcissus himself. But apparently Obama isn’t good at knowing things which every other American knows. . . like the number of states. So I guess Bill Clinton was just a mystery to him. Dopehead.

Finally, there was a fascinating article this weekend where some leftist AP hack tried to make all this pain go away by claiming that conservatives once hated Clinton but now praise him. Gee, I guess we’re hypocrites or something? Wrong. I do indeed have some good things to say about Clinton, but they hardly qualify as praise. My “respect” for Clinton goes a little something like this: he was smart enough to realize that his own beliefs weren’t selling, so he learned to sit back, let the Republicans do their thing and then take credit for their actions. That’s hardly high praise. That’s a bit like saying Hitler helped millions of Russians see Germany.

So what do you think Clinton is up to? Should Obama be worried? Should we? And what should Obama do about him?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Case For Romney

Romney’s not a conservative. He’s hardly exciting or inspirational. He’s flopped around so much it’s just not possible to say what he really believes. But strangely, the more I think about it, he is the Republican candidate who would probably make the best President. Here’s my take on the strange case for Romney (since I can't have Cain.)

Let me start by pointing out that other conservatives are now making a case for Romney.

● Charles Krauthammer invokes the William Buckley rule: vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. He says that’s Romney.

● Ann Coulter argues Romney is the only candidate we can trust to both repeal ObamaCare and stop illegal immigration. Her point about ObamaCare is an “electability” argument, but her point on illegal immigration is solid. Only Romney and Bachmann actually oppose amnesty. The others claim to oppose amnesty, but really support it in hidden form. Some go even further. Perry wants to give illegals more rights than Americans. Newt wants to grant illegals all the rights of citizens without the name “citizen” and thereby hand the Democrats a double victory -- new voters through amnesty plus a political charge that Republicans want Hispanics to be second class citizens. Santorum actually opposes voluntary use of the e-Verify system because his Big Business friends want the system gone so they can hire cheap illegal labor.

My take is different. Not only do I believe Romney is most electable -- in fact, he may be the only electable candidate -- but I think Romney may turn out to be an excellent President, something I cannot say about the rest. Here’s why:

Most Electable

The electability case is simple. This election will be an referendum on Obama. And as such, Obama is doomed. No President has been so low in the polls so consistently for so long. This tells us the public has reached its verdict and will not change its mind. In 2010, we saw the result of this when the public punished Obama’s party with an historic thrashing. Even now, Democrats see the writing on the wall so clearly that people like Barney Frank and Ben Nelson are quitting before they get tossed out. The Democrats know they’re doomed.

The only thing that can save Obama would be if we pick a Republican who makes the race about themselves rather than a referendum on Obama. Egomaniacal loose-cannon Newt Gingrich, gay-baiting Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, corrupt Bush-clone Perry, or the terrifying Ron Paul, would all make the race about themselves and the public would need to decide if it can trust these Republicans before it ever looks at Obama. That’s the only kind of race Obama can win because it distracts from his record. But Romney is mild, bland, and inoffensive. His background is competent and shows the right kind of experience. He isn’t someone the public will worry about. That leaves the election as a referendum on Obama’s record, and in that election, Obama goes down in an historic landslide. Thus, not only is Romney the most electable, he may be the only electable candidate on the Republican side.

The Best Potential President In The Bunch

But electability only goes you so far. The real question is, what kind of President would Romney make. In that regard, I’ve come to believe that for a very strange reason, Romney may end up being a really good President. Here’s the thing. Our two best Presidents in recent memory were Reagan and Clinton (after his disastrous start). What they had in common was a form of conservatism that just isn’t on display in any of the other candidates or in any of the recent Presidents. I think Romney has that.

The best way to explain what I mean is to first point out the problem with the other candidates: they all think they have magic bullets to fix the country. Santorum and Bachmann think they can fix America by ridding it of gays. Santorum now adds a new-found populism which mixes socialist ideas like favoring manufacturing with the middle-class-destroying policies of Big Business. Rick Perry thinks he can fix America by handing it over to his corporate donors. Huntsman thinks he can fix America by taking the partisanship out of politics. Newt thinks he’s God and can fix America by issuing grandiose ideas. And Paul thinks he can fix America by turning the clock back to an idealized 1776 that never was.

This is all destined to fail because it misunderstands why America and conservatism work. Genuine conservatism does not try to run an economy by fiat. It does not pick winners and losers and it does not look for magic policies to kickstart the country. Genuine conservatism recognizes that the government cannot fix America, only Americans can fix America. And Americans can only fix America if the government stops trying to organize the economy and lets people do their own things.

Reagan understood this. His goal in office was not to find some clever policy to spur something specific. His goal was to eliminate regulations and lower taxes and unleash the public to make their own choices. None of the candidates except Paul (who fails for other reasons) understand this because they aren’t genuine conservatives. . . they think they can tinker America to greatness by making its choices for it.

Unlike the others, I suspect Romney understands this. For one thing, Romney’s background as the hamstrung governor of a liberal state tells us that Romney knows the limitations of political power. Secondly, his business experience is critical. Since he didn’t just run a company, but was instead involved in buying failing companies and turning them around, he is familiar with the vagaries and uncertainties of the business world and the degree of latitude business needs to function. Those are exactly the kinds of lessons that underlie Reagan’s beliefs.

But even if Romney doesn’t get this, there’s another reason to suspect he would make an excellent President, and believe it or not, it’s his lack of principles. Clinton was an awful President when he first arrived. His people were far-left radicals who planned to remake America. The backlash against their hubris gave us the first Republican Congress in forever. That’s when an interesting thing happened. Clinton, who apparently had no values of his own, decided the best way to govern would be to stick his finger in the wind and do whatever the public wanted. Since the public was leaning right, Clinton ended up moving right and became one of the better Presidents in history because the public pushed him in the same direction Ronald Reagan had gone -- toward getting the government out of the way.

One of the concerns people have with Romney is that he lacks principle. This is true in a specific sense as he has been both liberal and conservative on almost every issues. But there is one overriding principle Romney does follow: he does what the public wants. Right now, the public is sending highly conservative, Reaganesque signals. Romney has adopted these and presents a platform that is easily the most conservative of any of the candidates. And there is good reason to believe he means it, because he thinks this is what the public wants and, thus, that is what he intends to deliver.

In other words, as strange as it may sound, Romney’s lack of principles may be what make him the most trustworthy candidate because he will do his best to please us, the public. And since the public is conservative in a Ronald Reagan sort of way, there is significant reason to believe Romney will adopt Reagan's principles. I don’t see that in any of the other candidates, each of whom seems more interested in legislating their own pet peeves.

That’s why I think Romney deserves support. Not only is he the most likely to beat Obama, who simply must be beaten for the sake of the country, but he also has the potential to become an excellent President. I understand the fear that a man without principles is unpredictable and that RINOs have too often lied about their views to sneak through the elections, but I think Romney is a different case because Romney isn’t a principled RINO who has adopted a conservative cloak, he’s a principle-less mirror who adopts whatever the public currently wants. And with the public channeling Reagan and Romney signaling that he understands that, I think he could well become a President in the conservative mold of a Reagan or the good-Bill Clinton years.

That’s my take on it. I guess we’ll see what Iowa thinks tonight?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Barack Obama, Republican?

After suffering an historic repudiation in the last election, the Democrats are in a tizzy. Should they move further left? Should they just throw tantrums? Should they block everything? What would Barack do? Oh oh, Barack’s moved to the right, further right than even the RINOs. What’s worse, he keeps undercutting the Democrats. What is going on?



When the Democrats got blasted in 1994, Bill Clinton realized pretty quickly that he had to move to the center to survive. The strategy was called triangulation. And what it entailed was to let the Republicans have their way, and then claim ownership of their best ideas. Occasionally, Clinton would also criticize his own side, but rarely in stark terms and he never undercut them. Essentially, he became everyone’s friend.



Obama is now faced with a similar dilemma and he’s opted for triangulation as well. But Obama isn’t like Clinton, and his triangulation isn’t the benign sort Clinton tried. His version of triangulation involves undercutting the Democrats over and over. Indeed, things are getting ugly!



The first obvious example of triangulation occurred right after the election when Obama endorsed the idea of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats intended to play hardball on that issue and were already staking out a typically nasty class-warfare position, when Obama suddenly announced he would agree to extend the tax cuts in exchange for more stimulus spending. The Democrats were beside themselves with rage. “He’s undercut us!” they scream, along with a few profanities. In fact, the House held a closed-door meeting of Democrats where they took turns swearing at, blasting, and lampooning Obama.



The next instance of triangulation involved Obama’s retention of Bill Daley as his replacement for “center-right” (**chuckle, chuckle**) Rahm Emanuel. The selection of Daley, a noted non-leftist Democrat with massive Wall Street ties, was seen as an attempt by Obama to get back into the good graces of big business. The Democrats were despondent.



Then came the Tucson shooting. As the left wound up their hate machine and began calling for the blood of their critics, all under the guise of whining about the atmosphere of hate their critics created, Obama came along and told everyone that rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting. Once again, he cut the legs out from beneath them and there were furious.



Now, Obama has stolen the idea of Paul Ryan and Darrell Issa to go through the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and identify for removal any regulations that are hindering economic growth. What makes this all the more interesting is that (1) this has the potential of crippling years of Democratic legislative victories, (2) doing this won’t stop Issa from embarrassing the Democrats through his hearings, where businessmen will come and blast the regulations they’ve put in place, and (3) this provides a tremendous amount of cover for the Republicans from Democratic attacks that they’re undermining government. Wow!



Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Obama has suddenly become a Republican. There were political reasons for each of these acts. The Republicans simply weren’t going to cave in on the tax issue, so why not get what he could and declare victory. Obama needs to reconnect with Wall Street to finance his billion dollar campaign, and Daley is the man to do that. By the time he spoke about Tucson, it was increasingly clear the shooter was a leftist and a backlash was growing against the left’s attacks. And Obama knows that economic growth is his only chance to get re-elected. So these decisions were political, not principled.



But in each instance, Obama could have achieved his goals without so ruthlessly cutting the legs out from under the Democrats. So why do it this way? I think the answer lies in the difference between Obama and Clinton. Clinton was a master at following the crowd. He had no principles whatsoever, so he stuck his finger into the wind and went where it led him. But more importantly, he was savvy enough to chart the safest course to the front of the bandwagon for himself and his friends.



Obama lacks Bill Clinton’s savvy, and he is not and never has been a team player. So now that he finds he need to chase a few bandwagons to get re-elected, he doesn’t even bother thinking about his friends and allies. It’s every man for himself. And that’s why the Democrats keep finding themselves stranded as Obama runs off and shells the land he had led them to.



So this has led Obama to tax cuts, deregulation, spending cuts, and stopping attempts to stifle gun rights and free speech. If Obama keeps this up, he may actually end up being one of the better Republican presidents before his term is over. . . and what’s left of the Democratic Party is going to hate him.



Finally, let me throw this out there for you to chew on. Putting aside our natural and well-earned cynicism for dealing with Democrats, it's also just possible that Obama's change of heart on these issues is an indication that he's grown wiser and he's starting to understand that the destructive class-warfare preached by the Democratic Party is no way to run a country? Wouldn't that be interesting?



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Bubba Summit

Once again, our contacts at the White House have helped us get the jump on other media. Behold, more Barack tapes! These are good too, these are the secret tapes of the entire meeting between Bill Clinton and our President. Read on.....

Obama: Uh, thanks for coming, Mr. President.
Clinton: Thank you for inviting me, Mr. President.
Obama: I could sure use some help.
Clinton: Oh, I know you can. I watch the news. What can I do for you Barack?
Obama: Things aren’t looking good right now. The economy’s in the tank. The election was a disaster. Nancy Pelosi was throwing eggs at Air Force One last night.
Clinton: Sounds pretty bad.
Obama: It is. What would you do, if you were me?
Clinton: Well, I don’t really need to think I’m you to give you advice. You do know I was the nation’s first black President, don’t you?
Obama: What?
Clinton: The first black President, that’s me. Trust me, I know what it’s like to have people hate you just for your race.
Obama: You’re not even black.
Clinton: Am too. I was the first black President. Seriously. I was there when you were still trying to sneak across the border from Kenya. Face it, you’re number two. . . and you’re not even all black.
Obama: Let’s not go there. Just give me the advice and let’s get this over with.
Clinton: Alright, alright. First thing you could do is resign. Nixon did that and it helped his popularity a lot. Hilly and I could take over.

** silence **

Clinton: Ok, you don’t like that. Well, let’s take this in parts. First, you gotta fix the economy. The voters ain’t a knockin’ if the economy ain’t a rockin’.
Obama: Yeah, I get that, but how do I do it?
Clinton: Here’s the single most important thing I can tell you about running an economy.
Obama: Yes?

** sound of cabinet opening **

Clinton: You got an booze? I used to keep booze around here.
Obama: No. Now get to the point.
Clinton: Not even a Colt 45? Come on.
Obama: Is that another racist crack?
Clinton: Racist? How can I be racist? I was the first black President, I can’t be racist.
Obama: Forget the booze, get on with it!
Clinton: Ok, here’s the secret. Let the Republicans do what they want to do. Those fellars are smart as heck when it comes to economic stuff. All their voodoo tax cuts this and less regulation that. . . I don’t know how it works, but man does it ever. Whatever they propose, just agree to it and then run out and tell everybody you came up with it?
Obama: What about being progressive?
Clinton: That stuff’s just for show. You didn't take that seriously, did you? No wonder Pelosi's pissed at you, she must think you're an idiot if you took that stuff seriously.
Obama: What else have you got?
Clinton: Triangulate.
Obama: How do I do that?
Clinton: Heck if I know. Just steal everybody’s ideas and blame everybody else for messing everything up. That worked for me.
Obama: Brilliant! . . . blame everybody else.

** more cabinets opening **

Clinton: Man, I was reading some of those Wikileaks things. If I knew diplomatic cables were so entertaining, I would’a read some when I was President.
Obama: You never read the cables?
Clinton: Heck no.
Obama: Well, this Wikileaks issue is a real problem and I don’t know what to do about it.
Clinton: I could take care of this Asschange guy for ya. Hillary’s got some people. . .
Obama: What kind of people?
Clinton: I promised her I wouldn’t say. Let’s just say, they took care of a couple problems for us.

** silence **

Clinton: Look, I can call her and get a Vince Foster special for ya by Monday.
Obama: Uh, no, let’s skip that.
Clinton: Suit yourself. I could throw in Biden for free. . . my treat?
Obama: Biden? Everyone keeps talking about “Joe Biden,” but I honestly never heard that name before. Who is that guy?
Clinton: He’s like Al Gore, only funny. Hey, let me ask, how are you staffed for interns?
Obama: What?
Clinton: Interns? Any hotties?
Obama: I wouldn’t know.
Clinton: What? How can you not know?
Obama: I just don’t.
Clinton: Wait! Wait a minute! Holy cow! You throw like a girl. Skinny jeans. You don’t know when you met your wife. . . and she ain’t exactly a looker. And you don’t look at the interns? Wow, two and two is coming up pretty gay around here if you ask me.
Obama: Let’s change the topic.
Clinton: Trust me, I feel your pain.
Obama: No, you don’t.
Clinton: Well I could.
Obama: What?
Clinton: Come on, everybody’s doing it. Come on, don’t ask, don’t tell. Let me feel your pain!
Obama: What!
Clinton: Come on, whip that sucker out. Let’s compare Presidents!
Obama: Stop it.

** sound of person being chased around desk **

Clinton: Oh come on, goochie coo!
Obama: Stop it, dammit!
Clinton: Oh, alright. Hey, do you realize that with you being half white and me being black, we’re like that Paul McCartney Michael Jackson song, “Ebony and Irony”? Remember that?
Obama: I don’t like the Beatles.
Clinton: No, you’re probably into rap aren’t you? That’s cool. I met Sir Mixalot once. . . “I like big butts and I cannot lie...”
Obama: Stop! Now!
Clinton: Oh, alright. Insecure about your small back door, huh?

** silence **

Clinton: Man, I miss this office. They should have elected me to another term. . . hey, can I be your vice president?
Obama: No.
Clinton: I’d let you be mine.
Obama: No. Let’s talk about this press conference.
Clinton: What do you want to do?
Obama: You understand, I’m going to answer a few questions. I’ll introduce you. Then you give a quick statement about how hard we’re working and how honored you are about being back to help out, right?
Clinton: Being black?
Obama: Back!
Clinton: Oh, I got ya.
Obama: Then I make some joke about my wife waiting for me.
Clinton: Then we whip out our Presidents!
Obama: NO! Then you wave to the crowd and you and I come back here. Got it?
Clinton: Yeah, I got it.
Obama: Don’t deviate from that script.
Clinton: I would never do that to a fellow Mr. President, Mr. President.
Obama: Ok, let’s go.
Clinton: Lead on. . . fer a change. ** slaps Obama on the back **

** 10 minutes later, Obama re-enters room **

Obama: That was a good conference, don’t you think so Bill? Bill? Where the hell is Bill?
Aide: He’s still in the conference room, sir.
Obama: What’s he doing?
Aide: I believe he’s doing shots off Helen Thomas’s old chair.
Obama: Oh God! What are we going to do?
Aide: We could push the red button, sir?
Obama: Nuke the Russians?
Aide: The other red button, sir.
Obama: You mean have him Shellacked?
Aide: It worked on Ted Kennedy.
Obama: I told you never to talk about that.

** Clinton enters room **

Clinton: Woo boy was that fun. That was like the old days. I think that ABC News hottie likes me. You mind sending Hillary overseas again?
Obama: Just what the heck are you doing?!
Clinton: Hey, I give great conference. And did you see their reaction? Mr. President is back baby!
Obama: Bill, get the hell out of this White House and never come back.
Clinton: Ok Barack, you can throw me out now. . . but I will be back. Maybe not tomorrow or the next day, but January 2012. . . I’ll be back.

** sound of button being pushed repeatedly **


** End of Tape **


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

“I Did Not Offer A Job To That (Joe)Man.”

Ah Bill Clinton, is there no scandal you won’t join? Let’s dissect this Joe Sestak matter because it’s import. Indeed, it appears that a very serious crime has been committed. BUT, this is something the Republicans need to shut up about. Here’s why. . .

1. The Facts: What Happened

Here is what happened in JobGate.

1. Joe Sestak begins a primary challenge against turncoat Sen. Snarlin Arlen Specter.

2. Soon Sestak starts bragging that the White House offered him a job to drop his senate bid. On Larry King, he was asked: “Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?” Answer: “Yes.” The following day, on FOX News, he was asked if he was offered “a federal job, a White House or administrative job.” Sestak said “yes.” On Joe Scarborough he was asked if it was “an offer to run the Navy.” Sestak said “yes.” At no point in this interview or any others did he ever suggest that he wasn’t actually offered a job or that it was only an advisor position. That’s called an admission.

3. People start pointing out that this is a felony (see below). And the Republicans ask Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor. Holder refuses. That’s called a cover-up.

4. Obama is questioned by the media and avoids responding: “You will get it from my administration, and it will be coming out shortly. . . I can assure the public that nothing improper took place, but as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue.” That’s called a non-denial denial and indicates a cover-up in progress.

5. Sestak is asked to clarify exactly what the job was. He now refuses to answer: “I have nothing else to say on the matter.” That’s guilty talk.

6. Obama and Clinton meet for lunch. That’s called conspiracy.

7. The White House issues a very carefully-worded, very evasive white wash memo that claims that Bill Clinton met with Sestak, not anyone from the White House, and that Bill only offered to put Sestak on an “uncompensated advisory board.” It also claims that Republicans have done this in the past too. . . although it doesn’t cite any examples. Demonization is always an acknowledgement of guilt

8. Finally, Sestak issued a statement saying he had turned down an unpaid advisor job. That's called conspiracy after the fact.

2. Why This Is A Crime

If a job was offered to Sestak, then a felony was committed. Here’s why:

1. 18 U.S.C. section 211 makes it a crime to solicit or receive anything of value in exchange for appointing (or influencing the appointment of) someone to an office or job with the United States. This is subject to one year in prison and a fine.

2. 18 U.S.C. section 595 makes it a crime for anyone to use a federal job, federal funds, or a federal position to interfere with a Senate election. This is subject to one year in prison and a fine.

3. 18 U.S.C. section 600, makes it a crime to offer public employment in exchange for political activity. This is the Hatch Act, which was passed in 1939 to stop the practice of hiring political hacks for government jobs and to stop the use of government resources to promote political parties, i.e. to depoliticize the federal work force. However, the only penalty appears to be termination of employment.

Each of these applies “directly or indirectly,” meaning that going through a third party is the same thing as doing it yourself. . . hi Bill. Thus, everyone involved in this could be sentenced up to two years in prison, fined, and lose any federal job they hold. Removing a President would require impeachment.

3. Why This Should Be Investigated

Speaking as an attorney, this has all the hallmarks of a crime that is now being covered up. Can it be proven? Possibly. That’s why you need a special prosecutor. They can call in all the witnesses and quiz them, including secretaries and assistants. It is the secretaries and assistants who usually break a case open either because they decide not to lie for their bosses (though, in truth, they usually do lie) or they don’t know what lie to tell (this is more common). The prosecutor can also subpoena phone records and computer records -- including e-mails, which is also where these things usually fall apart. After that, one or more main players will usually roll over and start telling the truth.

The other reason a special prosecutor should be called is that this is not an isolated incident. In Colorado, Andrew Romanoff is running against Sen. Michael Bennet in the Democratic primary. According to The Denver Post, Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff, “suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources. . . Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID.” The day after, Romanoff announced his Senate bid. The White House has denied this, but “several top Colorado Democrats” have confirmed it anonymously to The Post.

4. Why Republicans Need To Shut The Heck Up Fast

Despite the fact that this is a crime, the Republicans need to shut the heck up about this. They should push to get a special prosecutor, but should not talk about impeachment and should not try to score points on this once a special prosecutor is appointed. Here’s why.

People do not like attacks that seem purely political. And they don’t like politicians using the criminal justice system to attack their opponents. They particularly don’t like politicians trying to “get” their opponents with esoteric laws. And the public will see this as esoteric. Why? Because Obama could have done this legally.

Presidents have the power to appoint anyone they want. Thus, Obama could have appointed Sestak to whatever position he has in mind and it would have been entirely legal, even if Sestak needed to drop his Senate bid to take the job. It only became illegal because of the quid-pro-quo aspect, the “you only get this if. . .” aspect. But since Obama could have done this legally by just omitting those words, people will see this as a “technically illegal” illegality. In my experience, people do not like those, and they hate it when politicians use those against their opponents.

Moreover, look at the history of using these kinds of attacks on opponents. Iran Contra made Oliver North into a hero and made the Democrats looks like incompetent, anti-American jerks. The impeachment of Bill Clinton made Bill Clinton much more popular than he had been and made Republicans look like nasty, intolerant, sex-obsessed tyrants. It also ended many a career on the Republican side, but only enhanced those on the left. Even consider Watergate. The Democrats didn’t bring down Nixon, Nixon brought down Nixon. And what did the Democrats gain? Nothing. They only beat Ford after he pardoned Nixon, and four years later came Ronald Reagan and a dramatic shift to the right.

This same history gets repeated in other countries as well. When politicians try to use criminal laws against their opponents, the crime better be ultra-serious. Anything that sounds technical or snippy will always blow up on the party that is perceived as exploiting the law.

The better approach is to let the investigation do its thing. Let a prosecutor go after these people and let the steady drip of allegations and the infighting do the damage. In the meantime, just keep saying, “serious allegations have been raised and there should be a prosecutor appointed to uncover the truth. The American people deserve the truth. Beyond that, I’ll wait to comment until after the investigation.”

That may not be the sexy strategy, but it's the smart strategy.


** Update: It now turns out that Sestak would not have been eligible for the job Clinton supposedly offered him. That makes their claims look even more like a coverup. That's what happens when you try to make up an "alibi" after the fact.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democratic Administrations Seem Less Stressful

Ever notice that life is less stressful when the Democrats hold the White House? Actually, I’m serious. I’ve lived through several now and I can honestly say that the country seems much more at ease when the Democrats are in charge. Bear with me as I try to figure this out (or bare with me if you prefer).

Honest Jimmy Carter

My first real experience with a Democratic President was Honest Jimmy Carter. Good times, let me tell you.

Sure, we had 7.6% unemployment, 13.5% inflation, falling incomes, gas lines, labor strikes and the such, but that’s part of life. Anyone who says differently is just expecting too much. . . or so the media constantly assured us. Besides, Jimmy was such an honest man that you couldn't fault him. At least, that was the standard media motif.

With nothing to worry about, there were no nasty movies about Carter either. In fact, if I remember correctly, Hollywood was largely apolitical at the time, except for the occasional movie attacking Nixon. Oh, and the music. . . the apolitical music?! Great stuff!

The Evil Ronald Reagan

Then came Reagan. Man, the Reagan years were tense. The economy was crap. Sure, he got unemployment down to 5.2% and inflation down to 1.9%, but those weren’t real jobs. The real jobs were vanishing at an alarming rate, leaving us to sell hamburgers to each other. . . and our Japanese masters.

What caused all of our jobs to vanish? Greedy corporate types, all personal friends of Reagan, would forcibly buy our prosperous companies and part them out just to make a quick buck. I remember seeing a film about this. In fact, I recall a bunch of films attacking this horrible thing called mergers and acquisitions, and vulture..., er, venture capital.

And don’t forget what Reagan did to us with his debts! He sold our futures! Deficits of around 3% of GNP?! What was he thinking? (For cynics who note that Obama’s deficit is 12.6% of GNP, all I can say is that it was a different time and 3% meant more than it does today.)

Fortunately, there was strong oversight. The media kept on him day. . . after day. . . after day! He may have been made of Teflon, but that wasn't going to stop them. And who can forget all those Congressional hearings to investigate every single thing Reagan or anyone in his administration did (or didn’t) do! Even Hollywood and the music industry strove to point out how horrible Reaganomics was over and over again.

Oh (almost forgot), Reagan was dangerous too. He dreamed of getting us killed. He wanted to start a nuclear war! At least, that’s what a dozen movies (like Dreamscape) told us. . . and the protesters chanted. . . and a few Congressional Democrats proclaimed. . . and a bunch of singers sang about. It is any wonder things were so damn tense!

Heartless George Bush

Then we got Bush. He wasn’t Reagan, but he wasn’t much better. Bush brought us the wars that Reagan always wanted. He attacked Iraq to get its oil. In fact, I remember protestors screaming this daily, and of course Hollywood and the music industry backed this up in their films and music. The media did a great job of investigating this too. . . constantly. As I recall, they really dug into the idea that he sold Iraq the very weapons they would use to kill so many American soldiers and he encouraged Iraq to attack Kuwait, a ruthless dictatorship of the kind that Bush favors, just to cause the war. True evil there.

Man, wasn’t it funny when he threw up in Japan? How many times did I see that on television!

Bush also gave us junk bonds, increasing the pace of jobs disappearing, and the S&L crisis -- caused by his nephew Neil Bush! He brought us the age of the never-ending Independent Counsel. And he created homelessness to kill poor people. Robert Redford told us so himself (Sneakers anyone?). I’m pretty sure the media backed Redford up on that. I don’t recall exactly, because there were so many stories about the 200 million homeless that it got a little confusing, but I think they did confirm it.

Very tense times.

Good-Natured Rogue Bill Clinton

Bush gave way to Clinton and things changed. Sure, Clinton loved women, but man was he a good guy. He was the Great Communicator II, the greatest politician of our time!

Let’s see, great economy, budget surpluses, nothing happened overseas. He ended homelessness. Sure, there were more mergers during the Clinton years than the Reagan/Bush years, but those were good mergers. They made America efficient.

Unlike Bush, Clinton never sold any influence. At least, I don’t recall hearing about that in the media.

Strangely, the number of films about presidents dropped off to almost nothing during his term. In fact, Hollywood largely went apolitical again, hmm. But that’s not to say they were playing favorites just because they were all FOBs. . . we got their word on that. Plus, don’t forget, they did do that one film about Clinton being a good-natured rogue who loves McDonalds. I remember a good deal of consternation in the media over that.

I don’t recall any protest music. But then what would you protest? He only used the military where it was absolutely necessary -- when the safety of the United States was at issue. . . like in Yugoslavia, and Somalia, and Haiti. And unlike Bush, whose failures led to a second Gulf war, Clinton solved the Somalia and Haiti problems completely -- or if he didn't, we never heard about it. He would have solved that Al Qaeda problem too, if the Republicans had let him. And you can't really blame him for Rwanda, no one knew what to do about that.

All in all, it was a very tension free time.

Bushitler

But all that changed when Bushitler stole the election and imposed himself upon us. I don’t even know where to begin with Bushitler.

Look at the problems he didn't solve in Rwanda, Somalia, and the genocide in Darfur!

And I’m not saying he caused 9/11, but I read that he knew about it and he didn’t call the airport to stop those guys because he wanted to create an incident to let Dick Cheney’s firm take Iraq’s oil. I don’t have any facts to back that up, and neither does the media, but I seem to recall reading that daily in real newspapers. I guess, sometimes the truth transcends the facts.

Seriously, was there anything he did right in Iraq or Afghanistan? Not according to the media, or Hollywood, or the music industry, or the protestors, or Democratic Congressmen, or Senators, or governors. And wow was Hollywood busy with movies about Bush and Iraq. The music industry too (how unfair to attack the Dixie Chicks for saying what everyone in the media was already saying).

And that was just the beginning. He tried to kill black people when he caused Katrina. He destroyed our economy, causing an unemployment rate that reached almost 7% -- no economy can survive with an unemployment rate that high, and the President is directly responsible for unemployment. . . except Obama and his 10.5%, that’s not his fault.

Bushitler also generated a massive deficit of around $200 billion! And don’t even think of comparing Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit to Bushitler’s, they just aren’t the same thing. In fact, they're so different that the media doesn't even bother making the comparison.

Don’t forget Bushitler forced an entire generation of soldiers to develop mental illness and to become homeless. Everybody lost their homes! He let AIDS run wild in Africa, and, let’s be honest, he was stupid. How many times did I hear that! Probably every day. And didn’t he cause a school shooting?

Thank God he’s gone. Too tense.

Barack “The Messiah” Obama

Finally, we have the Obamatopia of today. What pleasant times. Sure there’s 10.5% unemployment, but that’s to be expected -- employment always lags in a recovery. We have $1.4 trillion deficits, but that’s Bush’s fault too, and those should drop again in 5-10 years. The dollar is falling, but that’s good for the stock market.

We’ve had no mass shootings and no terrorist attacks that have made the news. We have no homeless, and all of our soldiers are fine again. Foreclosures have stopped. We have no racial strife, except that racist cop. AIDS in Africa has ended. He solved Darfur. Obama brought peace to South America, I don’t think we’ve heard a peep out of Chavez in some time. . . certainly no criticism from him. Our relations with the Middle East are great, or so we're told.

What’s not to like? In fact, times are so good that most journalists have little to do except report what Obama tells them. I don't think I've heard a body count since Bush left office? And I guess the media dropped their demand to film caskets coming home. Who needs the stress of seeing that!

Hollywood too seems to have become apolitical again, except for the few films honoring Obama. Of course, the television industry also has worked hard to help Obama out with bringing us together and doing a few good things.

All very stress free.

My Point

Ok, enough. I think you get my point. I am actually being quite serious when I say the world seems less dangerous and less contentious when the Democrats are in power. For most people, it does. And there is a reason for that: the Democrats’ fellow travelers in the media and in the culture industry work to generate that perception.

They will savage Republicans on a 24/7 basis, including making things up when there is nothing to complain about. Angry films get cranked out, personal attacks are made nightly on television or in songs, Congressional investigations are held, and a chorus of hate arises all to keep the public on edge.

Why? Because the perception that life is contentious when the Republicans are in charge can be a powerful force to wear people out under Republican regimes, to get them to give Democratic another chance, and to keep fence-sitters voting for Democrats.

This is why it’s so important that conservatives reinsert themselves into the culture -- from Hollywood, to Madison Avenue, to the music world, to the media. We cannot allow this perception to continue unchallenged. It's like letting your competitor send people to your restaurant to bother the customers.

By the way, lest anyone suggest that the left is merely acting on principle, explain to me why they suddenly go silent on those same principles, and will ignore or forgo them, when the Democrats win the job? It’s all for show folks.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What's On Hillary Clinton's Mind?

So what are we to make of Hillary’s outburst?

“My husband is not Secretary of State, I am. If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”

On the surface, it’s obvious. Hillary Clinton is an ambitious woman with a huge ego. But for most of her career, she has been obscured by her husband’s shadow. With Bill being praised for his solving the North Korea journalist situation, a situation that normally would fall within the purview of her current position, her outburst could merely represent her frustration at being shown up, once again, by her buffoonish husband.

But there is something much deeper here, both for Hillary and for the Democratic party. This outburst likely represent the realization that Hillary has made a huge mistake by agreeing to join Obama’s administration, because she has been minimized, marginalized, and irrelevant-ized. Indeed, by all appearances, she is the least independent, least powerful, and least relevant Secretary of State the country has known in our lifetimes. And, in politics, appearance is everything. Thus, her mistake likely has killed off any chance she has of being elected President.

This situation actually has its roots in 1992. When Bill was elected President, Hillary thought she had been given carte blanche to exercise Bill’s power as a co-president. But her attempts to exercise that power disintegrated under a wave of public criticism that she had not been elected, only Bill had been elected.

Thus, once Bill was safely out of the way, she set out to claim an electoral mandate of her own so that she herself could one day exercise power. And she chose to get that mandate by becoming a United States Senator from New York. But her ultimate goal was always to become the President, not merely a junior senator. Thus, she subsumed her ideological desires to gain a reputation in the Senate as a moderate, in the belief that this would make her palatable to the majority of the American people by defusing the image of her as a socialist, an image that was formed in the health care taskforce debacle.

What she did not count on, however, was that her party would go insane and would seek to nominate not the most experienced or most reasonable or most electable candidate, but would reach out to the candidate promising the most extreme left-wing policies. Thus, while she sold herself as an electable moderate, Obama ran far to her left and knocked off her lethargic campaign. He then went on to defeat John McCain who, to this day, has never been able to articulate a reason for anyone to vote for him.

After this shocking upset, Hillary made her next mistake: she listened to the press, which circulated the idea that she had lost because she had no foreign policy experience. Thus, when Obama offered her the position as Secretary of State, she saw an opportunity to check that box on her resume. Sadly, for her, she did not see the danger.

For Obama, it turns out, is perhaps the most Machiavellian politician the United States has ever produced. He saw the appointment of Hillary as an opportunity to eliminate a possible competitor by stripping his party of a leader that could oppose his agenda. Thus, he appointed her, and promptly tucked her away into the bowels of the State Department, far away from her former political organization and without the power to raise funds or speak her mind. Moreover, to prevent her from gaining the experience she sought and then leaving to lead an opposition, he immediately set about stripping her position of all useful authority. No sooner had her rear end hit the chair, than Obama began appointing special envoys to handled all of the complex and high-profile foreign policy matters normally handled by the Secretary of State. Even Biden was sent to key meetings instead of Hillary. . . slow Joe Biden.

Finally, to solve the North Korea issue, a relatively minor issue in the diplomatic scheme of things, Obama sent Bill Clinton, the very man whose shadow Hillary had been trying to escape, to very publicly achieve what she could not. Obama and Clinton further praised this as a purely private effort, even though it was not, wrongly suggesting that the State Department was irrelevant to resolving this matter.

Thus, not only has Obama stripped Hillary of her political organization, of her base, of her fund raising ability, and of her political voice, but he deprived her of the foreign policy experience she craved and he shoved her right back into Bill Clinton’s shadow. Effectively, Obama has smothered her political aspirations.

But Hillary is not alone. One by one, Obama has co-opted each of the people who might challenge him and made them disappear into the machinery. Governors, Congressmen, and even a few Republicans have all vanished into the bureaucracy. The effect on the Democratic party is actually quite corrosive. While this means initially that they are more unified than is their custom, it also means that they no longer have any leaders waiting in the wings to replace Obama when his term expires. Indeed, if Obama chose to leave politics today, ask yourself who among the Democrats has the stature to run a national campaign to replace him.

It is an odd strategy to destroy your friends to keep them from becoming your enemies, but that seems to be the planning coming from the White House.

Moreover, the Obama people seem quite content to risk the political careers of many young moderate Democrats by forcing votes on issues like cap and trade and the absurd health care reform, which will not satisfy their base but will enrage everyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi. One must wonder, whether Obama would not rather see these moderates -- natural opponents to his agenda -- fail and be replaced by Republicans than to face dissent from his own party? Perhaps, so long as he can keep a workable majority of liberals, he thinks it’s wise to cull these moderate friends?

Whatever is going on, now is not a good time to be an Friend Of Obama.


** As an aside, it turns out that the questioner did not ask about Bill's opinion; the question was mistranslated. He asked about Obama's opinion. I guess the universe does love a good joke now and then. . . Bill, by the way, spent his birthday in Vegas, without Hillary.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Paybacks Are A Barack

Chicago is famous for deep dish pizza and vindictive politics. When you win an election, you are expected to use all of the powers of your office (and then some) to reward your friends on the government nickel and to punish your enemies.

This week saw some interesting examples of Barack O. Capone bringing Chicago style politics to Washington.

First, as you may recall, Barack punishes journalists who cross him by refusing to allow them to ask questions at press conferences, a.k.a. Fox News. We were reminded of that again this week when, Obama Sockpuppet Gibbs made it clear that journalists who question race-baiting nominee Judge Sotomayor do so at their own risk. Said Gibbs,

I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.

On May 11, Team Obama inexplicably dismissed Gen. David McKiernan as commander in Afghanistan. According to The Economist, the only “reason” given by long term defense secretary Robert Gates, was the desire to get “fresh eyes” on the situation. You may recall Gen. McKiernan as the General who countered candidate Obama’s claims during the campaign that an Iraq-type surge would not work. McKiernan will be replaced by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was instrumental in the Iraq surge. Replacing a commander in this manner is unusual, and when asked whether this would end McKiernan’s career, Gates said, “Probably.”


This week, evidence also started to emerge that Chrysler has targeted Republican dealerships for closure, even though many of these dealerships are some of the most profitable Chrysler has. Interestingly, the list of closures also includes multiple dealerships owned by a financial supported of Hillary Clinton.


This brings us to the most interesting discovery of the week. In an article that I highly recommend that everyone read, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris outlines what Obama has done to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In a series of interesting moves, Obama has completely marginalized Hillary by dividing up the traditional duties of secretary of state among a group of special envoys who have been charged with handling all of the complex, high-profile duties of her job. In effect, Obama has done to Hillary what the government often does to people it wants to get rid of, but who it can’t fire: Obama has given her a desk but no duties. Said Morris:

It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a “monster”).

With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.

Moreover, Obama has deprived Hillary of her power base and her income. He has then added insult to injury by making Bill Clinton a special envoy to Haiti, a significantly smaller, more irrelevant role than even the evil George Bush gave to Clinton (coordinating the relief effort for the Asian tsunami and later for Katrina).

Thus, contrary to popular belief, Obama is an over-achiever in something. In five short months, he has put himself in the running for the title of Most Abusive and Corrupt Politician of American History (MACPAH?). Let us hope that when his tyranny ends, someone comes along to teach him and his friends that paybacks are indeed a b. . .
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...