SHOCK POLL: 50% of Blue Collar Democrats Want Someone Other Than Obama As The 2012 Nominee…..

….”26% of (ALL) Democrats would prefer the party to nominate another Democrat for president next year, up from 18% in October.”

Why Settle Again When She's Available?

CNN strains to assure readers that the poll results are irrelevant because even though the percentage of Democrats who want someone else to be nominated has increased from 18% to 25% in ONE MONTH….

“….the changes are strictly hypothetical, since there is no indication that Obama will face a serious challenger in any primary next year.”

Okay, CNN, okay. (*snicker*)

Obama Spokesman Quotes Hitler in Attack on Republican Enemy

“Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.” — Adolph Hitler, German Chancellor and Nazi Party leader (1889-1945)

“If Romney thought it was good to say the sky was green and the grass was blue to win an election, he’d say it.” — David Plouffe, Obama 2008 Campaign Chairman, October 30, 2011 on Meet The Press

You don’t need to be a scholar to understand what Hitler meant: Anyone who challenges Dear Leader should be exterminated. And it’s not surprising that Obama’s team finds a rich source of quotable concepts in Hitler’s archive of speeches. Here are a few more:

“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”

“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

“It is not truth that matters, but victory.”

And this one, of course:

“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”

Dark Horse Herman Cain Rocks It

“Not on our watch!”

You will not regret spending 30 minutes to watch this.

I love how Mr. Cain confronts the race card head on.

His speech is honest, hard-hitting, and passionate.

Well done, Mr. Cain. Bravo!

A Troubling Disconnect — the Millionaires in Congress

According to a CRP study reported last week by CNBC, there are 261 millionaires currently serving in Congress. 1 in 5 had accumulated wealth of over $10 million and 8 of the 261 members were worth $100 million or more. Many members have investments in companies that were at the center of the financial crisis and are also heavily invested in health care drugs. During the period from December 2008 to December 2009, the wealth of their members increased by an average of 16%. Is it any wonder that our current Congress experiences a lack of urgency when it comes to repairing our economic situation? Or that many of our representatives stepped into the spotlight to talk about our blossoming economic recovery?

Perhaps Congress is “recovering.” The rest of us are not so lucky. Looking at these numbers, it is not hard to understand the fundamental disconnect between the hoi polloi suffering at near 10% unemployment or chronic underemployment and policy makers who enjoy great salary, health care, free travel and other fetching perks. Small wonder that members of Congress were mortified by furious constituents at town halls last year, railing at egregious spending, terrified about their own economic prospects. To many in Congress, the world looks pretty rosy.

On Behalf of Women In Politics

Bitch. Whore. Stupid. Hot. Disabled. Shrill. Mean Girl. Hag. Diva. Ice Queen. Slut.

 

The midterm elections of 2010 brought back a familiar rage and sick, queasy feeling as I watched women on both sides of the aisle being devalued with sexist diatribes. The hateful rhetoric that defined much of the 2008 presidential campaign was not an anomaly. When debating the merits of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy detractors could no longer say, “I don’t mind electing a woman – just not that woman.” Such a phrase was nonsense after all. Plenty of women seem somehow to be that woman. Though not seeking political office, even Michelle Obama did not escape. Once called angry and emasculating, she now tills a victory garden in designer jeans and Lanvin sneakers.  Sarah Palin, derided as reactionary and “disabled,” seems a terrifying prospect to the left and even some on the right.

 

But none can compete with the twenty years of skewering Hillary Clinton has endured. In 2008, the breathtaking atmosphere surrounding Hillary and Obama’s first solo debate captured the imagination and hopes of millions, but my joy in watching a qualified woman vie for the presidency was marred by newsmen and pundits calling Hillary Clinton a hellish housewife, Nurse Ratched, she-devil and bitch.

 

Not content to take the word of the pundit class on Hillary’s character, I sought the reality under the damaging “divisive and polarizing” label that had long haunted her. Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments and tireless work ethic proved that she was not the harridan of pundits’ fantasies. I ignored my scattershot but steady career as an actor to work on Hillary’s campaign. That career was nothing fancy but I’d made a living in the business for many years. The only calling I have ever had or loved became an inconvenient distraction.

 

Did I want Hillary to win because she was a woman? No. Did I want her to win because I thought she had the best chops for the job? Yes. She was my candidate. But the long knives were out for Hillary, the media bias appalling. Her party turned a deaf ear and stood by as her policies were misrepresented, her character maligned, her womanhood degraded. The net result was to make me work harder.

 

Through my passion for Hillary’s candidacy, I evolved from actor and fearful news junkie to determined campaign grunt and citizen pundit. If you told me I would immerse myself in this effort, become a blog writer for the first time in my life, build a following on various political websites under the name “Ani” and write a book on the subject that I am currently working to get published, I would have said you were potzo.

 

In 2008, my reluctant odyssey into the world of politics forced me to examine the way women are treated in a post-feminist world. Especially women with high aims and hard heads. I questioned the bias against women in authority, the limitations women placed on themselves, my own preconceptions about party, my choice of career, and even some of my friendships.

 

The fever of that campaign is still with me for one reason only — as a society, we have learned nothing. We still practice the same behavior.

 

Speaking out on the internet, I raised my volume well past my comfort level. At the time, hiding my real name felt like a necessity. While I didn’t want my politics to interfere with my work as an actor, far more worrisome were the threats leveled at some of Hillary’s supporters. One friend received internet death threats. Another had someone vandalize her garage door painting “Hillary hag” on it for having a Hillary lawn sign in her yard. I read that a woman with a small Hillary sign in her car window was followed by a man in another car for blocks. When the man caught up with her, he screamed, “You can put up all the signs you want. That bitch will never be president.”

 

Wow: Sunday WaPo Editorial Calls for Obama to Step Aside in 2012

I don’t know how much credibility  Schoen and Caddell have as Democratic advisers, but the very fact that the Washington Post is publishing this  proposal is odd at minimum, if not stunning.

One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012

By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Sunday, November 14, 2010

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock, at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

~~

The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment – or of the 2012 campaign.

Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president’s political prospects.

Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.

~~

Obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.

Should the president do that, he – and the country – would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the unifying figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly – and so will the public.

It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.

I can’t imagine the Post publishing such an “opinion” without cause. Ideas anyone?  Do you think this is related to the WSJ’s bizarre suggestion a couple of weeks ago that Obama had not yet decided whether to run for re-election?  Why Would Donors Be Wondering in Nov. 2010 Whether Obama will Run for Re-election

It’s the Stupid Voters, Stupid

© 2010 TexasDarlin/TDBlog

“I take responsibility….for making an argument that people can understand.”

Voters read the wrong manual

~~ Barack Obama, Nov. 2010

Last month, in anticipation of the impending 100 year Republican flood that would wipe out his party’s majority from sea-to-sea, Barack Obama had already identified the source of the problem: frightened and ignorant voters.

This week, in the wake of that bloodbath, our most intelligent and articulate president ever! continues to offer sage analysis:

“Leadership is a matter of persuading people.”

You see, the voters did not reject his policy agenda at all.

What happened was just a colossal misunderstanding. If we actually understood the Obama program and all those big bills that were passed in stealth Congressional sessions by elected officials who did not read them, millions of voters would be grateful to Obama’s leadership team for saving our nation from ruin.

Got that? Let me repeat it for the slow readers: YOU THE VOTERS DID NOT REJECT OBAMA’S POLICIES. YOU JUST DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEM. OKAY?

And, please get this part, especially: Obama is really really sorry that he did not realize how stupid you were from the get-go. If he had realized that you are such low-information slow learners, he would have put simpler words on the teleprompters for his 65 health care speeches and 55 townhalls.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

Thank you, Mr. President. From now on I will try listening even harder and taking more careful notes so that I can follow what you are telling me. Thank you for saving our nation! Thank you for keeping the oceans from rising! Thank you for healing our planet! Thank you for being the One I Have Waited For!

The One We Should Be Grateful For

Democratic Pollster: “Hillary Voters Abandon Democrats”

© 2010 TexasDarlin/TDBlog

“….It will take a sustained effort to recapture the blue-collar voters that backed the Republicans’ takeover of the House.”

We told you so:

The blue-collar voters who supported Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run deserted the party in droves on Tuesday, according to a new poll.

Democrats’ support from white, non-college-educated male voters dropped 12 percent from 2008, according to a survey Greenberg Quinlan Rosner conducted Nov. 2-3 for Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future.

Only 29 percent of blue-collar men support Democrats in 2010, down from 41 percent last cycle, according to the survey of 1,000 2008 voters, of which 897 voted on Tuesday.

“These are gigantic losses,” Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, whose firm conducted the survey, said on a conference call with reporters Friday.

Shocking, right? The “Hillary voters,” everyone will recall, are mainstream moderate Democrats, in the lineage of “Reagan Democrats.” These are the voters who Donna Brazile dismissed in 2008 when she boldly declared on CNN in her role as an “impartial commentator” that the new Democratic coalition was younger, more urban, and less blue collar. In other words, “F**You Hillary Democrats!”

It’s so amusing, in the aftermath of Tuesday’s mid-term slaughter, that political reporters have dialed up the chatter about a 2012 primary challenge to Obama from the far-left wing of Democratic Party (as if Obama weren’t liberal enough for them, lol). Reviewing the results of Greenberg’s poll showing a gigantic exodus of blue-collar Democrats, how do the brilliant pundits think a more liberal candidate would re-capture Hillary’s white working class voters? They know that Deaniacs are the high-income elites who already support Obama.

The Politico set is in denial. They refuse to articulate the obvious: It will take a more centrist Democrat to win back independents and the lost coalition, the “unwashed” middle of the country who turned out 18 million strong to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. So, Hillary may insist that she’s not running — that is no doubt true — but if the Democratic Party is truly interested in holding onto the presidency for a bit longer, it would be wise to correct course and draft her.

Why Would Donors be Wondering in Nov., 2010, Whether Obama Will Run for Re-election?

© 2010 TexasDarlin/TDBlog

Buried in election-day frenzy, there was this surprising sentence written by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal on Tues., Nov. 2:

Key donors have told the White House that the president should decide for certain whether he’s running for re-election by the end of December.

So…..Obama has NOT decided for certain whether he will run for re-election?

Isn’t that curious, and isn’t it even more curious how no one else in the Media has seemed to pick up on Mr. Fund’s finding.

Is it typical for a President to be uncertain about whether he will seek re-election by the end of the second year of his first term, or has Mr. Fund uncovered something more significant?

UPDATE: It appears from a Google search that Huffington Post logged a story about this very question on Nov. 2, then scrubbed it.

2010 Election Hangover Notes

© 2010 TexasDarlin/TDBlog
Holy fish tacos, what a night! Republicans picked up more House seats than any mid-term party in 70 years, and Democrats who blindly climbed onto the Obama healthcare/stimulus bus found themselves firmly crushed beneath its tires.

There will be no shortage of post-election analysis by serious pundits and clever bloggers, but here are some of my favorite highlights:

Marco Rubio, WINNER FL SENATE: Classy Tea Party candidate who smoothly survived a dedicated Democratic scheme to keep a Republican Hispanic from rising to national stature.

Nikki Haley, WINNER SC GOVERNOR: Tea Party candidate who survived fabricated, misogynist attacks on her character to become the first female (and Indian-American) governor of South Carolina.

Susana Martinez, WINNER NM GOVERNOR: First Hispanic female governor in the USA, bringing some dignity to Democrat Bill Richardson’s disgraced office.

Rand Paul, WINNER KY SENATE: Tea Party candidate and libertarian, surviving adolescent Facebook-style hits on his college dorm activities.

Rick Scott, WINNER FLA GOVERNOR: The Democrats blew this one by nominating a candidate who cheated in the debate on national TV, giving Republicans executive control of a state which is always pivotal in presidential elections.

John Kasich, WINNER OHIO GOVERNOR: Republican who ran a positive campaign in the face of All The President’s Resources on behalf of Ted Strickland, to claim executive control of another state which is always pivotal in presidential elections.

Mark Kirk, WINNER OF BARACK OBAMA’S SENATE SEAT IN ILLINOIS: what more needs to be said? Congratulations, Illinois, for your awakening!

Kristi Noem, WINNER OF SD’s ONLY HOUSE SEAT: Tea Party candidate, business owner, and farmer, ousting a 3-term Obama Democrat.

Biggest loss that’s really a win: Harry Reid hanging onto the Senate leadership. The silver lining in Angle’s loss is that Republicans still have an Obama Democrat to hold accountable in the Senate.

Weirdest outcome: Write-in takes the lead in Alaska’s Senate race. Those folks up there have a bizarre way of rewarding sore losers.

Truest disappointments: Fiorina’s 10-point loss and Whitman’s disastrous performance. They both should have won. California was a wasted opportunity for Republicans.

Greatest hope: Victors don’t blow it!