April 14th, 2015
On Sunday Hillary, on Monday Marco. A dozen or more will soon follow.
On Monday Marco Rubio announced his Logan’s Run for president as a youthful leader straight out of Romper Room to contrast with experienced Hillary. Rubio has astounding abilities and talents which no one should discount. These astounding abilities and talents work against Rubio in the Republican nomination battle to come.
With most if not all of us our strengths are our weaknesses as well. But for Marco Rubio in a Republican primary his strengths/weaknesses make him more likely to be a VP pick than a Prez choice.
Why? What is Rubio’s problem?
Marco Rubio’s problem is not his failed and foolish support for what was termed “comprehensive immigration reform” which Republican/conservative movement leaders rightly claimed was illegal immigration amnesty.
Marco Rubio’s problem is that he deployed all his talents and abilities, all his remarkable capacities, all his promise and rhetorical skills – to sell a policy which his supporters correctly exposed as a monumental betrayal. If Marco Rubio with all his remarkable talents could do this to his supporters, supporters who made him a senator even as her ran against a Republican governor, then what other damage can Rubio do in the future to his Republican/conservative allies?
Rubio now says he is against what he was for. Rubio wanted to ingratiate himself with Big Business Chamber of Commerce types who want illegal immigration amnesty in order to keep working class wages down. All Rubio did was help Barack Obama.
Rubio has now flip-flopped on his flop Obama illegal amnesty. Rubio’s bet is that Republicans will be as stupid and unprincipled as Democrats were in 2008 when Barack Obama betrayed everyone on FISA telecommunications immunity while Hillary stood strong.
We doubt very much that Rubio will be as successful as Obama has been in his treacheries. The talented Marco Rubio is not as phony and reinvented as the Talented Mr. Obama.
Marco Rubio takes other campaign cues from Barack Obama. Rubio is wisely running as a Latino while complaining that any Hillary appeal to women is divisive identity politics and… well just read everything Obama said in 2008 about “likable enough” Hillary. Substitute “Latino male” for “Black” and you have the rationale for Rubio’s niche campaign in 2016.
Like a cardboard cutout of Barack Obama Marco Rubio is also running as the latest JFK. Barack Obama ran against Hillary in 2008 mimicking iconic JFK imagery and a generational change campaign. The bottom line result of Obama’s generational change campaign has been a shift for seniors to the Republican Party.
Generational change? Obama succeeded in changing the voting patterns of seniors from their long held loyalty to the Democratic party over to the Republican Party. Marco Rubio, if he continues on the path he trod in his campaign announcement threatens to cause a stampede of seniors in the opposite direction.
Barack Obama and Marco Rubio both pretend to be latter day JFK. Obama was aided in his JFK pretend game by the blockhead daughter of JFK. JFK’s idiot child was wrong, Obama was wrong, Rubio is wrong – if any of them think they are in any way a JFK:
John Kennedy won the presidency before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Kennedy was young but had a great deal of experience in political life. Kennedy toured Europe, the Soviet Union and the Middle East in the fateful year 1939. On the day before Germany invaded, John Kennedy was in Poland. Kennedy’s Harvard senior thesis completed in 1940 was “Appeasement in Munich”. Kennedy by the end of the war was a war hero. Kennedy served with regular Joes in the U.S. Navy. Kennedy saved the lives of his crew. John Kennedy from the elite schools and elite background was loved by working class whites and blacks.
The JFK campaign of The New Frontier was a sly reference, not a heavy handed attack on older Americans:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1960 was equally sly. His message was concise and pointed as well. His inspirational message was “The New Frontier”. This 3 word message summarized the hopes that the young future president held for just about every facet of American life. Outer space, national security, civil rights, foreign policy, the economy – all were on the threshold of a new and exciting frontier. That this soon to be very young president was replacing Eisenhower, up to then the oldest American president, was slyly referenced by the 3 word message.
JFK’s “New Frontier” is morphed by Rubio into “A New American Century”.
Marco Rubio like Obama is full of flowery speeches. We think Rubio’s speeches are effective but they are flowery nevertheless. If Rubio wants to run a generational campaign he should consider JFK’s worldwide lifetime of experience well before he became a congressman, a senator, then president. Perhaps we are old fashioned but we like experience and the lessons of life in a candidate. Rubio shares many similarities to Obama:
Already Rubio’s campaign has drawn comparisons to Obama’s 2008 bid when he was also a first-term forty-something senator with less than four years of Senate experience. [snip]
Rubio’s team has embraced the generational contrast with Clinton and dismissed concerns about his perceived youth or inexperience. He recently defended his record in a Fox News interview, saying that Obama “was a back bencher in the state legislature in Illinois and I was in leadership all nine years that I served there including two as Speaker of the House.”
Of course no one running for president today is as inexperienced as Barack Obama in 2008. And the sad reality is what resides in the White House.
Marco Rubio as a member of his generation (he’s 43 years old) is comfortable discussing Tupac Shakur and other cultural touchstones few other presidential candidates will be as knowledgeable about. That’s an asset if not used to alienate other generations. In his campaign announcement Rubio made a very culturally astute attack on Hillary (and Jeb Bush) with a reference that in one sentence spun out the Clinton years, the economy of 1999, and a big hit by the artist known as Prince. It was a sly attack and Rubio could not suppress a “gee I’m such a smart kid” smile.
Indeed the entire Rubio announcement speech reeked of self-satisfaction as barb after generational barb blasted forth. Most, if not all, of Rubio’s best lines of attack landed on Hillary but also on his long time friend and benefactor Jeb Bush:
“I know my candidacy might seem improbable to some watching from abroad. After all, in many countries, the highest office in the land is reserved for the rich and the powerful,” Rubio continued, to cheers and chants of “Marco! Marco!” “But I live in an exceptional country…I live in an exceptional country where the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams and the same future as those who come from power and privilege.
Marco Rubio, like Jeb Bush, should not be underestimated. Rubio’s talents are many and certainly more than the current White House occupant. Rubio has many talents and opportunities:
Marco Rubio dazzles in Miami on Monday evening, delivering a rhetorical performance that shows a national audience what political insiders have long known: The man can move a crowd. From there, it’s off to the races.
Running a lean campaign—though one flush enough with mega-donor money to keep him in the conversation—Rubio continues to wow crowds. He’s young, he’s Latino in a party lacking diversity, and his unimpeachably hawkish stances on foreign policy continue to resonate amid a flood of troubling headlines from Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Syria.
He is outspent by Jeb Bush, but money can’t buy the kind of connection Rubio is building with voters—and the front-runner’s supposed support never materializes in the way he expected. Voters see 12 years in the White House as enough for one family and are looking for a fresher alternative.
In 2008 Barack Obama and his cult promised a world of wonders and healed oceans. Obama and his cult assured us all that the troubles with the Muslim world would be over once the great Obama’s face brought us into the new Obama century. The Obama dummies were wrong. Instead in 2015 we get cartoons of an Obama beheading while Boob Obama moans ‘Mom! Dad! Jihadi John is going to slaughter me!’ before he is killed in animation:
Affiliates of the Islamic State group have released an animated video depicting a jihadist beheading US President Barack Obama.
The clip, which was uploaded and translated on Saturday by MEMRI, a US-based Middle Eastern media watchdog group, begins with the words “Message to America,” followed by a scene portraying the American president on his knees and crying profusely.
Now comes Marco Rubio with his own lofty promises minus accomplishments. What we do have from Rubio on a national level is proposed illegal immigration amnesty.
Still for all the similarities between RubiObama, the country and its elites are so debased that anything can happen. Obama’s favorite pollster in 2008 thinks the presidential race in 2016 is a 50-50 tossup.
Yes, anything can happen. Rubio could be chosen as a VP candidate. That would make sense. Rubio is a Latino in a country with Latino votes in must win states such as Colorado and Florida. Rubio is also from Florida. So Rubio as a VP to get some seasoning and experience, guided and mentored by a president who has actually accomplished something makes sense. But Rubio is running for president and after 2008 anything, however senseless, can happen.
In 2008 experienced John McCain ran for president under the crushing burden of the unpopular two term President George W. Bush. McCain improbably was ahead. Then in September the economy finished McCain off and inexperienced Obama won.
Could these same circumstances happen again? Even Obama’s pals in Big Media are noticing that the Obama economy sucks:
After years in which the popular American press sang Barack Obama’s praises for the economic recovery he engineered, the news media is finally beginning to notice that not everyone is benefiting from this supposed economic revitalization. Though it strained to express hope in the future, The New York Times was forced to concede in January that the middle class is shrinking at a terrifying rate. That report also noted that social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare, “originally set up as safety nets to protect seniors from falling into poverty after retirement,” now serve as a backstop against absolute destitution for millions of Americans.
As Republican/conservative Charles Gasparino notes, Hillary’s greatest fear has to be the Obama economy:
Her big fear — according to the Wall Street Democrats I speak to — is being stuck with (and blamed for) her old boss’ economy.
That’s because the economy has never fully recovered from the financial collapse that President Obama faced when he took office. [snip]
Fact is, many analysts believe the economy is worse than the headline numbers, filtered through the Obamaites and their media lackeys, suggest. They point to other data that hint things could even get worse in the months ahead. [snip]
“The weaker-than-expected March jobs report finally gave way to other weak economic data points we’ve been getting,” said Joseph Fahmy, a managing director at Zor Capital.
Fahmy’s prediction: More grim data will soon appear and prompt the Federal Reserve to abandon its plan to raise interest rates in the spring or summer, lest the stock market wind up following the economy into the hole. [snip]
All told, the US economy under Obama has grown at an average seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.9 percent — the lowest in nearly 70 years. And it could get worse: The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has cut its projected growth rate for the economy to nearly zero for the first quarter of 2015.
Sure, that is a Republican and no friend of Hillary. But there are others:
“Hillary Clinton’s challenge is going to be to come up with different plans,” Daley said after being prodded to respond to the economic failures of the Obama era. “She can’t run as the third term of Barack Obama economically.”
Anything can happen. That’s the hope of candidates. But America cannot afford another inexperienced man spinning false HOPE and cheap CHANGE.
April 12th, 2015
Update: So now that the obscure former NY senator announces surprise bid for presidency is it time for Big Pink to change our name? Do we, tears in our eyes and lump in throat, bid adieu to the number in HillaryIs44?
A lot of people insist we change our name. As we linked to in the article below and in our comments we are still the target of ire and anger. Seems the ObamaRoids who called anyone who supported Hillary in 2008 “racists” and “hags” and “c*nts” are now upset that we have not forgotten their hate and answer it and them with the contempt they have earned and deserve as the failed Obama presidency circles the toilet.
These ObamaRoids about to be wiped out by Preparation H 2016 think we are stupid to use an allegedly outdated name. We’ll answer the ObamaRoids with a quote from a Hillary hating article from a Hillary Hater at the Hillary Hating All White Republic:
But the truth is that this country is 230 years old and has had 43 presidents and not a single one of them has been a woman.
Choke on weight challenged Grover Cleveland bitch-boys and bitches. Bow Down. HillaryIs44.
Bow down Obama bitches! Bow down Obama bitch-boys!
Hillary is the future. Obama is the past. Today Hillary turned the page on Obama. Remember when Obama tried to “turn the page” on Hillary? Now it is Obama that is the past. Hillary is the future.
This weekend Obama cavorted on vacation and kissed the ass of an anty-gay killer socialist misogyist Castro brother and few paid attention to Boob Obama because the whole world was waiting for a tweet from Hillary. A fu*king tweet! So bow down Obama bitch-boys! Bow down to Hillary Obama bitches!
So yesterday we get a tweet that we suppose is supposed to scare us. Someone we don’t know and don’t want to know writes to us this threat which is supposed to terrorize us:
@HillaryIs44 Expect me to treat your candidate EXACTLY the same way you treated MINE.
I NEVER forget. I still have my mole acct from 07 too.
Isn’t that pathetic? This Obama hugging loser does not get it. This Obama suck-up better bow down and soon.
That Obama cultist is not alone. As in 2008 the ObamaRoids are back to full hate of Big Pink. At Fark they still hate Hillary and Big Pink but those losers have NOWHERE TO GO but to BOW DOWN BITCHBOYS, BOW DOWN TO HILLARY.
The NEOGaf gamer Bitchboys also hate Hillary and Big Pink but they too must, by royal command, BOW DOWN TO HILLARY!
The Rand Paul supporters are politely referencing Big Pink but we don’t despise them because they are supporting their candidate, as is their right. Of course, Rand Paul has made it his mission to attack Hillary personally on the silliest of issues but he has so many problems lately we don’t want to pile on the wackadoodle two headed dentist.
Our contempt is reserved with pleasure at mocking the ObamaRoid bitch-boys and bitches on blogs and Big Media who at the end of 2008 called us “dead-enders”. These bitches compared us to end of World War II Japanese soldiers still fighting a fight they had lost:
Four years after their candidate withdrew from the Democratic Presidential primary, years into her service as Secretary of State to President Barack Obama, a hard core of Hillary Clinton dead-enders continue to fight an obscure twilight struggle for their chosen candidate. [snip]
“As a left-leaning individual at the time, it was the first time I had been able to see the media turn viciously against my candidate,” said Kyle Raccio, who in 2008 was a student volunteer for Clinton’s campaign in California. “As someone who had supported Democrats in the past, I had never seen that before.”
Inspired by Clinton’s “pragmatic centrism” but repelled by the “cult of personality they embraced under Obama,” Raccio couldn’t quite accept the Illinois senator’s nomination.
“I just felt like something was not right,” Raccio says. “I didn’t feel hopeful for the country because we had just elected a community organizer.”
We here at HillaryIs44 were specifically called “dead-enders” by Big Media and the allied ObamaRoids on blogs. But you only lose when you give up bitches. So BOW DOWN bitches and bitchboys – the “dead-enders” have won the war.
Right now Hillary is forced to play “gull then cull”. We are not fans of “gull then cull” because we wish Hillary would gut you outright – but you bitches and bitch-boys are so stupid (you did vote for Boob Obama after all) you won’t know what hit you when Hillary culls your asses.
You bitches and bitch-boys are so stupid you won’t even understand what we’re talking about so you stupid asses will call us “batsh*t crazy” even though we spelled it out for you in 2013. You so stupid. Ha!
BOW DOWN BITCHES and BITCH-BOYS. You will get culled:
The Clintons are infamous for holding a grudge, and with Hillary looking like a prohibitive front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016, prominent Democrats who supported Barack Obama in 2008 are racing to settle their debts now and make their support for Clinton known early.
And it’s not just run-of-the-mill Obama supporters, but the ones whose support for the young insurgent in 2008 felt like major betrayals to the Clintons. In their book HRC, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes detail how one of the last acts of the defeated Clinton campaign was to finalize a “hit list” of Democrats who were disloyal, with the degree of treachery ranked from one to seven.
And there’s an almost perfectly inverse correlation between the severity of the blow dealt to Clinton in 2008 and the quickness and eagerness of Democratic VIPs to back her now—the worse the knock then, the bigger and earlier the boost now. Some started more than two years before the Iowa caucuses are held in early 2016.
Donna Brazile and the rest of you bitches better BOW DOWN! NOTHING IS FORGIVEN! NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN! BOW DOWN BITCHES SO IT WILL BE EASIER TO CUT OFF YOUR HEADS!
We’re going to spell it out for you bitches and bitch-boys. These are the possible scenarios for you:
Scenario 1: Hillary wins the nomination and total control of the party, purges your sorry Obama-lovin’ bitch asses, then wins the general election – you lose.
Scenario 2: Hillary wins the nomination, grabs control of the party, and loses the general election – you lose.
Scenario 3: You Kook bitches and bitch-boys deprive Hillary of the nomination, the party dies nationally as it has locally and statewide because of Obama, your Kook candidate loses the election – you lose. And Republicans then control all three branches of government and proceed to pluck your asses – you lose big time.
Scenario 4: You Kook bitches and bitch-boys deprive Hillary of the nomination in order to keep control of the party. In the general election your Kook Obama lovin’ bitch or bitch-boy wins – you… well, Ha! you know that’s not going to happen you dumb asses. If Hillary is not the nominee your candidate will be lucky to win the vote in Alcatraz, the abandoned prison off the coast of California.
So, Obama bitches and bitch-boys – BOW DOWN. BOW, like Obama bows to foreign potentates and creeps.
BOW DOWN OBAMA CULT BITCHES AND BITCH-BOYS because you know neither Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee, Bernie Sanders, nor James Webb will defeat Hillary. Even the behind-the-tapestry backstabbers know Hillary is close to “inevitable” to get the nomination.
Sure, those candidates will immediately gather unto themselves the Hillary-Hater Kook vote. They might even weaken Hillary enough to bring about a Robert Kennedy style late candidate like the Cambridge Cherokee Elizabeth Warren or maybe even fashion don’t Michelle Obama – but the end result is the GOP wins – BIG.
Hillary 2016 will destroy itself in the general election if Hillary is seen as Obama’s Third Term. And Hillary should not have announced so early. But still, on her worst day Hillary Clinton’s toenail dirt is better than Barack Obama and all his treacherous flowery speeches.
So BOW DOWN BITCH-BOYS and BITCHETTES! The woman you mocked, smeared and slandered in 2008 as a has-been, a racist (yup you bitches and bitch-boys will help elect a “racist”), a “hagina”, a “loser”, an “old bag”, the “past”, a “dynasty”, “clinton-bush, clinton-bush, clinton-bush”, a Wal-Mart director, a “unitary executive”, a “corporatist”, a “Wall Street” shill, “Shillary”, “Hitlery”, “cankles”, “cackles”, – she has a new moniker – “Preparation H”.
“Preparation H” will get rid of America’s ObamaRoids. So BOW DOWN BITCHES, BOW DOWN. And bend over.
April 11th, 2015
In April of 2007 we began to publish. We did so because of our alarm that Barack Obama was treated with kid gloves by the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign. We also noted that it was “progressives” and Big Media, not Republicans, that hated Hillary the most and attacked Hillary the most profoundly. We are now about a week away from our anniversary. We are as worried now as in 2007 about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
It’s almost impossible to discount the reports that Hillary will announce Hillary Clinton 2016 tomorrow (maybe even today). It is a grievous mistake for Hillary to do so.
Why announce this early? We denounced the attempts by Obama henchmen for Hillary to announce last year right after the elections. We won that fight. Indeed, the news result from that battle was that Hillary would announce in July. We still think July is too early but it is better than April. Why the rush?
Barack Obama and his protection squads want Hillary to announce early in order to take the heat of scrutiny off him and onto Hillary. Obama and his minions also know that the earlier Hillary announces the more she will have to attach herself to Obama’s disastrous policies.
The paycheck hungry also want Hillary to announce early. For them it’s not about her, it’s about their paychecks and plumping up their bank accounts.
Impatient Hillary supporters also want Hillary to announce early. That is an insufficient and injurious reason to announce.
We hear the extra foolish reason given that, well, Hillary needs to get a campaign in place in order to answer attacks on her. This is entirely wrong.
In recent day several Republicans have PRAISED Hillary. Once Hillary announces that ends. The moment Hillary announces every Republican candidate for president will begin his or her announcement of candidacy with an attack focused on Hillary not Obama. In addition these Republican candidates will finally realize that the way to defeat and destroy Hillary is to attach her early and often to Barack Obama.
The way to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 is to attach Hillary to Obama and Obama policies. Once Hillary announces even the dumbest GOP presidential candidate will stumble onto the fact that it will not be Benghazi, nor Lewinsky, nor any of the myriad issues that excite the Republican base that is Hillary’s Achilles Heel. Attach Hillary to Obama and Obama policies and it’s lights out for Hillary Clinton 2016.
But, Hillary Haters and Obama Cultists contend, doesn’t Hillary need to announce now to stave off attacks? No. Once Hillary announces she strategically places herself in a crossfire:
Think Clinton’s Having a Bad Time Now? Wait Until She’s a Candidate
She’s being scrutinized, but she’s not having to answer questions. That luxury ends the day she launches. [snip]
The twin controversies are prompting certain Clinton allies to lament that if she had only announced her presidential campaign earlier, her operation would be able to do a better job at damage control. “We’ve had our head up our ass,” one anonymous Clinton adviser told Politico.
But in reality, her decision to wait until April to launch a campaign has been an overall boon to her prospects—allowing her to avoid weighing in on numerous controversial issues that are dividing her party. Indeed, Clinton’s stalling tactics are a sign that she understands the political environment better than the critics realize. [snip]
Far from being unable to respond to the criticism, as a noncandidate she boasts an entire organization—Correct the Record, an arm of the Democratic opposition research firm American Bridge—that’s devoted to pushing back against her unfavorable coverage. [snip]
If she was a candidate, she’d be constantly grilled on the campaign trail over her conduct. She’s hoping that, when she announces in the spring, the furor over these controversies will have died down.
By contrast, prospective Republican presidential candidates have been grilled over Obama’s Christianity, support over a DHS funding deal, or inconsistencies over Common Core, even as Clinton has faced minimal scrutiny of her policy positions during the same period. [snip]
Meanwhile, Clinton has been able to dodge questions over her positions on issues at a time when there are growing divides within her party. She headed the State Department during its Keystone XL review, but has diligently avoided commenting on the merits of the pipeline’s construction. She hasn’t been pressed to take sides on liberal icon Elizabeth Warren’s pet initiatives—higher taxes on the wealthy, tighter banking regulations on Wall Street, and opposition to global trade deals.
Most significantly, she’s been mercurial about her position on an emerging nuclear deal with Iran that many of her party’s rank-and-file members are struggling to support. She hasn’t yet responded to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, which warned of the dangers of the president’s diplomacy. She’ll eventually have to take sides, but she has the luxury of time in devising her position.
“Most likely, she’ll be muted. She’ll wait and see what happens with the negotiations. I don’t think you’ll hear her say something substantive for now, one way or another,” said one pro-Israel official with ties to Clinton.
For a sign of how difficult the issue is for Clinton, just look at the contradictory responses she gave when asked about the American response to Iran’s nuclear program. In an August 2014 interview with The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton said, “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment.” But, as Goldberg wrote this week, the reported proposal being discussed is one that would “legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium” as a principle. After Obama pitched the benefits of his administration’s Iranian diplomacy in his State of the Union, Clinton announced her support to the president’s approach in Canada: “Why do we want to be the catalyst for the collapse of negotiations?” One month earlier, she told one of her top donors, Haim Saban, at the Brookings Institution that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” What gives? [snip]
“There’s no question she’s better off not being a candidate now. To me, that goes without saying,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “As soon as she’s a candidate, she’ll find people who used to like her who don’t.“
This past week GOP presidential candidate and Bill Clinton impeachment manager Lindsey Graham says Hillary could have reached better deal on Iran:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a possible 2016 Republican presidential contender, said the United States should put off a final nuclear agreement with Iran until after the U.S. election and said Democrat Hillary Clinton could get a better deal.
The South Carolina Republican sharply criticized President Barack Obama’s negotiating skills in talks to contain Iran’s nuclear program. The only candidate he mentioned by name as being able to do better was the Democrats’ presidential favorite.
Praise from a Republican presidential candidate on one of the biggest issues for 2016 and yet we’re told Hillary better rush to announce? Lindsay Graham is not the only Republican of stature to praise Hillary and/or Bill Clinton. Senator of Oklahoma Tom Coburn too:
“I think Hillary’s experience would make her a very effective president, I think, if she were to win,” Coburn said Wednesday during a meeting with msnbc reporters and editors in New York. “First of all, she’s been on the inside of politics for a long time, so she knows the inside game inside and out. She also knows the relationship game. Her husband was great at it.” [snip]
“She was a good senator,” he said. “She worked across the aisle. She kept her word. She became knowledgeable about a lot of issues while she was a senator. So she did that job well,” Coburn continued.
And while Republicans have focused on trying to discredit Clinton’s four years as the nation’s top diplomat, Coburn had almost nothing but praise and compared her favorably to her successor, John Kerry.
“I think history overall will probably show that she did a more than adequate job, with a couple of blips, as secretary of state. Better than the secretary of state we have now, for sure. So there’s nothing wrong with her qualifications,” he said.
Some Republicans who were once positive about Clinton’s tenure at State have since soured as she’s stepped back into the political arena and prepared for a White House bid.
It’s true that “Republicans who were once positive” about Hillary will now return to their necessary political positions. We certainly don’t blame Republicans for opposing a political opponent. That’s their job.
Up to now, Republicans (other than the wackadoodles like Rand Paul) have been on Hillary’s side. Contrary to what the uninformed believe, Republicans have been most kind and most helpful to Hillary:
Trading Favors: Why the GOP Is Helping Hillary Clinton
A deal in Congress would extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a key part of the Democratic frontrunner’s legacy as first lady.
Improbable as it may sound, House Republicans are on the verge of approving, without much fanfare, a major priority of Hillary Clinton’s.
When Clinton ran for president in 2008, she touted her role as first lady in “designing and championing” the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provided coverage for millions of children whose parents did not qualify for Medicaid but could not afford private insurance. At the time President Clinton signed the law in 1997, it constituted the largest expansion of government-funded children’s health insurance since the enactment of Medicaid in 1965.
On Tuesday, Republicans unveiled legislation that would extend CHIP for another two years, without spending cuts or changes of any kind. [snip]
Count on Clinton to tout CHIP again during her 2016 presidential run, especially considering the bipartisan effort it took to create it. Along with Bill Frist, the Republican former Senate majority leader, Clinton co-authored an op-ed last month in The New York Times urging Congress to extend the program. “This is an opportunity to send a message that Washington is still capable of making common-sense progress for American families,” they wrote.
Many Republicans have been more than fair to Hillary since 2009 after they saw the full horror of Obama. Hillary’s problem once again will not be Republicans who do what they should be doing – which is to attack without restraint the opposition candidate. Once Hillary announces honest Republicans will do their job. No more praise of Hillary. After an announcement Republicans will voice darker views of Hillary. So why should Hillary announce this early?
Big Media. Big Media wants Hillary to announce. Big Media wants to be able to attack Hillary without restraint. Big Media wants to attack Hillary and force her further to the left or be replaced by a leftist kook:
Clinton’s Rough Road Ahead
The liberal base and the media will work together to make sure she isn’t crowned as the Democratic nominee. [snip]
Journalists looking for a good story, whether it truly exists or not, will endeavor to find a challenger and create a David and Goliath narrative, even if it means building David up to the point when he could be a realistic threat to the front-running Goliath. If there are multiple candidates auditioning for the David role, the media will size up each contender and then hype the one that seems most plausible as the real threat to Clinton.
Finally, the ideologues, the true believers, those who endeavor to spurn the good for the perfect, will promote one or more alternatives to put pressure on Clinton to move to the left at the time she is trying to maintain her general-election viability while steering toward a center-left course. Someone will emerge to coalesce disenfranchised ideologues, hoping to reach a critical mass that will attract journalists’ attention.
It’s not journalism Hillary has to fear, it is the activists posing as journalists. The New York Times is explicit: Big Media will do the job of the activist left:
Who will push Clinton into shape? The deadness of the Democratic contest has led to a situation in which the political world is trying to create an artificial rival for the former Secretary of State. The New York Times, for example, has declared the press to be Clinton’s stand-in opponent.
“With no other powerful Democrats likely to run against her, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s toughest adversary for her party’s presidential nomination in 2016 has now become clear,” the paper wrote last week. “The news media,” the paper concluded, is Clinton’s only real opponent.
That is not a natural state of affairs; a candidate’s toughest adversary should be his or her rivals. And it is not the proper relationship between the press and candidates. Yes, that relationship can be adversarial, but a reporter is not an opposing candidate, and can’t act that way.
Big Media is a political party, as we wrote so long ago. What we wrote so long ago is still fresh as Tahitian air.
Big Media will attack Hillary as soon as she announces. For at least eight months, having no credible competitor, it will be Hillary bouncing around with nothing to do but answer Big Media attacks.
Understand that fact. Hillary will have nothing publicly to do for at least eight months because she will not have an opponent worthy of attention – as long as Hillary does not announce. The moment Hillary announces her primary opponent will be Big Media and Hillary will whittle herself away like a patient with tuberculosis at the Magic Mountain. Big Media can’t wait for Hillary to announce. Big Media is impatient. But Big Media and impatient Hillary supporters and Hillary job-seekers are not as impatient as Hillary Haters on the left:
The Left Is Building a Movement of Movements to Pressure Hillary
With Elizabeth Warren declining to run, progressives are taking matters into their own hands—with her platform, and her support. [snip]
This week, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced that a petition it launched calling for the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee to campaign on a populist platform has been signed by 5,000 current and former elected leaders, as well as Democratic Party officials, union leaders, and progressive activists. These include twenty-five members of Congress, such as Senator Harry Reid, Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman, Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, and Barbara Lee, plus former Senator Tom Harkin. The petition—which was posted below a page header that reads ReadyforBoldness.com, and rides above a shooting star—begins, “We want the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee to campaign on big, bold, economic-populist ideas that tangibly improve the lives of millions of Americans.”
Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called for similarly big, bold, economic-populist ideas, from a podium at Gracie Mansion. On Thursday, de Blasio announced that he, with a coalition of progressives he had convened, would in May put forward a template for how best to conquer inequality, and then ask presidential candidates to respond. (He said it would parallel the GOP’s 1994 Contract for America.) De Blasio and his allies in the project, progressive activists and lawmakers including Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Governor Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, offered no specific policy suggestions, but spoke of their “vision.” The mayor talked of changing the national conversation, of “making sure income inequality is at the forefront of the national discussion.” A reporter asked if Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, had been involved in the gathering. De Blasio replied that her team had not been a part, but that he expected every candidate, including Clinton—were she to decide to run, he was careful to say—to speak to the matter.
“Anyone who runs for president should talk about big economic ideas that will help rebuild the middle class.”
These Kooks will devote themselves to hammering Hillary the moment she announces. Then in November 2016 the Republican candidate for president will appropriately use every Hillary statement in favor of the kooks to hammer her on Youtube and all the various tools of the Internet age.
The Kooks want Hillary to announce early not only to attack her but so they will have time, time, to develop a candidate from the left. The sooner Hillary announces the more time the left has. Right now the candidates against Hillary are mosquitoes. Chaffee, Webb, O’Malley are too weak to win but they can rally the opposition against Hillary within the Obama Party sufficient to take her down or move her to the losing left fringe alongside them. The Left wants control over the party not necessarily a win in the general election.
Once Hillary announces it will be 2008 again. Once Hillary announces Big Media will attack Hillary. Once Hillary announces the left kooks will attack Hillary. Once Hillary announces the Obama Dimocratic Party establishment will attack. Harry Reid is ReadyToAttack now:
Top Senate Democrat joins push for populist campaign agenda
(Reuters) – The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday joined a grassroots effort from the progressive wing of the party to encourage presidential candidates to adopt populist policies as they begin their campaigns.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is among more than 5,000 lawmakers and party leaders who have signed on to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
Two weeks ago it launched a “Ready for Boldness” campaign that aims to ensure the eventual Democratic presidential nominee supports policies such as expanding Social Security retirement benefits, breaking up big banks and debt-free higher education.
All of the issues have been championed by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, but she has said repeatedly she will not seek the party’s nomination. [snip]
“Being bold is the only way I’ve ever known how to win,” Reid said in a statement.
The PCCC has trained volunteers in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, who will attend town halls and campaign events to press Democratic candidates about where they stand on key progressive issues.
We’ll translate for you: there is an army of Kooks trained and operated by establishment Kooks primed and ready to attack Hillary Clinton for months until their candidate of choice rears his/her head to attack a weakened Hillary directly. So why exactly is Hillary announcing this early?
April 7th, 2015
Update II: If it’s true that Rand Paul’s First Challenge: Defeat Ted Cruz then Rand Paul just headfirst hit a roadblock called Ted Cruz. Bloomberg Exclusive: New Ted Cruz Super-PACS Take in Record Haul.
Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is getting into the shock-and-awe fundraising business.
An associate of the Texas senator, a recently announced presidential candidate, tells Bloomberg that a cluster of affiliated super-political action committees was formed only this week, and among them they are expected to have $31 million in the bank by Friday.
Moneybags Jeb Bush and his own shock and awe strategy of a blockbuster $$$ announcement just took a hit too. This amount of moolah keeps Ted Cruz in the game even if Jebby tops well over $100 million in his first cash haul report.
Update: Quotes of the Day (not necessarily from today):
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul formally announced his presidential campaign Tuesday, and notably failed to mention a top target of GOP hopefuls: Obamacare.
It’s not just on ObamaCare that wackadoodle has ‘splaining to do:
“As I have said all along, I believe it is in everyone’s best interest to find a peaceful way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Paul said on March 3.
“As to Rand Paul, I like Rand a lot,” Sen. Graham told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday. “But at the end of the day, his foreign policy is to the left of Barack Obama.“
Graham noted that Rand Paul was the only senator in September 2012 to vote against Graham’s resolution saying that containment would not be the policy of the United States — that the U.S. would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The resolution passed 90-1, with Paul providing the only no vote. [snip]
“I don’t think the best way to negotiate with the Iranians is to have the one senator who would be okay with a nuclear Iran to go in to take Obama’s place.”
April asserts itself as the “cruelest month” once again. This is the month the very many Republican candidates for president realize they must announce if they are to have sufficient time to organize a campaign and fund-raise a serious run for president. Today it is Rand Paul announcement day. Jeb Bush got the jump on them all late last year and a short time ago it was Ted Cruz’s turn.
In the past we’ve had some nice things to say about Rand Paul (“stand with Rand”) and some painful things to say about the “wackadoodle two-headed dentist”. On candidate announcement day, today and in the future, we will examine the positive and negative aspects of the debutant. Like a shooting gallery in a circus arcade, as the metallic ducks slide by we will take shots at them along with our impressions of how their opening day went.
So what are the positive aspects of Rand Paul?
We like that Rand Paul realizes and articulates very clearly that the 2016 elections will be about change. Deep and profound changes in American government policy and organization are needed and Rand Paul articulates that very well.
We really like that Rand Paul articulates his vision of how government should work in a schematic way. It’s fine for conservative candidates to say that they want the government to “follow the Constitution”. It’s fine for conservative candidates to say they want to govern with “conservative principles”. But what does that mean?
Candidates for president should articulate very clearly how their principles and visions work for everyday Americans. For liberals/progressives this is very easy to do. If there is a problem of any sort, no matter how minute, no matter how personal, the liberal/progressive has a new law or a new government intervention to fix the problem.
For conservatives the problem is that they have to not directly address the problem at hand but to warn about how in the future every government intrusion/solution whittles away at liberty of the individual. For conservatives concerned about fiscal probity every government intrusion/solution also has a price tag and the conservative flails against the demand to “do something now” with “look at the cost”.
For libertarian Republican Rand Paul the solution is to have “the least government that is necessary” which is a good counter to the liberal/progressive “as much government as we want”. For both sides the mantras fail, the visions fail, and that’s why Americans go back and forth between the two visions even as the liberals/progressives/government interventionists intrude further and further into every detail of life.
For liberals/progressives today’s solution requires solutions to the solutions and then solutions to the solutions to the solutions. It’s a mousetrap that never gets completed because the mouse always outwits the trap maker. The liberal/progressive requires impermeable doors on airplane cockpits post 9/11 only to discover that that same impermeable door can also be used to protect a miscreant pilot.
Against the ever growing power of government and government intrusion, always for some great reason, comes Rand Paul. For Rand Paul every government attempt to make something better only ends in things getting more fouled up. For Rand Paul every government do good intervention means the problem does not get solved, the problem only becomes more complicated.
Rand Paul can thank Barack Obama for any success Rand Paul has achieved and will achieve. Barack Obama has not only demonstrated that government is not always the solution, Barack Obama is a poster child for the Reaganesque proposition that all too often the government is the problem.
For Rand Paul and his libertarian brethren the test is how to communicate the “best government is the least government” message. The “great communicator” Ronald Reagan did it. We doubt Rand Paul will.
Rand Paul simply does not have the skill set of Ronald Reagan. Rand Paul does not even have a good grip on the issues of interest to Republican primary voters. On illegal immigration reform, Rand Paul is Eric Cantor. On foreign policy and Israel, despite all denials, Rand Paul is Ron Paul. Rand Paul is a Ron Paul only a Ralph Nader could love.
As we watched, and we did watch, today’s Rand Paul announcement we came upon the same conclusions we have previously about the candidate. Something is just not right.
Rand Paul spoke from a teleprompter today but he still has not mastered that skill. Rand Paul was reading instead of communicating.
Rand Paul read his lines as if he had to speak above the roar of the crowd. But their was no need to do so because the staging of the event oddly kept the excitement of crowds out of the picture. Rand Paul was surrounded by flags but stood alone. The crowd seemed to be far away. The noise and fervor of the crowd was oddly at bay.
It was odd. In some odd way Rand Paul reminded us of the Cambridge Cherokee, Elizabeth Warren. Both are fervent as snake oil salesmen who really believe their snake oil will cure the maladies described. But the snake oil, like Obama Hopium, only gets you drunk.
Rand Paul also oddly resembles GermanWings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz. We can see him in the cockpit. We can also hear the Republican Party leadership trying to break down the cockpit door.
April 3rd, 2015
Update: How should we punish grandma and grandpa for opposing gay marriage? It’s good to see other supporters of gay rights and gay marriage speak out against the totalitarian mindset that grips the left. We’ve made our own “whole world is watching” argument against the totalitarian left infection of the gay rights movement in our main article. Here’s another:
What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They’re less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. [snip]
The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I’ll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let’s go burn that family’s business to the ground. [snip]
A relatively big digital mob has been attacking this powerless family in rural Indiana, but I don’t get the sense that its participants have reflected on or even thought of these questions. I don’t think they recognize how ugly, intolerant and extreme their actions appear or the effect they’ll have on Americans beyond the mainstream media, or that their vitriolic shaming these people has ultimately made them into martyrs. I fear that a backlash against their tactics will weaken support for the better angels of the gay rights movement at a time when more progress needs to be made, and that they’re turning traditionalists into a fearful, alienated minority with a posture of defensiveness that closes them off to persuasion.
We detest bully boys and bully boy tactics. It doesn’t matter if the bully boys wear brown shirts or rainbow shirts… blue shirts or red shirts.
We’re disgusted. Not discouraged, not resigned, disgusted.
Why? Sample the news stories of past few days, weeks, months, as they appeared on one day.
On one day this week Vladimir Putin threatened nuclear war over Crimea, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. That was not all, “Russia has threatened to use “nuclear force” to defend its annexation of Crimea and warned that the “same conditions” that prompted it to take military action in Ukraine exist in the three Baltic states, all members of Nato.” Anyone think NATO, under current leadership will fulfill it’s treaty obligations to the Baltic States and defend them if strong leader Putin attacks? Anyone think still occupied Crimea will be an issue for the craven West?
On that same day yet another Muslim attack against Christians took place. 147 Christians killed by Muslims. This July Obama can witness his anti-Christian anti-Jew handiwork when he visits his ancestral homeland of Kenya.
On the same day two Muslim women in New York City were arrested because they plotted bomb attacks against the United States. These Muslim women planned attacks in and against a democratic country where women are free in order to defend a religion and political movement that despises women (and gays).
The reaction to the two Muslim potential killers from an American woman senator? Censorship. That disgusting woman senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, thinks that the thing to do is remove the “Anarchist Cookbook”and terrorist publications from the internet. It’s freedom hating censorship in the name of freedom. Think this silly censorship will work? Instead of a call for a vigorous defense of freedom in national policy and destruction of the totalitarian movements which propel the Putins and the Muslim killers, we get a futile call for censorship that at best will not work. We will not defeat this Muslim terror mentality with hashtag Twitter campaigns nor internet activism censorship. Did #BringBackOurGirls bring back those girls?
On the same day as the above events occurred we also saw continued attacks against a pizza store because the owner surmised they would not cater a gay wedding if they were ever asked. What person, gay or straight, would cater their wedding with pizza?
It wasn’t about pizza of course. The pizza shop in Indiana was collateral damage in a bigger fight against anti-gay institutional discrimination and the rights of conscience (which have been a fundamental bulwark in every movement for freedom in this country) guaranteed under the First Amendment.
How foolish was this “fight” on the part of gay activists? The very powerful gay boss of one of the most powerful companies in the world, Apple, denounced Indiana and a new religious rights law and threatened to economically deprive Indiana of Apple dollars. Think about that. The economic powerhouse Apple is led by a gay man who opens Apple stores in the most anti-women and anti-gay Muslim countries yet the target of his gay ire is Indiana because the presumed anti-gay wedding non caterers are Christian.
When will the gay rights movement target Muslim bakeries and ask them to cater gay weddings? When will some proud gay black man walk into a business owned by a member of Chicago’s Nation of Islam and demand his gay wedding be catered by anti-gay anti-Christian anti-woman Louis Farrakhan?
What disgusts us about the gay activist attacks against Christianity is not so much the hypocrisy of the protection of gay killing Muslims and gay killing Muslim countries. What is particularly disgusting is the totalitarian mind control exhibited by the supposed defenders of gay rights. And we issue this warning to our allies that support gay rights: “the whole world is watching”.
“The whole world is watching” is typically used by freedom movements to advance on the moral high ground. But in this case, “the whole world is watching” is more of an ominous threat. In many of the Muslim countries the gay rights movement in the United States is watched with loathing (and yes this is despite the fact that many of the Muslim countries have huge closeted gay populations within them and even some not so closeted (think dancing boys of Afghanistan) gay populations). They’re watching the gay movement in America and see the intolerance of the gay movement here and prepare.
In Russia the anti-gay movement is as intolerant as the gay movement in America is becoming. An Associated Press poll finds that anti-gay bigotry is gaining ground in Russia and new laws against gays are on the rise. The gay movement in America and the West should remain on the high ground of tolerance and freedom not on the mind control totalitarian repression of opposing views. Don’t become what you fought against Gay America.
So, as a pizza shop was under attack for expressing an idea, not doing or not doing anything, but for the expression of a thought, Yemen too was in the news. In Yemen Muslim nuts fight Muslim nuts. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Kenya, throughout the Middle East and every Muslim Country and beyond “the world is on fire”, as Speaker of the House John Boehner said.
What was the Obama response to a world on fire? Gasoline!
In Iran the people danced in the streets. Good reason for the celebrations, Iran has gotten the deal of the century:
The thing that no one, supporter or opponent, can deny about the Iran deal is this: Under the agreed “framework,” after ten or 15 years, Iran will be permitted to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants. This agreement is not, as the White House claimed it would be, a deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It is merely a way to manage and delay it. [snip]
The principle is simple. Crazy, violent, apocalyptic, militaristic, expansionist sponsors of terrorism are not to be trusted with the atom bomb.
An Iranian bomb would also mean the end of nonproliferation efforts. [snip]
This deal leaves the entire Iranian nuclear weapons production line in place. Iran will even be permitted to continue spinning thousands of centrifuges and enrich uranium, though not at the level needed for a bomb. Assuming they don’t cheat, which they always have. [snip]
Iran’s decades of illegal work on a nuclear weapon is now officially legitimized.
“I’m a little puzzled by the political agreement,” said Olli Heinonen, a previous inspections chief at the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. “You’re going to leave Iran as a threshold state. There isn’t much room to maneuver.”
The US surrendered to Iran on nuke deal, says …. France. An Obama capitulation at treacherous levels according to the French gave Iran the deal they and Obama wanted.
As we have documented before, Obama has always wanted to be the “Arabs’ lawyer”. Persians’ lawyer too? According to an Iranian defector Obama at the negotiating table negotiated for Iran, not America:
Iranian Defector: ‘U.S. Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran’s Behalf’
An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. He also has a damning indictment of America’s role in the nuclear negotiations.
“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany.
The “Arabs’ lawyer” is now also at work for the Persians:
France felt the Americans were keeping France and the other negotiating partners in the dark about the talks. Rather it being P5+1, it has really been the U.S. only talking to Iran. And the French negotiators complained in private the Americans were trying to “force them to make concessions on issues like the number of centrifuges allowed or sanctions.
The French ambassador to the US tweeted his displeasure at the beginning of March, “We want a deal. They need a deal. The tactics and the result of the negotiation should reflect this asymmetry.”
Can’t disagree with the WaPo: The Iran deal is a cave — by Obama’s own standards:
None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.
That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years. [snip]
The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region. Whether that concession is worthwhile will depend in part on details that have yet to be agreed upon, or at least publicly explained.
Obama’s Iran deal is disgusting:
To quote Winston Churchill under remarkably similar circumstances after Munich: We have suffered an unmitigated defeat. And just like in 1938, our national leader is painting it as a victory over the warmongers without any recognition that he’s just set loose the real warmongers, and what follows will be disaster and ignominy.
We’re disgusted with good reason(s). Allies we thought better of now act more like the totalitarians they oppose. At every level the West and its ideals of tolerance and freedom are in retreat. A party and party leadership we once respected follow the treacherous leader into managed decline of America and all the dread consequences that will bring about.
But we’re not despondent, dispirited, despairing.
For Christians, Good Friday is not because it is particularly “good”. It’s more “solemn”. On “good” Friday the founder of their religion was crucified. The “lamb of God” on a gibbet much like a butchered Passover lamb is not a pretty sight. But the idea of “good” comes from the sacrifice for humanity and the promise of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday and a latter resurrection for humanity through His sacrifice.
So we’re not despondent, dispirited, or despairing, although we are disgusted. We’ll take the disgust on this Good Friday and hope that things get better soon. It won’t be Sunday. But a better day is sure to come. It can’t get worse.