The Light: Hillary

I’ve always been amazed at how the Democrats cannibalize their former heroes. Every Democrat who has failed in their bids for office or re-election for major office have been repudiated, ridiculed, and forbidden to run again for the races they lost. John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern… all were devoured by their own kind, became objects of ridicule after they failed to win election or re-election. The ridicule wasn’t just “oh dang, he lost.” It was more like “What a LOSER!!” They went for the jugular!

The Republicans don’t do that! That kind of repudiation didn’t happen to Bob Dole, GHW Bush, or Gerald Ford. Of course, the Republicans have the advantage of not losing nearly as many presidential elections. I guess that kind of skews things. Dubya still has plenty of supporters among Republicans, and thanks to Obama’s miserable presidency, even some Democrats nowadays think wistfully back to the good old days of The Dub!

President Bill Clinton hasn’t been completely cannibalized, but many Democrats have tried to cut him off at the knees. I find that hard to understand. Bill Clinton was the only Democratic President since FDR to win and serve two full terms of office (the only other Democrats to do so were Woodrow Wilson, and the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson). He presided over a period of unprecedented prosperity, turned the national deficit into a surplus, and managed to conduct military operations (as part of NATO) in Bosnia and Kosovo without loss of American lives. Despite his accomplishments, many Democrats, those of his own political party, hate the man! And they extend that hatred to his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or CDS, is how some of us refer to this bizarre hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Obama is President because the Democrats would have won in 2008 no matter who they nominated, and the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, in the delirious throes of CDS, decided amongst themselves that they didn’t want Hillary to win because they didn’t want the Clintons back in the White House. That’s why so many people blame Bill Clinton’s controversial impeachment for Hillary’s loss.

She was the best candidate in the field of aspirants, but the Clinton’s themselves often promoted the idea that they were “two (Presidents) for the price of one,.” starting with the campaign of 1992. Many people of both parties really disliked that notion for some reason. Perhaps it’s too much like royalty for their tastes, having a family in charge of the country instead of one leader. Maybe it’s just too much of a good thing.

It seems these Democrats, most of whom defended the Clintons in the 1990s, have bought into the Republican propaganda with the militant zeal of the newly converted. We expect it of Republicans, but it just seems weird coming from the those who are still Democrats. The vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons won, I guess.

Republicans started trying to take the Clintons down during Bill’s first election to the White House by calling him a draft dodger and Communist sympathizer. They pounced on accusations from women who claimed Bill had affairs with them, or worse. They tried to bring the Clintons down with endless investigations. They couldn’t find any legal wrongdoing by the Clintons, even after years of a Special (Republican) Prosecutor trying to pin the tail on the donkey.

They finally managed to corner Bill into denying, under oath, that he had “sexual relations” with Miss Blue Dress, sparking the national debate over whether oral sex performed by one individual on another constituted “sexual relations” when no intercourse occurred. Many agreed with Bill’s definition, others didn’t. But no other president has ever been forced to testify under oath about his sexual dalliances. If they had, the list of perjurers could be quite long, but Bill was the only one faced with it in the age of DNA testing. So far.

This fudging of the truth, when confronted on camera with evidence of marital infidelity, resulted in his being impeached (accused) on the charge of perjury by the House, but subsequently acquitted (found “not guilty”) by the Senate. How conveniently people overlook that acquittal.

Bill stood his ground, continued as President, and finished his second term. He even remained very popular, with high approval ratings to the end of his term of office.But because he had been impeached, he became anethema to many in the Democratic Party. His impeachment will be forever remembered by both dumbasses and selective-memory types, as “he was thrown out of office for getting a blowjob at his desk.”

Listening to some of these idiots, you’d think Bill so befouled the Oval Office that Dubya Bush had to have it sand-blasted before he’d set foot in it.

Meanwhile, during his travails and after, Hillary won much sympathy from many people, while others got very angry with her for staying with Bill. My own view is that it’s nobody’s business but the Clintons. But talk about class and character! How many of us, of either gender, could keep our chins up as well as she did when Bill’s sexcapades made headlines? I think there were a few news reports that she was furious, maybe even one report (true or not) that she threw something at him. Rumors abounded that the reason Bill strayed was because she was a lesbian, and other rumors that their sexual relationship was definitely over when the Monica story broke. I doubt any of those rumors and reports held much truth. She may have made him sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom for awhile, but I believe their marriage is based on love and devotion, and that they weathered the storm as well as any couple could, or better.

But these opinions carried over into Hillary’s political career, with some saying she had no chance of success because of Bill, or because she stayed with Bill, or just because they’ve always hated her for being too outspoken. So Bill was the albatross around Hillary’s neck as much as he was, as others have put it, her escalator to the Senate.

What I was hearing during the early part of the primaries, in 2007 and early 2008, was that Hillary didn’t stand a chance because of Bill. They just couldn’t imagine Bill keeping his nose clean, let alone keeping it out of her decision-making. Ironically, these are some of the same folks who used to joke about President Hillary being the one who was really in charge in the 1990s.

What my liberal friends kept saying was that they REALLY didn’t want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House. They offered a variety of reasons. Some have always hated Hillary for their own twisted reasons, or they are desperately ashamed of Bill because of his impeachment and all that it entails. Or perhaps they’re just jealous of him because they’ve never had a BJ themselves.

I see the Clintons as a Power Couple, a pair of equals who communicate well and share their opinions with each other openly. I suspect Hillary voiced her opinions to him when he was the POTUS, and I would imagine he is her closest counsel as well. Personally, I like the idea of getting a two-fer.

There’s no doubt Hillary has always been a power in her own right, a force to be reckoned with. Having been a successful high-profile attorney, after a brilliant university performance, she married an aspiring politician who became governor of Arkansas a few years after they married. She was First Lady of Arkansas for ten years, which put her into politics.

To detractors who say she wouldn’t be the powerhouse she is on the national political stage without riding Bill’s coattails, I would say that’s also true of all the (mostly male) politicians who got where they are by hitching their wagons to other (mostly male) politicians already in power. Or perhaps they were born into it. And they say America hates dynasties.

Bill may have made Hillary a star, but she helped make him what he was/is, and she shared with him the experience of being Arkansas’ First Couple for a decade. Did she rise to fame in politics because of him? Certainly. But the same is true of him. It’s definitely true that successful couples nurture each other, bring out the best in each other, and grow together. True, he held the offices, but it’s not like she was confined to the kitchen in an apron and pearls. She’s no Donna Reed. And definitely no Tammy Wynette!

So the questions remain, the speculation continues, and the opinions are all over the road. Did Bill’s notoriety keep Hillary from winning the nomination? Or will he eventually help propel her into the Oval Office? I hope for the latter. But she may have to have it sandblasted first.

~~ Bumped Up ~~

That should be your big hint that this is about ACORN. Yep – you know the one. Our tax supported, partisan organization that participates in voting irregularities on a regular basis, which has now allegedly disbanded (but hasn’t really, the ones who are more than willing to bend tax law, “register” Donald Duck,” and flat out commit voter fraud. (Again, I cannot begin to list all of the articles I have written on ACORN. Links above are a start.))

And you most likely know that acknowledging those facts about ACORN has gotten me a whole lot of grief from people who absolutely refuse to believe the facts, not rumors, facts about ACORN.. Even when said facts are laid out one by one – with citations, mind you – right in front of their eyes. The refrain is always, “you hate poor people,” and “ACORN does great work for the poor!” Uh, no – I hate organizations that pretend to work on behalf of poor people, and for all people when they are working for one party but paid with everyone’s tax dollars. That kind of unethical, immoral, illegal behavior rubs me the wrong way, you know? That’s just how I roll.

Maybe this article will finally get these Pollyannas to open their eyes(though I am not holding my breath). It may also serve to make each and everyone of us even angrier that our tax paying dollars, our HARD earned dollars, have been handed out to this organization like freakin’ candy while they broke law after law. How do I know? Because they admitted as much in this article (h/t to Pat Racimora):

ACORN Employees Tell FBI Of Deliberate Election Fraud, According To New Documents

The radical activist group ACORN “works” for the Democratic Party and deliberately promotes election fraud, ACORN employees told FBI investigators, according to an FBI document dump Wednesday.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, are FBI investigators’ reports related to the 2007 investigation and arrest of eight St. Louis, Mo., workers from ACORN’s Project Vote affiliate for violation of election laws. All eight employees involved in the scandal later pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud.

Project Vote is ACORN’s voter registration arm. Project Vote continues to operate despite the reported dissolution of the national structure of ACORN.

The handwritten reports by FBI agents show that ACORN employees reported numerous irregularities in the nonprofit group’s business practices.

One employee told the FBI that ACORN headquarters is “wkg [working] for the Democratic Party.”

Oopsy daisy! Evidently, this employee didn’t realize they weren’t supposed to say that out loud. Loose lips and all that. But you know there is more to this story:

According to one report, an ACORN employee said the purpose of “[f]raudulent cards” was “[t]o cause confusion on election day to keep polls open longer,” “[t]o allow people who can’t vote to vote,” and “[t]o allow to vote multiple times.”

Another report quotes an employee saying, “Project Vote will pay them whether cards fake or not – whatever they had to do to get the cards was attitude.” Project Vote pays based on the number of cards and “that’s why they were so reckless,” the report says.

A report quotes an employee saying, “I don’t like our system. I don’t think we should do voter registration.” The report also notes that employees were “[c]onstantly threatened” and that the staff were “instructed on what to say to FBI.”

Another report indicates an employee told the investigator, that ACORN “[t]old employees not to talk to the FBI.” The FBI is “‘trying to intimidate you.’”

“These documents show the need for a national criminal investigation by the Obama Justice Department into ACORN,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

“Is Attorney General [Eric] Holder doing nothing because of Obama’s close connections to ACORN and Project Vote? The information in these new documents has national implications that cry out for further investigation,” Fitton said.

President Obama’s ties to ACORN go back to the 1980s.

“ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project,” according to Toni Foulkes, a former member of ACORN’s national board. From 1985 to 1988 Obama ran the Developing Communities Project from an office located in Chicago’s Holy Rosary Church.

Obama later worked for Project Vote, leading a very successful voter registration drive in Chicago in 1992 that helped elect then-Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, Illinois Democrat.

Just what do they mean by “successful voter registration drive”? Do they mean like the ones for which ACORN was under investigation in 14 different states? That kind of “successful”? Don’t get me wrong – after the way Obama conducted his 2008 campaign, I wouldn’t be surprised one tiny bit. And we can’t forget that Obama paid ACORN over $800,000 for “voter registration.” Birds of a feather and all that, you know?

And as I stated at the top, don’t believe the hype that ACORN has disbanded. It’s all a ruse (big surprise):

Meanwhile, Politico reports that ACORN isn’t going away – it’s merely changing form.

Ben Smith writes that radical housing activist John Atlas’s new highly sympathetic institutional biography of ACORN, “Seeds of Change,” acknowledges that ACORN’s current rebranding process is aimed at re-constituting ACORN in the not-too-distant future.

Writes Smith, who includes a direct quotation from the book:

But strong local ACORN chapters swiftly regrouped under new names, like the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and New York Communities for Change. Those groups “will retain ACORN’s commitment to building national power and are beginning discussions” about relaunching a national organization some time after November …

The rebranding maneuver was first reported months ago.

Atlas elaborated on ACORN’s plan during a panel discussion Tuesday at the left-wing “America’s Future Now” conference in Washington, D.C.:

The good news is that a lot of people who were involved in ACORN, members and leaders as well as their allies, are organizing in over a dozen states to resurrect ACORN using its model, focusing on the same constituency, learning from ACORN’s strengths as well as its mistakes, so it is happening.

So far ACORN has rebranded in 13 states plus the District of Columbia.

ACORN Housing, which is the ACORN network’s primary vehicle for getting its hands on federal tax dollars, has renamed itself Affordable Housing Centers of America.

Oh, brother. See, they know there’s no way in hell we can keep up with all of the name changes they are employing. Tricky little devils, aren’t they? Just like their compatriots, SEIU.

But, hey – at least they finally admitted – to the FBI, no less – that they are a wing of the Democratic Party, and they are actively engaging in voter fraud. Any other administration might take a closer look, but when there’s a Fraud in the White House, I don’t reckon we should expect him to look into fraud by one of the organizations that helped get him where he is today, right?

Too bad we are no longer a “country of laws.” If we were, maybe ACORN would truly get its comeuppance, we’d get our damn money back, and even more, have a chance at fair elections again. But we know Obama would never stand for that – how else could he retake the White House without their “help”?

November cannot come soon enough. Maybe then we can get enough “Change!” to hold ACORN accountable. Until the, watch out for those “new” community groups. Chances are they didn’t fall far from the tree…

* For those who haven’t yet heard, the 16 year old sailor, Abby Sunderland, who was feared lost at sea has been found in the Indian Ocean. Three ships are on their way to retrieve her. Thank heavens.

Recently, South Carolina has been in the news for our “wacky” politics, especially amid allegations of impropriety on behalf of Rep. Nikki Haley. Haley is now in a runoff for Republican candidate for Governor by two men, one of whom worked for her competitor. Despite these allegations, and an upcoming run-off (June 22nd), she is widely expected to win.

But the one about whom you may NOT have heard is the Democratic nominee for US Senate, set to face Senator Jim DeMint. I guess with this story, we really do have to accept and acknowledge that we have some whacked out politics in this state. This is a good one.

So, here’s the thing. Okay. The guy who won, Alvin Greene, raised not one dime, had no campaign website, and STILL beat a 4 time state official for the shot to go against Senator DeMint. There is just one tiny little problem with him, though, as this article highlights, S.C. Dems Ask Senate Nominee To Withdraw After Felony Charge. Oh, oops:

Less than 24 hours after Alvin Greene’s surprise win in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary, the state party has asked him to withdraw from the race because of a pending felony charge.

“Today I spoke with Alvin Greene, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, and asked him to withdraw from the race,” Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said in a statement.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Greene is facing felony charges for displaying pornographic pictures to a University of South Carolina student.

Fowler said she didn’t take her decision “lightly.”

“I believe strongly that the Democratic voters of this state have the right to select our nominee,” she said.

“But this new information about Mr. Greene would certainly have affected the decisions of many of those voters.”

The party said that as of Wednesday afternoon it had not received a response from Greene.

I don’t know about you, but for me, it begs the question: how did Greene even get on the ballot? Great that Fowler is stepping in now, but, seriously – how did he even get on the ballot? I hope someone knows, because he ain’t talking:

The candidate could not be reached for comment. He declined to comment on the charges to the AP.

Greene posted bond after his arrest in November for showing the obscene Internet photos to the young woman, according to the report. Though Greene has yet to enter a plea or be indicted, if convicted, he could be imprisoned for up to five years.

In an earlier interview with The Ballot Box, Greene declined to comment about his pending charges, but admitted he was surprised with the results of Tuesday’s vote. At the time of the interview, the party had not called for his resignation.

He said his chances against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) were good because “this is a dire time in South Carolina and the U.S.”

Greene stunned observers Tuesday when he won the nomination. He raised no money and put up no campaign website but beat former four-term state lawmaker Vic Rawl 59 percent to 41. (Eden Stiffman)

I suppose one could look at this as knowing about his crime BEFORE he got into office, so it would not be a big surprise to anyone…Ahem. Seriously, though, why did people give this man a vote when they knew so little about him? That is just a tad problematic.

Oh, these wacky, wacky South Cackalackians, right? Right. Still, I’d sure like to know how the hell he even got on the ballot. Maybe Carol Fowler can answer that question for us.

Scrolling through a number of blogs the other day, I came across this comment to a story in The Confluence. Many thanks to WMCB for posting it:

… I have a family member who is as conservative as it gets. We disagree a lot on how much the federal govt should do. But we wholeheartedly agree on this. He said to me last week,

“Until we can get the govt and the corporations out of bed with each other, we can’t even have a national conversation on how much or how little we want the govt to do. Until we end this rigged cronyism, we are ALL f*cked, Left, Right, and Center.”

Crony capitalism was a problem before this administration took power and that problem seems only to be increasing. Special interests, backroom deals, big corporations getting special exemptions — BP comes to mind. The corporate-owned media running interference and soft pedaling or ignoring stories until well past the expiration date of their effectiveness is likewise devastating.

Even Dan Froomkin, nee of the Washington Post, who now writes for Huffington Post, penned an article complaining that President Obama’s new fiscal deficit commission will be holding its meeting out of the public eye — contrary to the “transparency” repeatedly promised by this administration:

Members of President Obama’s deficit commission huddled behind closed doors Wednesday despite pleas from the left and right that they hold all their meetings in public.

The move only heightens suspicion that rather than forging a national consensus on future spending priorities, the commission’s work will consist of backroom dealings in which members of the Washington aristocracy find high-minded excuses for cutting the social safety net.

Bruce Reed, the commission’s executive director, assured the Huffington Post there is nothing sinister about holding working group meetings like today’s in private. But he had no good reason why they shouldn’t be held in public, either.

Froomkin’s article is entitled “Obama’s Fiscal Commission — What’s Going On In There?” if you would like to google and read it in its entirety.

Clearly, both sides are unhappy with this corporate cronyism — and we have seen all too many examples of it over the last ten years.

What’s the solution?

This is an open thread.

Yep, that’s right, after Bart Stupak and his gang of 11 wrangled over $3.5 Billion for their votes on Obamacare, Stupak has decided to end his career in Congress. You know, as if he hadn’t already done that with his vote, and selling out.

Here are the details:

Rep. Bart Stupak To Retire After Last-Second Deal On Healthcare

Rep. Bart Stupak is expected to announce his retirement Friday, weeks after his critical role in healthcare’s passage.

Stupak, the centrist Michigan Democrat who crafted a last-second deal on abortion that allowed President Barack Obama’s healthcare bill to pass the house and become law, will say during a press conference this morning that he won’t pursue reelection this fall.

Stupak has been wrestling with whether to retire for weeks, and the brutal healthcare fight certainly played a role in his decision.

Stupak told The Hill that fighting the healthcare bill had been “a living hell” a little more than a week before the bill was approved by the House.

Telephone lines to his office were jammed, and he and his wife received nasty calls at home.

“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during the interview. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”

Bear in mind, this was BEFORE he voted yes on the bill. Just to be clear. Then there was the “Yes” vote:

Things didn’t get easier for Stupak after he reached a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats that allowed his group of anti-abortion rights centrist Democrats to vote for the healthcare bill.

After the bill was approved, Stupak gave the Democrats argument on the House floor against a GOP motion to kill the bill.

A Republican lawmaker, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (Texas), shouted “baby killer” as Stupak was speaking. Neugebauer later apologized and said he was referring to the bill and had said it was a baby killer.

Stupak, first elected in 1992, opposed the Senate-approved healthcare bill under consideration by the House because he believed it would not prevent federal funds from subsidizing insurance plans that would cover abortion services. He and a small bloc of fellow Democrats said they would not vote for the bill unless it was changed.

To win Stupak and his core group over, Obama issued an executive order that said the healthcare bill would not change existing law preventing federal funds from going to abortion services.

Several anti-abortion rights groups said that was not enough, and accused Stupak of selling out.

Abortion rights supporters were also irked by the executive order decision.

Well, it was a win for Obamacare, not for Americans, and these backroom deals continue to feed the anger about the bill’s passage. Stupak’s retiring won’t change that. Or maybe it’s because he knew he couldn’t win again:

Stupak had drawn challengers in this cycle, and fueled speculation that he might retire earlier this week by saying that he’d consult with his family before deciding to run for office again. Stupak’s wife had reported receiving death threats in the wake of his healthcare vote.

The congressman also suffered a personal tragedy in 2000 when his 17-year-old son killed himself the morning after his prom. Stupak subsequently held a hearing on Accutane, a prescription drug used by his son to treat acne that can have have adverse psychological effects, including suicide attempts. Restrictions on the use of the drug were tightened by the Federal Drug Administration in the wake of the hearing.

Stupake’s decision to retire adds another difficult seat to defend for Democrats already facing a tough election environment.

Stupak’s district includes much of northern Michigan, including the state’s Upper Peninsula, a rural area that is seen as Republican-leaning. Republicans will hope to pick up the seat, though The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports that Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall is the leading Democrat to fill Stupak’s spot in the race.

Obama won 50 percent of the presidential vote in Stupak’s district in 2008, compared to 48 percent for GOP candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

That is a tragic story about his son, though I am not sure why his son’s death 10 years ago would affect his running for re-election NOW. Clearly, he has stood for re-election since that time. And again, while he received threats post-vote, he also received them pre-vote. Not that there is any justification for anyone being threatened, but it is important to keep the facts from being revised.

And maybe Stupak knew he didn’t have much of a chance at re-election not just because of his soul-selling for money vote, but because the DNC ain’t what it used to be. Indeed, according to Gallup, the “Democratic Party Image Drops To A New Low.” But, but, but, wait – didn’t Obama HAND PICK the new DNC chair?? Yet:

Americans’ favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties’ images that has prevailed for the past four years.

Oh dear. I can’t wait to see how The One’s minions are going to try and scramble on THIS one. It isn’t Rasmussen (which has been pretty consistently correct, though that hasn’t stopped Obama’s supporters from trying to belittle it as “Conservative”). Nope – this is Gallup:

Gallup last measured party images in late August/early September of last year. At that point, the Democratic Party enjoyed an 11-point favorable image advantage over the Republican Party. Now, the favorable ratings of the two parties are essentially tied.

The images of the two major parties have particular significance in a midterm election year. For example, the favorable rating of the Democratic Party exceeded that of the Republican Party by 52% to 37% just prior to the 2006 midterm elections, in which the Democrats gained 31 House seats.

Americans’ current 41% favorable rating of the Democratic Party is five points lower than the party’s previous low, recorded twice in 2005.

By contrast, the Republican Party’s image reached its all-time low of 31% in December 1998 — just after the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton. The Republicans’ current rating is improved from a pair of 34% ratings Gallup measured in late 2008 and in May 2009.

I hope Stupak is proud of his career, and his accomplishments. I don’t know how someone lives with themselves after making such a big deal out of a moral conviction, to then cave for earmarks, but that’s just me. I wish him and his family well.

All I can say is, 2010 is shaping up to be mighty interesting, isn’t it?

What sales tactic is the most persuasive? Which emotion, when exploited, motivates human beings to reach for their wallets – or their guns?

The answer, of course, is fear.

And fear, when stoked by demagogues and poured over a volatile flammable mass only needs one match to create a frightful conflagration.

Witness the American “Tea Party” movement, a ragtag group whose initial goal of protesting the bank bailouts has devolved into a mass movement featuring silly costumes, misspelled signs glorifying racism and paranoia, and sometimes weaponry.

Those who wish to turn away from the Tea Parties and their embarrassing antics will find little solace in the Republican party. A recent Harris poll reveals that two-thirds of Republicans think Barack Obama is a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say “he may be the Antichrist.” Not surprisingly, respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped.

To quote the 19th-century educator Horace Mann, “Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.”

Of course, the media don’t help.

It’s easy to blame FOX News and talk radio for this sorry and dangerous state of affairs. Their right-wing propaganda draws a large and loyal audience. But CNN, MSNBC and other mainstream networks are also to blame. By treating the more mentally unstable and incoherent members of the lunatic right with deference and respect in order to present “balanced” coverage, they have bestowed a kind of legitimacy on paranoid hate-mongerers, racists and the flat-out ignorant. Having a person on to argue that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen of the United States serves no newsworthy purpose. It is an act of sheer provocation and showmanship.

Consumers of Pakistani media are probably familiar with this phenomenon – demagogues blathering nonsense from their media perches; the spreading of rumor and conspiracy as fact; an apparent lack of editorial control on the irresponsible material being broadcast or printed; blaming outside forces (Jews, the CIA, the Mossad, RAW) for internal problems, thereby alleviating the public of any responsibility for an ensuing catastrophe; suspicion of The Other…the list goes on and on.

So to those who think the Kerry-Lugar Bill is a Trojan Horse masquerading sinister imperialists scheming to erode your sovereignty, meet your comrades in arms: The Tea Party attendees who think passing universal health care will lead to death panels, fascism and Nazi death camps.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

It is shocking that even CNN has reported on Disgruntled Democrats Joining the Tea Party. Shannon Travis’ story quotes two disaffected educated, liberal women and their unlikely path to the tea party protests:

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past — some even voted for Democratic candidates — are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party — a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it’s not formally aligned with the Republican Party.

Yet CNN does not report the numbers correctly – stating that Dems comprise only 4% of Tea Party membership. According to a new survey in The Hill, Dems and Independent voters in the Tea Party comprise 40% of its membership. The Winston Group reports that 13% are Democrats. It is quite likely that the Democratic membership is higher than CNN or this Administration would care – or dare — to admit. Further, the popular meme that Tea Partiers are comprised mainly of “racist, extremist, angry white males” is now debunked as well. As Politico now reports

Many of the tea party’s most influential grass-roots and national leaders are women, and a new poll released this week by Quinnipiac University suggests that women might make up a majority of the movement as well.

Actually, women do make up a large part of the movement – most polls indicate their number to be about 53%-55%. Further, Gallup indicates that in terms of their “age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.”

CNN shares what droves two democratic women to join the Tea Party ranks:

A lawyer and lifelong Democrat, [Ann] Ducket made her political leanings clear: She said she was a campus community organizer for Democratic Sen. George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign, voted for Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, and previously ran for elective office in Colorado as a Democrat.

“I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I probably did inhale in college,” Ducket said.

Ducket, who is now an independent and did not vote for Obama, said the president has “carried things to an extreme.”

“I think we’ve gone too far on the side of government doing too much,” Ducket said. “The Democratic Party is wanting to take care of everyone, instead of helping everybody stand on their own two feet.”

Roxanne Lewis expressed a similar point of view. A small business owner in Grand Junction, Lewis described herself as a lifelong Democrat and called the president a “phenomenal speaker.” She voted for him because she “believed in what he was saying: change.”

But, Lewis added, “I should’ve listened a lot closer when he talked about ’spreading the wealth.’ ”

Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said “I feel lied to, cheated and raped.”

I can assure Ms. Lewis, she is not alone. Given the fact that Mr. Obama calls himself a Democrat, I’m sure the betrayal feels even worse.

Lewis criticized the taxpayer-funded bailouts of financial institutions, which began under former President George W. Bush, and the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.

“These are not the Democrats that I have been brought up with,” Lewis said. However, she said she will continue to be a Democrat.

“We hear from folks, probably at every rally, who say, ‘I was a Democrat,’ ” Levi Russell, communications director for the Tea Party express tour, said.

“Having more Democrats join the movement shows that it is more representative of the American people than the antics of the Obama, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, Reid leadership,” Russell said.

I applaud these two ladies for going on the record. Considering the horrid demonization this movement has endured at the hands of “trusted media outlets” and those at the highest levels of this Administration, they must be mighty frustrated to go public. I no longer trust anyone who has a knee-jerk reaction, labeling others before understanding who they are and what they stand for. Hillary voters know all to well what it is like to be mischaracterized and insulted for the candidate they supported.

While there are more reports emerging acknowledging the legitimate grievances of tea party protests, they are still labeled as extremists. It is now starting to look as though the race baiting incident on the day of the health care vote, wherein Reps. Lewis and Cleaver, accused tea partiers of spitting and calling them the “N” word is evaporating – both gentlemen are backing off their initial accusations.

Conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart first offered a $10,000 reward for anyone with any corroborating evidence of these incidents – he has now raised the reward to $100,000. You can read his entire story here.

So far, of all the people with video cameras, camera phones and the like who were in the crowd – no one has come forward to claim the reward. Surely, if anyone actually did this, they should be called out and condemned for it. But if it didn’t happen, this should not be used as a tool to discredit those who attend tea party rallies.

We will keep you posted if any thing new develops.

As Hillary Clinton said when she was campaigning for the Presidency: “Hold me accountable.” It is critical that we hold all our representatives in government accountable for their actions, their legislation but also for their rhetoric.

Demonization must not be used as a weapon to silence legitimate criticism. The Bush Administration was guilty of the same in labeling critics of the Iraq war. Both sides employ this immoral tactic and as frightening as it is to go up against the party powerful, it is my hope that enough citizens of all stripe will stand up and decry falsehoods put out by the press or irresponsible government officials.

It is also heartening to see women on both sides of the aisle join together in this movement — if only to let both the Democrats and Republicans in charge that women are more than one-issue voters.

Editor’s Update at 7:30 p.m.: Thanks to Larry Johnson, we have received permission to reprint Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s essay in full. Look for it tomorrow.

About Barack Obama, as did many of us, but this person is Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, former Democratic Party activist and donor, not to mention a HUGE supporter of Hillary Clinton. Lady de Rothschild was an insider in the DNC, and saw first hand how they treated Hillary Clinton, and her supporters. She took her considerable political weight, and threw it behind McCain. Lady de Rothschild is also a very strong, powerful woman all on her own, and frankly, is just freakin’ awesome, IMHO.

Lady de Rothschild has continued to stay in the political landscape, and has the following post in The Daily Beast. What a post it is:

Obama’s shortcomings were eminently foreseeable, says one of McCain’s most prominent Democratic backers. Lynn Forester de Rothschild on how the president’s fake bipartisanship could never hide his true leftist agenda.

The failures of the Obama presidency were clearly telegraphed by the Obama candidacy. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Back in September 2008, as a lifelong Democratic Party loyalist and activist, I backed John McCain; I told The New York Times, “I love my country more than my party.” Supporting a Republican was the last thing I expected to be doing in the fall of 2008. But I knew it was my only choice, given the decision by the Democratic Party establishment to reject 18 million voters in favor of the inexperienced and ideological Barack Obama.

His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America.

After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that, during the campaign, we already knew what kind of president he would become.

Yes, most of us DID know what kind of president Obama would become, hence why so many of us supported Clinton:

The health-care summit vividly demonstrated Mr. Obama’s fake bipartisanship. When he was a candidate, we celebrated when he said, “We are not red or blue states. We are the United States of America.” But candidate Obama had no record of bipartisan behavior. Ironically, the one time that Obama entered into a bipartisan effort was with, of all people, John McCain. He reached across the aisle to draft ethics reform legislation with Senator McCain. But when Obama returned to the Democratic establishment with a bill that did not meet their favor, he backed away fast. It was candidate McCain who had worked productively and regularly with Democrats, like with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration. The record told me more than the rhetoric about which candidate would honestly respect the other side and reach across the aisle to find the best solutions for America.

Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist. Sure, he made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. He promised “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business,” a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional employee hired through 2010, removal of penalties for early withdrawal of 401(k) savings during the recession, and no administration jobs for lobbyists. Perhaps the best of all was the promise he made in the Mississippi presidential debate when he said, “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America.

Oh, sure he would. Many of us knew Obama would give the same kind of attention to the issues that came before him as he did while an IL Senator (“Present!”) or as a US Senator (“I changed my mind!” like he apparently did in regard to a promise made to John McCain), and so many more (remember FISA, for instance?). Ahem. Some of us were paying attention, though:

Again, I chose to look beyond the rhetoric to the record. At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. It was also obvious to ask what kind of president would have voted “present” on 129 difficult votes while in the Illinois State Senate. He was always thinking about how to keep every constituency happy; how to maintain his viability for the White House. In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists.

So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign. Standing on the steps of the old Illinois State Capitol, announcing his candidacy for president, Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. He had said so all along. His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America. It is telling that under Obama’s presidency, according to Sunday’s CNN Poll, 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans see the federal government as a threat to the rights of Americans.

Holy crapoli. There are some pretty bad numbers, especially for the “Transformational King” that was supposed to be Obama, especially this soon. Again, “We Told You So:

Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope. (Lady de Rothschild is chief executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company. She is a director of the Estee Lauder Cos. and The Economist Newspaper Ltd.)

Interesting points by Lady de Rothschild, don’t you think? Here she is explaining why she said, “Told You So”:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

I love this woman – an excellent role mode during Women’s History Month. I think she is fantastic – so eloquent, so knowledgeable, so diplomatic, so RIGHT, especially about Bill Clinton, and SO right about Barack Obama. Told you so…

There’s a special genre of publication that caters exclusively to excitable, starstruck young women. “Tiger Beat”, “Bop” and “16? are fluffy magazines tailored to satisfy the swoony dreams of adolescents as they fantasize about the teen idol de jour.

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

AP reported today that President Obama once again told people they shouldn’t waste their hard earned dough in Vegas. Writer Oskar Garcia details the shock of several lawmakers as Obama carelessly singled out Vegas yet again. (Be sure to check out the video below the fold.) Their economy is based on tourism and his comments last year cost the city millions of dollars. Apparently, once was not enough:

“This isn’t how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts,” Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

“You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage,” Obama said. “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.”

The comments quickly sparked a flurry of reaction from federal, state and local lawmakers in the Silver State, which had an unemployment rate of 13 percent in December.

Tough choices? Like sticking a bunch of pork in the stimulus bill? Like bailing out Wall Street and saying the heck with Main Street. Like holding back stimulus dollars till an election year so he can boost the Democrats’ prospects in the midterms while people have been losing homes and jobs, suffering horribly all through 2009? Those tough choices?

His preaching on the subject comes as a shock indeed considering this President in his first year has spent more than all other Presidents combined. He hosts half million dollars pizza parties, averaging a party every three days. He had the most expensive inauguration ever, clocking in at about $170 million, spent $6 million on a faux Grecian temple at the Convention and spent three quarters of a billion dollars to get the Presidency in this “no lose year” for Democrats. Do as I say, not as I do.

Anyone will tell you, modeling good behavior works a lot better than preaching. Something Mr. Obama might want to make note of, considering he has a bad habit of living beyond his means. It takes nerve to ask others to sacrifice when he and the First Lady spare no expense for themselves on the taxpayers’ dime. Why should we be surprised at his spending the taxpayers’ money so recklessly when his own past indicates the same pattern.

He bought a house he couldn’t afford with the help of Tony Rezko, then under indictment. Obama later said, “it was boneheaded” yet he feels quite comfortable telling other Americans the proper way to “tighten their belts.” When credit card companies wanted to charge usury rates, Obama did nothing to oppose them.

The President and First Lady had an opportunity to lead by example in the sacrifice department. Unfortunately, they have repeatedly demonstrated they are far more concerned with enjoying the perks and toys of office than tightening their own belts as a way to both inspire the American people and to show that they “feel our pain.”

“I’ll do everything I can to give him the boot,” Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said … adding that he was incensed when he heard about the comments and said he would no longer welcome the president here if he visits.

“This president is a real slow learner,” said Goodman, who is not affiliated with a political party.

Nevada’s economy has been hit hard with foreclosures, unemployment and bankruptcies during the past two years as consumers everywhere tighten leisure spending and companies spend less on meetings and conventions.

And when your own Senator Majority Leader, the much maligned Harry Reid – most likely the man who lit a fire under Obama to run in the first place – condemns your remarks, you know you’ve stuck your foot in it: Reid issued a statement:

“Reid to Obama: ‘Lay off Las Vegas’.

“The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn’t be spending their money,” Reid said. “I would much rather tourists and business travelers spend their money in Las Vegas than spend it overseas.”

Obama’s reply was insipid at best:

“I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money, to have fun,” Obama said, according to the letter. “There is no place better to have fun than Vegas, one of our country’s great destinations.”

Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, complained that Obama “failed to grasp the weight that his words carry.”

Well, Ensign hits the nail on the head. How can this man be the POTUS and not understand that his every remark is tracked to within an inch of its life. If the President voices disapproval about a city – it’s revenues falter. How could he not know that?

Las Vegas’ Mayor Goodman concluded with this telling remark:

“Sometimes when he’s not using his monitors and reading what he says, he doesn’t think…”

The President doesn’t think? Is that the reason why Axelrod and Co. never want the president to go off script? Is Goodman implying that without his trusty TelePrompTer, POTUS’ handlers never know what is going to happen? Like Obama’s careless remark that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” before he knew the facts of the case. That little nugget arguably went a long way toward costing the Democratic Party the MA Senate seat.

Goodman also said Obama has a “psychological hang-up” about Las Vegas. So I offer one of two theories about his remarks:

1. Perhaps his sensitive nature is still holding a grudge against Las Vegas because Hillary won the Nevada primary – forcing Obama to have to fight on for the nomination.

2. The “my uncle liberated Auschwitz” syndrome – he is just looking for the nearest convenient sound bite, accurate or not.

He figures no one is going to challenge him on the accuracy of his remarks or take him to task for them. Why wouldn’t he believe this? The media hasn’t bothered to do their jobs so far. It never occurs to him that his careless words – pulling the nearest example out of his, er, hat that he can find, can have serious repercussions to others – being that he is the President of the United States.

As Hillary Clinton once said, “you don’t need a President who looks down at you.”

Millions of Americans are hurting. They watched a man win a historic election, promising change only to see politics as usual and worse, a White House that is deaf, dumb and blind to their concerns. A spendthrift who tells everyone else how to sacrifice is as elitist as he is out of touch.

Someone needs to remind the President that when he mouths off, he is not an adjunct lecturer getting cute at a cocktail party, spouting some witty bon mot for the entertainment of his hangers on.

Words are not just words anymore. The President is being held accountable for them — if not by the media, then by the voters. It would be helpful if he held himself accountable as well.