Update II: The Masque of the Red Death continues to play a dirge. It’s now confirmed. The news is Breaking: New Ebola case in NYC Ebola Obama policies are to blame. Also in New York City, an ax murderer attacks police in broad daylight. Ebola Obama policies are to blame. Any vote for an Obama Dimocrat this November, no matter how well intentioned or “tactical”, is a vote in support for Ebola Obama. That’s the undeniable “hard choice” that has to be made.
A terrible disease called the Red Death has struck the country. It’s incredibly fatal, horribly gruesome, and it’s already killed off half the kingdom. But the ruler of these parts, Prince Prospero, doesn’t seem to care about his poor, dying subjects. Instead, he decides to let the kingdom take care of itself while he and a thousand of his favorite knights and ladies shut themselves up in a fabulous castle to have one never-ending party. Wine, women, music, dancing, fools – Prospero’s castle has it all. After the last guest enters, no one else can get in – the Prince has welded the doors shut. That means no one can get out, either…
It’s Ebola Obama and the trapped courtiers. Prince Ebola Prospero Obama doesn’t care about his poor, dying subjects. His favorites are trapped by welded doors inside the asylum. No one can get out. The doors are welded shut by Ebola Obama.
Obama giftwraps another sound bite for Republicans
A couple weeks ago, President Obama declared that, while he wasn’t on the Nov. 4 ballot, his policies were. And just about every GOP candidate in a red or swing state soon launched an ad using that comment to tie his or her Democratic opponent to Obama.
Well, Obama appears to have just handed Republicans some more ammunition.
In an interview with Rev. Al Sharpton on Monday, Obama defended his support for candidates in top races who haven’t welcomed Obama to campaign with them.
“The bottom line is, though, these are are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda in Congress,” Obama said.
He continued: “So this isn’t about my feelings being hurt. These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me. I tell them — I said, you do what you need to do to win.”
The doors are welded shut by Ebola Obama:
While it’s the second time Obama has gone down this road, this comment probably stings more than the last one for Democrats running in key Senate races — almost all of which are in red or swing states where Obama is quite unpopular.
While Obama’s previous comment suggested the election was indeed something of a referendum on him, these comments suggest not only that, but that Democratic candidates are actually on-board with him — something most of them have made pains to argue is not the case.
Obama’s comments are the kind of thing Democrats might privately say to assure donors and the party base, but wouldn’t really say in public. [snip]
At the same time, he’s really only saying something that most political observers already believe to be true — that however much distance these Democrats are seeking from the president, they will generally be on-board with his agenda. [snip]
It’s just that two weeks before an election in states in which Obama isn’t all that popular, Democratic candidates probably don’t want voters to be reminded of that fact.
The doors are welded shut. One month before the November 2014 elections we wrote about when Obama first began to weld the doors. We posted some of the GOP ads which mocked those trapped with Ebola Obama. Allison Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, Mary Landrieu, and all the rest of those who dance with Ebola Obama were shocked when they heard Obama give the game away. They whispered the famous line from The Godfather III.
Pulled back in. These rubber stamp Obama supporters wanted to deceive the public. But they are trapped. Trapped behind welded doors. Ebola Obama himself calls them his “supporters”.
Evil money and its innocent twin, the enthusiasm factor, are what count in the homestretch, and shadows have fallen across Democratic races everywhere. They’re dusting off the panic button at the White House. It doesn’t quite feel like 2010, not yet, but the Republicans are fired up, and the Democrats aren’t. It’s just about time to light candles to the ghost of Harry Truman, the patron saint of candidates on the ropes.
Old guys who aren’t yet ghosts are trotted out to reprise the triumphs of yesteryear. Bubba spent the weekend in Arkansas with Democratic candidates, but it was more like visiting the hospital bed of a gravely ill friend than to deliver a full-throated battle cry to rally the troops. [snip]
The news for Democrats is dour in unexpected places. Mark Udall, practicing the cowboy two-step on a cakewalk only a month ago, has fallen into a lake, or a drainage ditch or someone’s swimming pool, because his nose is bobbing under water in Colorado. The tightening polls are beginning to feel like a noose around Kay Hagen’s neck in North Carolina. She was cruising to a coronation only a fortnight ago.
Threatened Democratic nominees in Kentucky and Georgia and the Democratic candidate in West Virginia insist they don’t remember or won’t say who they voted for in either 2008 or 2012. (Barack Who?) Mark Begich in Alaska is the latest to suffer an amnesia attack and has joined the ladies on the fainting couch.
The stormy night gets darker by the hour. More dark, stormy nights and days are ahead. After a few sunny quarters of flush cash and drunken sprees on television ads Obama Dimocrats face the hoard of cash stashed for use two weeks before the election by the GOP. “Republican candidates reported outraising Democratic senators by margins of millions, and most of them have more cash on hand to buy television time over the next crucial fortnight.”
Tom Cotton has more cash on hand than does Arkansas racist Mark Pryor. In Colorado Cory Gardner has twice the cash on hand than rival Mark Udall. Scott Brown also outraised Jeanne Shaheen in the third quarter which should help him as the race is now tied in polls.
Running Against Obama, Republicans Positioned for Midterm Sweep
Most of the battleground Senate races are trending in the GOP’s direction, while Democrats are playing defense in the House. [snip]
In July, I wrote that the odds of a nationalized election were growing because of that worsening environment for Democrats. Back then, there were clear signs that the red-state races were tilting in the GOP’s direction, while Republicans were running surprisingly strong campaigns in swing states. Those trends have only solidified since then. [snip]
Now, it’s becoming likely that Republicans will win more than the six seats necessary to retake control of the Senate.
Throughout this election cycle, the Democrats have been dogged by the president’s health care law. [snip] Indeed, despite conventional wisdom that health care has diminished as a top issue in the midterms, it’s still (by far) the dominant theme in Republican congressional campaign ads, according to The Cook Political Report’s Elizabeth Wilner. Not only does it mobilize angry Republican voters, but it persuades disaffected independents as well. [snip]
Over the summer, worsening foreign policy was also an issue that looked bound to get worse for Democrats, not better. [snip]
All told, the cascading number of controversies and scandals in the president’s second term has fed into the perception that this administration is out of its depth in doing its primary job: managing government. And that’s not good for Democrats, both the party in power and the party associated with an activist federal government. The dominant theme in the campaign’s final month is Democratic Senate candidates struggling to distance themselves from the president, from Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor’s awkward assessment of the president’s handling of the Ebola crisis to Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes’s refusal to discuss whom she voted for in the 2012 election.
They can run for office but they cannot hide their rubber stamp votes to support Ebola Obama. Now they’re in the fetid crumbling fortress with welded doors. The Red Death dances in the halls:
Republicans now are positioned to net between six and nine Senate seats in the upcoming midterms, with the higher end looking more likely. Most of the battleground Senate contests are now either trending in a Republican direction or remaining stable with a GOP advantage. Trailing in the North Carolina Senate race throughout much of the fall, Republican Thom Tillis has lately put Sen. Kay Hagan on the defensive by connecting her to the president’s management of the ISIS threat and the outbreak of Ebola. In Colorado, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner has led in all of the six public polls released in October, with leads ranging from 2 to 6 points. Early voting data out of Iowa is looking favorable for Republican Joni Ernst, consistent with public polls showing her with a small advantage. The Cook Political Reportrecently moved the New Hampshire race between Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Scott Brown into toss-up status, indicative of polling showing Shaheen still ahead but with a rapidly narrowing lead. Outside of Kansas, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg now has Republicans holding an edge in all the red-state races, reflecting a nationalized environment against the party in power. [snip]
In a neutral environment, Democrats would hold a good shot at an upset or two. But in a nationalized midterm, Republicans should catch breaks in states where the fundamentals favor them.
All the trend lines in the House favor Republicans, as well.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is yanking advertising in many races. The fights are now in blue districts to protect office holders. Districts Obama won by double digits in California, Hawaii, and New York are now battlegrounds that might elect Republicans due to disgust with Ebola Obama.
With anxiety over Ebola running high, renewed fears of terrorism, and most Americans not feeling secure economically, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how voters could decisively punish the governing party
“They’ve got themselves a little better disciplined. But, you know, the fact is that Obama’s down with everybody, let’s face it, there’s a reason,” Brown said. “And I think that particularly for women. I don’t think it makes them feel safe. I think they’re feeling unsafe. Economically, they’re feeling unsafe. With regard to ISIS, they’re feeling unsafe. They feel unsafe about Ebola. What they’re feeling unsafe about is the government response to different crises. And I think they’re beginning to feel a bit that Obama’s like that guy in the corner office, you know, who’s too cool for school, calls a meeting, says this has to change, doesn’t put anything in place to make sure it does change, then it goes wrong and he’s blaming everybody. So there’s a slight sense of that.”
This has been an election full of magic. White Magic that only the black man from everywhere and nowhere could perform. Even his adored grandmother dying on the eve of the victory had a mythic feeling of completion to it in a candidacy full of signs and symbols. Remember the three-point basketball shot when he played with the soldiers in Kuwait? It’s as if Obama is the prince who lifts the curse in a fairy story, a curse that began eight years ago with an election wrenched away from the rightful winner and begetting as a consequence the wrathful visitation of tragedy and wars and hurricanes and economic collapse.
In two short weeks the voters will shout loud enough to be heard through welded doors. The voters will borrow from Edgar Allen Poe. The voters will answer Ebola Obama and his stealth supporters’ plea for votes with “Nevermore!”
After President Clinton emailed you this morning to ask for help, we really thought we would be in a better place. But we aren’t. The Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, and the other Republican outside groups are spending millions against us. It’s the biggest spending spree of any midterm election EVER. So big – it doesn’t even look like President Clinton’s email can dig us out of this hole. There is still time, though. Things are rough, but we’re not ready to accept defeat. If we can bring in 5O,OOO donations before tomorrow’s ad buy deadline, we can get back on track. Will you answer President Clinton’s call-to-action today?
Obama’s losses will be blamed on old and useless Bill and Hillary by Obama Dimocrats. Any defense of the stupidity of Hillary and Bill’s grab for Obama stink is hollow and not very well thought out. No one can provide a cost-benefit analysis that justifies this level of stupidity in which nothing is gained but much is put at risk.
Hill and Bill are being set up and are either too stupid to realize it, too out of practice for this new era, or have surrounded themselves with Obama lackey advisers. Maybe they have not learned one damn thing from 2008. Or maybe this is all part of a farewell tour because with a stupid strategy like we have seen thus far Hillary Clinton 2016 is not going anywhere if this stupidity continues.
Can someone explain to us how in blazes Hillary helps Hillary Clinton 2016 with the few, yet one too many, campaign appearances in 2014? Will someone please explain the strategy? This situation reminds us more than anything of fear and loathing on the campaign trail 2007-2008.
However, as we have noted Bill and Hillary Clinton are determined to grab some of the stink of failure for November 2014. We continue to warn them against what they are doing. The warnings come in some very tough language from us. Our warnings will get tougher.
There is nothing in the current stupid Hillary strategy to campaign for Obama rubber stamps under the guise of “Clinton Democrat” that benefits Hillary Clinton 2016. Nothing. There are however plenty of downsides.
The stories on election night 2014 should all be about the rejection of Barack Obama. But the Hillary and Bill stupid strategy is already the subject of political prognostication and extrapolation. This is a headline we should never have seen if not for a stupid strategy from Bill and Hill: 2014’s ‘Clinton Democrats’ crashing and burning:
For all the analysis which correctly notes that associating with President Barack Obama is no relief for Democrats running in 2014, particularly those in red states, it is those Democratic politicians running as “Clinton Democrats” who are watching their campaigns implode.
“Self-proclaimed Clinton Democrats are struggling this election cycle, and not even their powerful namesakes may be enough to save them,” The Hill reported on Sunday. “Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have tried to turn on their charms to help centrist Democrats in Kentucky and Arkansas. But as candidates in both states are slipping, help from the party’s preeminent power couple is falling short.”
The articles note that Kentucky Secretary of State Allion Grimes and Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor are emblazoning themselves with the Clinton crest in order to save themselves. When they lose, and they will, the election night articles will be about Hillary’s failure (and Bill’s failure) to move the needle and get votes.
How does this help Hillary Clinton 2016? What Hillary should do is stay home with the grandchild and keep her mouth shut. Let the party sink under its own corruptions. Then after the loss every party official will realize Obama is Ebola and they will seek the cure: Hillary Clinton 2016. Hillary then would be a way to escape the bad headlines and the bad memories of a disaster of an election night.
On election night 2014 Bill Clinton will be the headline loser in Arkansas. This won’t help Hillary Clinton 2016 either.
Some might mistakenly believe this excerpt is positive news for Hillary Clinton 2016:
It’s not pro-Clinton moderates, but Obama-backing progressives who are most likely to head to the polls despite anti-Democratic headwinds.
That analysis is based on some excellent PEW polls about the probable 2014 electorate. So why then are Hillary and Bill campaigning to get out sane “Clinton voters” when the only voters headed to the polls in 2014 are those that want to save their precious Barack Obama? Does any of this “strategy” make sense?
Maybe Bill Clinton thought if he campaigned in Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton would go nuts and attack him. But Tom Cotton has been entirely smart and responded to Bill Clinton in a really smart way which makes Bill appear like a dunce. Tom Cottom respected Bill Clinton and used Bill Clinton, like a foil, to attack:
To some of those voters, there’s a certain continuity between supporting the moderate Democrat Bill Clinton, beginning when he was first elected governor in 1978, and supporting Cotton today. In a state that has rapidly switched from blue to red, they believe they have stayed the same, while the Democratic Party has changed. So for a young, ambitious Republican politician, it might not be a good idea to attack the man so many Republican voters once supported. And indeed, in an interview on his campaign RV as it bounced along the bumpy roads of rural Arkansas, Cotton not only refrained from attacking Clinton, he went out of his way to compare Clinton’s legacy favorably to the record of President Obama. [snip]
“The facts and the Clinton legacy look a lot better in contrast to the Obama legacy,” Cotton replied. “I’m not concerned about Bill Clinton’s support for Mark Pryor. I’m worried about Mark Pryor’s support for Barack Obama.“
See, no Monica, no attacks. Tom Cotton used Bill Clinton like a cigar against Mark Pryor.
Instead of a focus on Barack Obama and his many failures which lead to electoral defeat, Bill and Hillary Clinton are stealing some of the stink. Lot at the headline at The Hill:
‘Clinton Democrats’ falling flat [snip]
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have tried to turn on their charms to help centrist Democrats in Kentucky and Arkansas. But as candidates in both states are slipping, help from the party’s preeminent power couple is falling short. [snip]
That raises questions not only for Hillary Clinton as she ponders a 2016 White House bid, but also for the Democratic Party as it finds itself increasingly unsuccessful in the Deep South and Appalachia.
Steal some more of that Ebola Obama stink Bill and Hill. That’s some real smart politicking.
Clinton allies and longtime observers of the 42nd president and his wife say that if anyone can make Southern states a battleground in 2016 – and at least force the GOP to use valuable resources to keep the South red – it’s Hillary Clinton.
There’s plenty of reason to believe the Clintons view the situation the same way. [snip]
“These appearances are really the beginning of their campaign to redefine the Democratic Party in their own image, [to] a party that can carry states like this,” said Al Cross, a veteran journalist and University of Kentucky professor.
“I think the Clintons believe they can carry Kentucky and I think that’s one reason why we’ll see them here again,” Cross added, also pointing to the Clintons’ longstanding friendship with Grimes’ father, Jerry Lundergan.
Clinton allies also insist that both Bill and Hillary have the sort of innate understanding of Southerners that has become increasingly rare within the Democratic Party. While more of the party’s base increasingly lives urban areas, they are among the few surrogates who can reach blue-collar and rural voters. [snip]
“You put a Democrat with 20 percent of the white vote in Mississippi and it becomes in play,” said Skip Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas and a longtime friend of the Clintons. [snip]
“I think she’s a good test case for how competitive the Democrats can be in the South, because she can pair her husband’s appeal in the more rural South and presumably draw support in the places where Obama did well,” Schaller said. “If she can’t start flipping states, then who is?“
Does any of that make sense? Prove how strong a candidate you will be in 2016 (against so far no opponent) by placing a losing bet on losers? That’s not very smart is it?
Like Sasquatch in a swamp, Michelle Obama is fur-ious. The White House dogs get a swift kick in the underbelly. Sleeves on dresses get viciously yanked. Sasquatch fear roams the halls. Angry.
It’s bound to get worse. Outside of the Whine House walls Michelle has to pretend to be OK. Publicly Michelle Obama has to smile. But this volcano is smouldering. It’s about to blow!
But the eruption will have to stifle itself until after the elections. Here’s what happened to set off Sasquatchian Micheelle:
Last week Michelle Obama campaigned for Bruce Braley in his race against that strong woman Joni Ernst. Michelle Obama was not happy. First she had to leave the Whine House for something other than a luxury vacation. Second, well, she had to work without pay which goes against her convictions as a Chicago native who thinks anytime she does something cash should cross her palms.
Michelle could barely unstick her eyelashes for this unwanted task. MOO continued to ostentatiously elevate Bruce Braley as a super terrific guy with super terrific credentials. But MOO knew so much about Braley she repeatedly called him “Bruce Bailey”.
MOO had to be roused from her comfy bed and expensive meals to campaign for Bruce Braley. That’s because Barack Obama is poison to campaigns. So MOO had to be herded out to the fields of Iowa to pretend and mispronounce.
Iowa Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley, who is currently locked in a tight Senate race, used a Congressional hearing about Ebola on Thursday to critique the Obama administration’s response to the outbreak.
“I am greatly concerned…that the administration did not act fast enough in responding in Texas,” Braley said.
“Is that the thanks I get?” screamed MOO. “I go campaign where there’s no arugula and Wagyu steaks then Bailey turns around to attack us???” MOO said as she kicked Barack.
“Reggie please”, er, “Honey please” replied Barack, “ya gotta understand, ya gotta help. Ya gotta calm down and just hang on for a few more weeks, please. Then you can take an extra long, extra luxurious vacation for the next two years. We just gotta get through this because a Republican senate might begin to investigate and then vacations are off.” “OK” MOO gritted out as she applied yet another kick to her Whine House dog.
Then it got worse.
Instead of MOO protection and Ebola Barack protection, Whine House spokesclown Josh defended Bailey, er Braley. Said spokesclown Josh:
“Well, Mr. Braley is somebody that has a reputation for being willing to speak truth to power whether they are in the same party as him or not,” Earnest replied, when asked by reporters about his comments. “I think that this is another indication that he is willing to do that.”
We gather the Whine House now agrees with the critics who denounce Ebola Barack for the Ebola response mess.
Democratic senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina was emphatic earlier this week that instituting a travel ban on those attempting to enter the United States from West African nations ravaged by the Ebola virus was “not going to help solve the problem.” Hagan’s Republican opponent, Thom Tillis, had been one of the first candidates for office to suggest the ban.
“That’s not going to help solve this problem,” said Hagan Wednesday when asked about Tillis’s position. “That’s not going to contain the epidemic that we see happening in Africa.”
But in a statement released Friday afternoon by her official Senate office, Hagan appears to have changed her mind.
“I have said for weeks that travel restrictions should be one part of a broad strategy to prevent Ebola from spreading in the U.S. and fighting it in Africa,” said Hagan in her statement. “I am calling on the Administration to temporarily ban the travel of non-U.S. citizens from the affected countries in West Africa. Although stopping the spread of this virus overseas will require a large, coordinated effort with the international community, a temporary travel ban is a prudent step the President can take to protect the American people, and I believe he should do so immediately.”
Hagen did not dig herself out of her freshly dug Ebola hole. Hagen followed her statement on the travel ban with praise for the CDC. Talk about stupid.
In defense of Ebola Obama and his Ebola policies Kay Hagen is in the process of political suicide. Why defend the bumblers at the CDC? And why call for a travel ban with such insincerity?
We Should Quarantine Everyone Coming From Countries With Ebola Outbreaks
An infectious-disease specialist says the time for half-measures is over [[snip]
Medicine can be a very humbling profession, and after more than 30 years of practicing infectious-disease medicine, I have learned that the “unanticipated” happens all too often, especially where microbes are involved. Over the last two weeks, the rosy scenarios painted by the Centers for Disease Control have lost their glow and started to unravel.
The fact that Ebola is transmitted by bodily fluids and not by the respiratory route provides no guarantee that there won’t be an outbreak in the U.S. or Europe. [snip]
There is a real possibility that the numbers will proliferate more rapidly than expected. Here are four problems that could contribute to this: [snip]
Quarantine is one tool that has been successfully employed in the past; currently, it is being underutilized. I would maintain that every individual traveling here from a country with an active outbreak—currently Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Nigeria—should be quarantined. [snip]
If the quarantine could be established prior to travel, then virtually no cases would be imported from West Africa.
Well, they’re not advocates for a “travel ban”. They just say let’s have concentration quarantine camps or something. That’s the ticket. That’s so much more politically correct.
Sam Stein’s Awful Argument Against Travel Ban: Helps America But Hurts West Africa
The last time we looked, Barack Obama was President of the United States, not of some other country. So if a ban on travel into the United States by people from Ebola-ravaged countries in West Africa would help America, isn’t it President Obama’s obligation to impose it, even if it might hurt those African countries?
On today’s Morning Joe, HuffPo’s Sam Stein twice acknowledged that the ban might “help America.” Yet he argued against the ban on the grounds that it would hurt West Africa and make it harder to track people fleeing those countries. You sensed Sam’s heart wasn’t entirely in it, and when he finished Joe Scarborough thanked him, saying he was going to hit Stein’s weak offering out of the park, as that SF Giants batter did last night in the ninth.
Scarborough’s counter was that there needs to be a two-pronged approach: a travel ban coupled with greatly-increased American efforts to help stop the epidemic in Africa, thus getting the disease under control and quelling panic that could send people fleeing abroad.
STEIN: The nexus of the problem with Ebola is not in America it’s in West Africa. And until you get the situation in West Africa under control we will never be actually out of the woods with respect to Ebola. So when you look at a travel ban you have to look at it holistically. What does it mean not just for America but for West Africa? Basically every health official–maybe with a few exceptions–has said that if you do a travel ban it may, in fact, help America but it will make the situation in West Africa a whole lot more complex and a whole lot worse. People will panic — [snip]
So yes, you might help the situation in America but the situation in West Africa is exacerbated and made worse. That’s the point.
SCARBOROUGH: Sam, I want to thank you –
STEIN: I tried my best.
It’s all a joke to Sammy. Why not tell the truth? Stop the apologies for Barack Obama. We can quarantine travel from West Africa and provide assistance to West Africa. Panic in this country will not help West Africa. Panic in this country will have adverse effects, such as anger, against West Africa.
Update: What should Ebola Obama have done? First impose a quarantine on travelers from West Africa to prevent the infected from travel to the United States. Second, coordinate with African nations to provide assistance to the stricken countries and individuals. Third, with the quarantine in place establish “protocols” and procedures to deal with any potential infection here. Fourth, secure the southern border to prevent other diseases from hitchhiking on random illegal aliens. Fourth, consider slowly lifting the quarantine once procedures against Ebola are in place and safety is assured. Put a total quarantine in place again if any breach occurs.
Ebola Obama shat on everything and everyone. This country is in trouble. We can see the explosive diarrhea of “Yes We Can” Midas-in-reverse Barack Obama everywhere these days.
Today we were going to apply some very “tough love” and some very tough language to Hillary Clinton and mercilessly mock Hillary Clinton 2016 because both are in need of corrective measures as only we can apply. But by now Hill and Bill must realize we are entirely correct and they are making some dumb moves. We’ve made our case clear for years now and yesterday’s comments section has a good discussion on our point of view.
After yesterday’s very clear confirmation of our view that Alison Grimes was and is a loser (the DSCC has given up on her and will not air ads on Grimy’s behalf) the news became worse for Grimes and today’s campaigner for Grimes – Hillary Clinton.
Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes is in deep water with progressives and immigration advocates after her campaign ran an ad calling undocumented immigrants “illegal aliens” and bizarrely accusing her opponent, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), of being soft on immigration.
So let’s tally the damage: (1) two days before Hillary campaigns with Alison Grimes this loser doubles down on the ridiculous claim that she is protecting the sanctity of the ballot forcing Hillary to join in on the charade or attack the silly claim; (2) the week before Alison Grimes dubbed herself a “Clinton Democrat” thereby dragging Hill and Bill further into the morass; (3) on the day before Hillary campaigns with Alison Grimes the DSCC announces the death of the Grimes campaign with the news that no more money is forthcoming from them thereby putting Hillary in a tougher spot; (4) on the day Hillary will campaign with Alison Grimes the crackpot left attacks Alison Grimes and Hillary is put in an even tougher set of spots having to denounce or not denounce the use of “illegal aliens” and or defend Mitch McConnell and attack the Grimes ad. Brilliant work Hillary and Hillary Clinton 2016!
We had also considered, now that we are three weeks out from the election, that today would be a good day to publish a poll analysis because we believe from here on out the polls do matter. But events once again find us in Hazmat suits looking at Ebola Obama’s explosive diarrhea everywhere.
Today’s news had the effect that made both our discussion of Hillary’s foolishness and a poll analysis moot.
For Hillary the good news is that so much bad news will relegate her disastrous visit to the back pages of discussion.
As to the polls and and analysis of same we think that the tide of bad news today will possibly make the bad news for Obama Dimocrats even worse and the good news for Republicans even better.
On the day that Duncan was admitted to the hospital with possible Ebola symptoms, he was “left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area where other patients were present,” union co-president Deborah Burger said.
Up to seven other patients were present in that area, the nurses said, according to the union.
A nursing supervisor faced resistance from hospital authorities when the supervisor demanded that Duncan be moved to an isolation unit, the nurses said, according to the union.
After expressing concerns that their necks were exposed even as they wore protective gear, the nurses were told to wrap their necks with medical tape, the union says.
As if he were Barack Obama, the Ebola Patient Zero had explosive diarrhea. The “experts” are in control and the nurses are in danger:
“The protocols that should have been in place in Dallas were not in place, and that those protocols are not in place anywhere in the United States as far as we can tell,” National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro said Tuesday night. “We’re deeply alarmed.” [snip]
“There was no one to pick up hazardous waste as it piled to the ceiling,” Burger said. [snip]
“This nurse was being blamed for not following protocols that did not exist. … The nurses in that hospital were very angry, and they decided to contact us,” DeMoro said.
The World Heath Organization says Ebola can incubate for more than 21 days not the lesser number of day as is widely presumed. There are now about 120 people being monitored to see if they have caught Ebola. This is the same Ebola that Ebola Obama said would not make a home in the United States.
Ebola has become the October surprise of this year’s midterm elections, with Democrats and Republicans doing battle over everything from restrictions on travel to the disposal of a victim’s remains. [snip]
The issue is particularly fraught for Democrats, given signs that President Obama’s dragging poll numbers could help Republicans take control of the Senate. Though Ebola is unlikely to move the needle in specific races, political strategists say it adds to the darkening public mood.
“The situation with Ebola and what’s going on in Syria and Iraq — all of this is creating a high level of anxiety among voters and a sense of uncertainty about the future,” said Democratic strategist Doug Thornell.
Ebola Obama’s explosive diarrhea is evident on Wall Street today. After years of free money for Wall Street and a market bloated with empty financial calories today we once again witness drops at times of more than 250 points. The rise in the markets can no longer hide the Ebola Obama Economy and the results is that the economy is dragging down the markets and the markets will further drag down the economy. Midas-in-reverse.
Lizzie Warren is not Cherokee as she has claimed in order to garner affirmative action benefits. Lizzie Warren is more Lizzie Borden. Or did she join ISIS? Here’s the American Horror Story: Lizzie Warren tale:
There we were on Sunday on our pink fainting couch. Our toes were separated by those soft foamy things whilst our toe nails were painted pink to match the decor and the tint on our fashion forward fashion statement spectacles. While thusly tended to we amused ourselves by devouring the comments on our favorite pink website. Then it was almost as if someone slapped us and pushed us down a flight of cocktails.
Lizzie Warren came out of her wigwam to decapitate Barack Obama. Oh dear. What will the children say?
This is what set us off:
EXCLUSIVE: Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. And it happened over and over and over”
“There has not been nearly enough change,” she tells Salon, taking on Obama failures, lobbyists, tuition. So 2016?
Say what??? Come again. Lizzie Warren took her ax and gave Obama forty whacks!
Lizzie??? Is that you? Did you really say such mean things about mess-iah? Have you too turned on Ebola Obama, a.k.a. OBOLA???
But President Obama had a golden opportunity when he came in to change the system and I just don’t feel like it has changed, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau aside. I mean, are the regulators now referring things to the Justice Department? Are the wheels turning again?
There has not been nearly enough change. Not nearly enough.[snip]
Let’s get back to the mindset of a lot of people. They look at you and they say, Elizabeth Warren, she’s part of the elite too. She was a professor at Harvard. [snip]
And I say this — it’s like I talk about in the book — this is personal for me. I graduated from a commuter college that cost $50 a semester in Texas.
Here’s the penultimate question: everything you’re saying are issues that have been important to me most of my adult life. In 2008, I thought I had a candidate who was going to address these things. Right? Barack Obama. Today, my friends and I are pretty disappointed with what he’s done. I wonder if you feel he has been forthright enough on these subjects. And I also wonder if you think that someone can take any of this stuff on without being president. You know, there are a lot of good politicians in America who have their heart in the right place. But they’re not the president. Well anyhow. You understand my frustration…
I understand your frustration, Tom and, actually, I talk about this in the book. When I think about the president, for me, it’s about both halves. If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period. [snip] At the same time, he picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street.
You might say, “always.” Just about every time they had to compromise, they compromised in the direction of Wall Street.
That’s right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter. [snip]
Look, there are two ways you can look at that. You can look at that and say, “Well, obviously, democracy doesn’t work.” Or the other way you can look at that is to say, “We have the opportunity. The moment is upon us.” We push back hard enough, we’re pushing for America’s agenda. Not an agenda to help a small group of people, an agenda to build a future for this country. And I believe we win. I believe it.
Looks like Lizzie Warren is about to run for something as the third Stalin term but with a five year plan. Such lovely words about high tuition and investment and all that but really…. Obama failed because he wasn’t crackpot enough??? That’s some campaign message.
We don’t want to use that word that starts with an “R” and ends with a “T” but what other word is there? Lizzie Borden, er, Warren, the great tribune fighting for the little people? Um… We don’t want to get serious or nutin’ but the Export-Import Bank gets a “yes” from populist Lizzie? Corporate Welfare Lizzie?
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren—a leading progressive populist, possible Democratic presidential candidate, self-proclaimed champion of the poor, and enemy of greedy corporations (not really, as you will see)—supports the Export-Import Bank.
That’s right: The woman best known for demonizing big businesses nevertheless wants to maintain an outlandishly generous subsidy package for them.
Warren’s support for Ex-Im was revealed Friday after the Heritage Foundation reached out to her regarding a possible partnership on the issue. Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives are noted opponents of the subsidy, which they see as crony capitalism that helps politically-connected businesses cheat the free market. Liberty-inclined Republicans are working with the left on a host of issues, including NSA spying and marijuana legalization—why not make common cause with Warren on corporatism as well?
Did we miss something? Did Lizzie Borden, er, Lizzie Warren chop off her head or sumting’? We’re confused. Why here is the great black HOPE denouncing the Export-Import Bank in 2008:
Obama in 2008 said the Export-Import Bank is “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.” Yet Lizzie B…Warren will fund this corporate welfare crony capitalism crap???????????????????????????
What will Barack say? Surely he will denounce this corrupt corporate welfare crony capitalism crone!
“But for some reason, right now the House Republicans have decided that we shouldn’t do this, which means that when American companies go overseas and they’re trying to close a sale on selling Boeing planes, for example, or a GE turbine or some other American product that has all kinds of subcontractors behind it and is creating all kinds of jobs and all of sorts of small businesses depend on that sale, and that American company’s going up against a German company or a Chinese company, and the Chinese and the American — the German company are providing financing and the American company isn’t, we may lose that sale,” Obama argued.
“Why — when did that become something that Republicans opposed? It’d be like me having a car dealership for Ford, and the Toyota dealership offers somebody financing and I don’t. We will lose business, and we’ll lose jobs if we don’t pass it,” Obama continued.
Consider the Export-Import Bank. This little-known relic of New Deal-style command-and-control economics represents cronyism at its worst. Ex-Im, which is up for congressional reauthorization this fall, provides a select few corporations with taxpayer-funded handouts meant to buoy their exports. As Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center, explains, “Economists have long known that these kinds of export credit subsidies will never raise the overall level of trade; rather, they redistribute wealth away from unsubsidized American firms, employees, and consumers and direct it toward a tiny number of subsidy beneficiaries.” [snip]
A marketplace distorted by politicians doling out favors to select corporate interests creates all the wrong incentives. Instead of innovating to earn the business of average people, companies will focus on turning a profit through the acquisition of government subsidies. [snip]
Those concerned with issues of income inequality and the plight of the “99 percent” ought to be extremely disturbed by the transgressions of politicians who campaign on these issues and do the exact opposite in practice. When Barack Obama embraced a grassroots shtick in an effort to out-maneuver Hillary Clinton in 2008, he described the Ex-Im Bank as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.” The president was right, of course, but now his rhetoric echoes those who act as if government-subsidized job creation doesn’t have a net negative impact on the small businesses trying to compete under the weight of an unjust corporatist system.
The same goes for the allegedly populist senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, who is known for railing against the excesses of corporate America. Her spokesperson recently stated, “Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth.” So much for protecting the little guy, who’s trying to compete without a guaranteed taxpayer bailout and can’t afford the K Street lobbyists needed to acquire one.
Be prepared. Soon, Lizzie Warren will ax her words and say whatever is opposite Hillary Clinton about the Export Import Bank.
No doubt Lizzie is disappointed in the failed tin calf. Lots of the “yes we can” crowd now feign surprise at the notion that Obama was the “game-changer”. Lizzie is not alone in the doldrums:
“Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans,” the new president declared in his 2009 inaugural address to a 1.8 million-strong crowd on the Mall. “. . . What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”
From pledging an Earth-moving transformation, Obama has been reduced to hitting singles and getting his lonely paragraph right . After drawing early comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy all rolled into one, Obama has fallen so low that journalists wonder whether Jimmy Carter is not a more appropriate parallel. [snip]
But however historians and the public ultimately rate Obama, the greatness that he sought — and that was expected of him — will probably not be his. As early as 2011, in an extraordinary commentto “60 Minutes,” Obama believed otherwise: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.” [snip]
But that kind of ambition requires a leader to see the world clearly as it is before trying to refashion it the way he wants it to be. Not reading the terrain accurately, failing to assess whether his administration had the muscle to negotiate it, and missing what the public expected and wanted can lead to unhappy consequences.
Whatever your judgment of Obama’s policies, there is a vast gap between the expectations he set for himself and his supporters and the realities of his presidency. Obama reached for greatness but has disappointed many of those who voted for him once or even twice because they so badly wanted to believe; those who thought he would end partisanship and change Washington when he could not; those who believed he could transform the country and America’s foreign policy, too, when he did not; and those who believed he would somehow become the Kennedy-like president of their dreams.
It’s cruel of us we know to remind the “yes we can” clods that “no you can’t” not with a treacherous boob. That same “yes we can” crowd now drools for the lady with the tomahawk or is it an ax or a machete to save them. Forget it girlfriends. We need to export this import.
President Obama went to the bank to cash a check and he didn’t have his ID. And the teller said you’ve got to prove who you are.
He said, “How should I do that?” She said the other day Phil Mickelson came in, he didn’t have his ID but he set up a little cup on the ground, took a golf ball, putted it right into that cup so they knew it was Phil Mickelson. They cashed his check.
And then Andre Agassi came in. And Andre Agassi didn’t have his ID either. He put a little target on the wall, took a tennis ball and racquet– hit it onto that target time. We knew that was Andre Agassi so we cashed his check.
And she said to him, “Is there anything you can do to prove who you are?” And Obama said, “I don’t have a clue.”
And she said, “Well, Mr. President, do you want your money in small bills or large bills.”
You can say the same about Lizzie Borden, er Lizzie Warren.
We’ll explain why this is important in our last two paragraphs. For now we declare this election season we must expose, uproot and remove racists. That will be our self appointed task for 2014. No one else has our courage so we will do it.
What qualifies us for our noble anti-racist task? We ourselves have ceaselessly been dubbed “RACISTS!” for support of Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama. We therefore are experts in what constitutes a “racist” in the minds of Big Media and the crackpot left. We will now hold to these standards in our crusade (that’s a racist Islamaphobe word) against RACISTS and RACISM wherever it is found.
Already we have bagged a big one: Alison Lundgren Grimes!
As everyone knows if you deny the divinity of Messiah Obama you are a racist. If you are now or ever have supported anyone who ran against Barack Obama you are a racist. If you do not fully embrace Barack Obama you are a racist. Gwyneth Paltrow is not a racist.
“You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly,” the actress, singer and food writer gushed after introducing Obama to several hundred supporters seated on white fold-out chairs in the lush backyard of her home in the movie star haven of Brentwood, a neighborhood in Los Angeles.
In a not-so-subtle reference to her “conscious uncoupling” earlier this year from husband Chris Martin, Paltrow said it was a “profound honor” to have Obama in the home she shares with Apple and Moses, her two children with the Coldplay lead vocalist. [snip]
In a brief introduction punctuated by “ums,” Paltrow declared herself to be one of Obama’s biggest fans and said he’s an “incredible role model.”
“I am one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest, and have been since the inception of your campaign,” she said, adding that she thinks both of his campaigns and his presidency will be one of the most important and most scrutinized of all time.
Paltrow noted the approaching Nov. 4 midterm elections in which Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. She called it a “critical time” for Democrats and seemed to urge everyone to vote. “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass,” she said.
If you are immobilized with disgust or even raised an eyebrow, smirked, giggled, or consider Paltrow anything like a dumbass Hollywood whore so stupid that she can’t admit Barack Obama is “worst pResident ever” as well as a totalitarian Hitler youth mom – you are a racist and we have bagged your racist ass too.
If you find this 2009 video of our Hollywood betters taking THE PLEDGE in any way creepy or disgusting or downright Hollyweird and the actors in this video an “abomination” of rich hypocrites then you are indeed and without dispute – A RACIST:
“I PLEDGE TO BE A SERVANT TO OUR PRESIDENT!” SEIG HEIL! WE WORK TO SERVE DER FUHRER!
The idiocy of Hollywood was in full bloom Thursday night when Gwyneth Paltrow turned an already-embarrassing Hollywood fundraiser into “The Dating Game.”
Paltrow — who hosted the event at her Brentwood home — gushed as she introduced President Obama, “You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly.”
She then showed utter ignorance about, and contempt for, the Constitution and separation of powers — the basic tenets of our government — by saying, “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”
It’s the latest example of how demeaning it has become for Presidents to act like circus animals — performing for crowds that will feed them … in this case, feed them with money to line political coffers.
It’s revolting that celebrities and other rich people feel such a need for self-importance — contributing money but ONLY if they can have their picture taken with the president and tell their friends they had dinner with him. If they’re so committed to him, just send him a check and let him stay in Washington and do his job.
Fact is … it has little to do with Obama. It’s about how the celebrity circus has sullied the Presidency of the United States.
If you think it is Barack Obama who is the head clown in the circus that has sullied the presidency – you are a racist.
But what about racist Alison Grimes? Let’s not forget to detail her racism.
By now you have surely heard that Alison Grimes denies the divinity of Barack Obama. This racist candidate for senate in Kentucky is willing to take the money raised by the black man but then in her racist state of Kentucky, which Hillary Clinton won in the 2008 primaries by something like 40 points, RACIST GRIMES won’t even admit she voted for the divine ONE.
Alison Grimes is a racist who will not campaign with the black man. Alison Grimes is in full racist dog whistle mode. RACIST GRIMES signals to her racist Kentucky voters that she too is a racist that will not be seen by the side of the holy black man who carries all our burdens. RACIST RACIST RACIST GRIMES.
She’s a racist alright:
RACIST GRIMES can prove us wrong. RACIST GRIMES can welcome the divine Barack, Der Führer Obama to campaign proudly at her side up and down Kentucky. IF ALISON GRIMES IS NOT A RACIST SHE WILL CAMPAIGN WITH BARACK OBAMA. IF ALISON GRIMES DOES NOT CAMPAIGN WITH BARACK OBAMA SHE IS A RACIST!
“Kentuckians expect her to cast a tough vote on anything?” Todd asked, barely concealing his disdain. “Is she ever going to answer a tough question on anything? You want to be a U.S. senator?”
“If you can’t say, if you can’t find a way to stand behind your party’s president — you can disagree with him — but you can’t answer that basic question?” he added incredulously. “I think she disqualified herself. I really do.”
Shaheen to MSNBC on whether or a not a campaign visit by Obama would be helpful “Well, the president is dealing with a lot of crises in the world right now. And I think it’s important for him to continue to address what’s happening with ISIS, to continue to address the Ebola scare. And so, I expect him to be in Washington.”
Shaheen will happily campaign with known RACIST Bill Clinton, but not Barack the holy one Obama. Yup. She’s a racist. IF ALISON GRIMESJEANNE SHAHEEN IS NOT A RACIST SHE WILL CAMPAIGN WITH BARACK OBAMA. IF ALISON GRIMESJEANNE SHAHEEN DOES NOT CAMPAIGN WITH BARACK OBAMA SHE IS A RACIST!
JEANNE SHAHEEN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RACIST DOG WHISTLE TO LILY WHITE RACIST NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTERS!
Because we are measured in our words and non-provocative we will not say outright that Wendy Davis is a racist or hates the disabled. The Barack Obama campaign of 2008 and 2012 would have instantly proclaimed Davis to hate the disabled and to be racist if she was a Republican. But good ol’ Wendy is an Obama Dimocrat.
Because we do have the evidence we will continue to denounce any Dimocrat who will not campaign alongside Barack Obama as a RACIST. We hope everyone, Republicans included help us stamp out this scourge every time a RACIST Dimocrat refuses to campaign with Der Fuhrer Barack Obama.
Some Barack Obama supporters who hate us might voice some suspicions as to why we are so very gung-ho against RACISM in this 2014 election. We will explain.
Barack Obama has made it clear that these November 2014 elections are a vote on his policies. Imagine what happens to Barack Obama and his policies if Obama Dimocrats lose in November 2014. It will be a complete rejection of Barack Obama’s policies that Republicans will point to in every dispute that arises in the next two years.
North America is not the source of Ebola. If not for those infected with Ebola from West Africa there would be no, ZERO, cases of Ebola in North America. And that is why there is no quarantine of West Africa.
No Ebola in North America therefore no imperative for the United States to waste money and waste resources in quixotic Obama projects to get himself loved around the world. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Barack Obama will send 3,000 American troops to West Africa to community organize and come into contact with Ebola. These will not be medical personnel. These will be military personnel engaged in nation building community organizing. Instead of the prime mission of the military, American troops will be utilized for tasks not in their portfolio.
As a bonus, Barack Obama and his freakshow Dimocrats will then attack the Pentagon budget as bloated. The Pentagon budget is indeed bloated. Some of the bloat comes from military misadventures. Some of the bloat comes from misguided “humanitarian” deployments of military personnel when others better suited to the task should get the job. These community organizing nation building deployments by the Pentagon will further weaken the overstretched American military and further waste funds.
What should be done? Quarantine West Africa and any country in Europe or elsewhere which has an eruption of Ebola. Then along with other countries provide medical and other help to the fight against the Ebola virus. It’s a humanitarian and intelligent response to a very real danger.
The Obama freakshow carneys attack Americans who make the case for a quarantine of countries in West Africa and, if necessary, elsewhere that are hotbeds of Ebola. The Obama freakshow carneys haughtily mock the calls for a quarantine as a “panic” by unscientific lowlifes that are not as expert as they are. Other Obama freaks denounce the calls for quarantines as “racist”.
The fact is we lowly Americans are much wiser and have the common sense that these freaks from the Obama freakshow do not possess. Anyone who has attended a school in the United States can well remember fellow classmates of all colors and races quarantined.
In high school we can well remember giggles because someone was quarantined because they had “mono”. Mononucleosis, the “kissing disease” usually afflicted the cutest classmates and sometimes enhanced their stature because… um, well, because. Got mumps” Yeah, you get quarantined too. It has noting to do with racism nor class, nor gender. You have a disease that is contagious, you get quarantined. It’s common sense.
Why are so many Americans so enraged about Ebola? It’s when you know something should obviously be done and instead you get attacked by holier-than-thou freaks who then pretend they are the Cool Hand Lukes and you are the pearl-clutching Betty that the rage ensues. Americans were assured by Obama that Ebola was unlikely to invade America. Now we have seen the first Ebola patient in North America die. Now there is another potential Ebola victim.
Where, you ask, did the authorities encounter this mystery man exhibiting Ebola-like symptoms? Why, at a local health clinic in Frisco, Texas. Unwitting patients and staffers who were inside the clinic with him are now being held and examined, all apparently because this guy didn’t think to call the CDC or the police from home and tell them what was going on.
It does not really matter to our argument whether or not this man has contracted Ebola. Look at how these “experts” who mock the “panic” and assure the American public they are the experts in charge and only mopes and dopes don’t trust them fully react in the most stupid of ways:
The patient, dressed in shorts and wearing a surgical mask and a plastic head covering, just walked out of the facility and into the ambulance, which had been covered in plastic. That patient will likely transported to Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, where Thomas Eric Duncan was hospitalized.
We are working to determine if this person is among the 48 people the Centers for Disease Control is monitoring. So far there has been no comment from the CDC, which already had a 3 p.m. press conference scheduled.
There are also conflicting reports concerning the patient. Frisco officials earlier said he claimed to have had contact with Thomas Eric Duncan, but Care Now says he told them he’d been to Africa.”
According to Spanish press reports quoting the Spanish nurses’ union, Romero called Carlos III hospital several times between September 30 and October 2 when her fever finally hit the 38.6 threshold. Still, it took until October 6 when she had become so deathly ill she was begging for an Ebola test before anyone at the hospital where she worked reportedly reacted. Then, rather than immediately isolating her and rushing her to the special ward used to treat the previous Ebola patients, they told her to go to the nearby emergency room at Alcorcón, where press reports say she sat in the public waiting room for several hours absent of any protective gear. “I think I have Ebola,” she reportedly told anyone who would listen. But no one took notice until her first test came back positive. By then, dripping with fevered sweat, she would have been inarguably contagious.
Trust the “experts”? On September 30, when this nurse called her doctor and told him/her that she had helped treat the recently dead Ebola patient, the doctor prescribed aspirin! For days she traveled to and fro, attended an event with tens of thousands in attendance and presumably sneezed and coughed whenever and wherever. We have great sympathy for this very experienced nurse and the many in West Africa suffering from Ebola either because they have the virus or are family or friends – but zero confidence in the “no quarantine” crowd. Maybe it’s time to quarantine travel from Spain too.
Republicans are really stupid when it comes to women and votes. Here it is, 2014 with lots of GOP women candidates and Republicans don’t know how to fight the Obama “war on women” nonsense.
Consider the Republican women candidates for U.S. Senate 2014: pediatric neurosurgeon Monica Wehby (Oregon); presumed next senator Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia); strong contender Joni Ernst (Iowa); Susan Collins (Maine) the incumbent and presumed winner; and with-in striking distance Terri Lynn Land (Michigan).
If you believe Obama propaganda all these women wage war against women even though they themselves are women. How can this be?
The phony “war on women” defines “women” as those of the female gender that follow a certain political persuasion. By this corrupt definition if you are a “pro-life” anti-abortion female you are not a woman. By this corrupt definition if you are a black female Christian who believes in personal responsibility not government intrusion into all spheres of life you are not a woman. By this corrupt definition if you would like to be able to buy contraceptives over-the-counter without additional costs forced on you because of a required Planned Parenthood visit to get contraceptives – profits going to Planned Parenthood – you are not a woman. See it is simple. Corruptly redefine to get the desired outcome.
You would think Republicans would catch on to the redefinition game and do some redefinitions of their own. But no. Daze haz da stupit.
Republican Terri Lynn Land who still has an outside chance of victory in the improbable Michigan senate race (latest poll has the race 41-46) faces attacks on the ridiculous “war on women” charge. Land responded with this fun ad:
We think the ad is amusing. The ad has some logic to it too with the little Land message at the very end. Well, “logic” unless you understand that according to Obama this Terri Lynn Land is not a woman because she does not believe what Obama and his henchmen believe.
We think the ad is amusing and we like it because of the snark. But should a campaign waste precious dollars and time airing this entertainment? Probably not. Frank Luntz explains why:
We’d like to disagree with Luntz who does not even get the candidate’s name right, but we can’t. There should be a better way to fight the “war on women” but the Republicans can’t seem to figure it out. Let’s help the poor dears.
First, if you have a lot of women candidates, why don’t you make sure the voters know how many? Why not produce an advertisement with the resources of the Republican National Committee to have all these women appear together in one strong ad with a unified message? A group of strong Republican women in one ad is a simple rejoinder to the Obama “war on women” rubbish. You know that phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words”? Well, a group picture of all the GOP senate candidates’ with plumbing that indicates they are indeed women is worth a lot more than a thousand words.
Second, you want to nationalize the elections? Well, what easier way than to nationalize the elections with a simple picture of all the Republican women running for senate across the entire country? These strong women can proclaim their policies to be family friendly, woman friendly, men friendly, children friendly, pet friendly, etc. They can proclaim they are under attack because they are women who think independently. Redefine the “war on women”.
Third, you want to win the “war on women” and get women voters to vote for your women (and men) candidates? Have you heard that “the best defense is a good offense“? Have these women candidates make their case together for why they should win. Why voters should vote for them. Don’t fight the “war on women” with snarky press releases and ads and leave out policy.
Bonus Forth reason: you get more Republican women in the Senate which by itself will increase the number of women in the senate and make it easier to run women for the senate in the future and win. The more women you elect the more you can redefine the “war on women” and win elections.
Republicans should follow our advice (Hillary should follow our advice too) but well… they just can’t help it. Republican “strategists” and “leadership” are a bit like ‘enry ‘iggins when it comes to election strategy.
Republicans have long complained that it’s unfair of Democrats to accuse them of waging a “war on women” largely based on their positions regarding abortion and birth control. Two years ago, the GOP party chair called it “a fiction,” suggesting Republicans have no more problem with women than they do with “caterpillars.” [snip]
The flurry of Republican ads targeting women confirm they know the gender gap is for real. But as the numbers indicate, the ads haven’t narrowed it; they often try too hard, miss the point and make the problem worse.
One way they do so is by feeding ham-fisted lines to bad actors. Take the ad “Talk,” produced by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS to help Colorado Republican Cory Gardner wrest a Senate seat from incumbent Mark Udall. The ad is supposed to depict four women friends casually chatting about the election, and implicitly rejecting Udall’s accusations that Gardner wants to ban some forms of birth control. But the conservation is clunky from the start.
“I want a real conversation about the issues that matter,” says the first woman, thereby declaring that the four “friends” shall commence just such a conversation.
“Unfortunately after 15 years in Washington, political scare tactics are all Mark Udall has left,” says the second, sounding more like a politician than a real person.
“We aren’t single-issue voters,” says the third, sounding more like a political consultant than an ordinary voter.
Or check out “Dating Profile,” made by Americans for Shared Prosperity, another male-run Republican outside group. The not-quite-clever premise is a single woman telling how she “fell in love” with an unspecified man’s “online profile” but now says the “relationship is in trouble” because of his failed promises. “He’s great at promises,” she huffs.
This ad tries to bluntly change the subject from reproductive freedom: “He thinks the only thing I care about is free birth control, but he won’t even let me keep my own doctor.” Then — surprise! — it turns out Barack Obama was online suitor.
Both of these ads also miss a larger point. They brusquely dismiss the concerns many women have about losing their reproductive freedom, and then decree what issues women should otherwise prioritize.
We praised Cory Gardner’s approach to contraceptives because he discussed it as a policy issue. Other male candidates for senate soon jumped on board with Garnder’s idea of over-the-counter sales of contraceptives.
Planned Parenthood opposes the Gardner proposal. Planned Parenthood does not want to help women gain access to cheaper contraceptives and also be able to forgo unnecessary doctor visits because Planned Parenthood does not want to lose profits. One would think GOP women candidates in a unified voice would lambaste Planned Parenthood and also support over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. But where are these Republican women? Where is this ad? Where is this counter-attack?
Republicans are violating the “customer is always right” maxim. You can’t tell a woman that her values are wrong if you want her vote. To reach these voters, candidates need to either address the substance of those concerns, or at least find a way to disagree without being dismissive of them.
Republicans can’t seem to communicate with women and when they try they speak down like less suave, less charmant , less talented versions of Henry Higgins to Eliza. There will be consequences.
Finally, the ads make the problem worse by depicting women as two-dimensional caricatures. When watching “Dating Profile,” you can almost see the men behind the curtain concluding that the only way to get single women to talk politics is to first talk about dating.
The latest transgression comes from the College Republican National Committee, which just cut nearly identical ads for six GOP gubernatorial candidates spoofing the bridal shop reality TV show “Say Yes to the Dress.” In “Say Yes to the Candidate,” a young bride-to-be named Brittany peruses a line of wedding dresses as she says, “Budget is a big deal for me now that I’ve just graduated from college.” In the Florida version, she gushes, “The ‘Rick Scott’ is perfect” because he’s a “trusted brand … with new ideas that don’t break your budget.”
Today’s Republicans should take a cue from Eisenhower. Simply go on the street with a camera, ask women if they’re voting Republican and, if so, why? Just maybe, the party will get some good answers, and learn something about what women voters actually want.
Don’t talk to women. Speak with women. Start with women candidates in conversation with voters. Start with GOP women candidates together. A picture is worth more than words.
[Hint for Republicans: Have one of your interns rewrite this article but substitute "gays" for "women". Then have the intern do another version this time for "African-Americans". Then try another one for "Latinos". It's about communication skills and letting everyone know you care and want their vote and will organize your candidates to make as diverse an appeal as possible. Convince everyone your policies are the best. After Obama that should be really easy. Try it also for "white working class" males and "middle class families". After the intern is done with the rewrites, implement the words into actions. Soon you'll have a governing majority in Mainstreet U.S.A.]
Barack Obama’s policies towards a “managed decline” are a purposeful destruction of America. Those that aid and abet Barack Obama’s purposeful destruction of America tried, with some great level of success thus far, to publicly distance themselves from Barack Obama even as their recorded votes demonstrate they are locked in step with Barack Obama’s destructive policies. Now these ghouls are exposed. The credit goes to 28 words from the lips of Barack Obama:
Instead, Obama just gave every Republican ad-maker in the country more fodder for negative ads linking Democratic candidates to him.
Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention (they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” Boil those four sentences down even further and here’s what you are left with: “Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.“
You can imagine Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina or Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky grimacing when they heard those 28 words. That trio has spent much of the campaign insisting that this election is NOT about Barack Obama, that it is instead about a choice between themselves and their opponents.
It doesn’t take a political mastermind to realize that an ad in which the President of the United States says “Make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them” might not be helpful to the Democratic candidates trying to run away from him this November.
Read his lips: No more Obama Dimocrats. As the Washington Post notes this does not help Obama Dimocrats in sheeps clothing. Obama “(on video no less!) bluntly insisting that an election in 33 days is indeed a referendum on his policies. Republicans couldn’t have written a better script than that.”
Yup, Republicans couldn’t have written a better script. So why try to improve on the perfect?
“Alison Grimes says this election is not about her support for Barack Obama and his failed polices,” a narrator says over footage of a Grimes commercial that showed her shooting a gun. “But Obama himself says a vote for Alison is a vote for his policies.”
Hillary Clinton will campaign for Grimes soon. The Clinton’s are friends with the Grimes family and the Clintons have a political debt to pay. It makes no sense otherwise to campaign for Grimes.
In Kansas, Barack Obama struck with his machete tongue. Republican Pat Roberts, a squishy RINO, was in trouble because Roberts resides in Washington D.C., not Kansas, in more ways than one. Republicans abandoned Roberts after a particularly nasty primary. Now Barack Obama has come to the rescue of Republican Roberts:
“I am not on the ballot this fall … But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot — every single one of them,” he said.
In Kansas, the Roberts ad, which will air statewide, replays Obama’s remarks and agrees that his policies are on the ballot — including Obamacare, the increased national debt and the number of Americans out of work. A vote for Roberts’ opponent, independent Greg Orman, would be as good as “a vote for the Obama agenda,” a narrator says.
Roberts has been painstakingly trying to connect Orman to Obama, even though the independent insists he’s not beholden to either party and hasn’t decide who he’d align with if he wins. That’s why this clip was such catnip for Roberts ad-maker Wilson Grand.
Pat Roberts was deservedly in re-election trouble. In the RCP average he is over 5 points behind. But Kansas is a strong Republican state and Republican leadership voices from Bob Dole to Sarah Palin have begun to campaign for Roberts. The alleged independent is more than likely a vote for Harry Reid and Barack Obama’s policies. Thanks to Barack Obama the issue in Kansas is now clear for Republican voters. Unless Orman begins to attack the policies of Barack Obama with full ferocity Orman will lose.
‘Read my lips, this November my policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.’
As the Obama administration crashes and burns, insiders begin to blame Valerie Jarrett.
Are significant chunks of the mainstream media in despair over Barack Obama? This past week, Obama used 60 Minutes to attempt to shift blame for the failure to anticipate the rise of ISIS, endured a cover-up of White House security disasters by the Secret Service, and saw a government-agency report that he had skipped nearly 60 percent of his intelligence briefings.
The reaction from some longtime Obama defenders was swift and harsh. “President Obama this week committed professional suicide,” wrote former CNN host Piers Morgan, now an editor-at-large for Britain’s Daily Mail.
He called Obama’s throwing of the intelligence community under the bus a “shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing” that will result in some analysts’ exacting “cold-blooded revenge on Obama by drip-feeding negative stories about him until he’s gone.” As for the Secret Service fiasco, Morgan said it was “no wonder the Secret Service gets complacent when The Boss exudes complacency from every pore.”
Chris Matthews of MSNBC, the former White House speechwriter who once rapturously recounted that he “felt this thrill going up my leg” as Obama spoke, didn’t hold back on Wednesday’s Hardball. “Let’s get tough here,” Matthews began, as he lambasted Obama for being “intellectually lazy” and “listening to the same voices all the time.” He even named names, saying that Obama had become “atrophied into that little world of people like Valerie Jarrett and Mrs. Obama.”
Jonathan Alter, a columnist for Bloomberg News and the author of a sympathetic book on Obama’s first term, reported that Jarrett is an unusual presence in the White House: “Staffers feared her, but didn’t like or trust her. At meetings she said little or nothing, instead lingering afterwards to express her views directly to the President, creating anxiety for her underlings and insulting them by saying, ‘I don’t talk just to hear myself talking.’”
Everyone expects a presidential spouse to weigh in on issues, but the reference to Valerie Jarrett, the White House senior adviser who mentored both the president and the first lady at the start of their careers in Chicago, is telling. Her outsize role in many presidential decisions is known to insiders, but she remains resolutely behind the scenes. So when Jarrett does enter the news, it’s significant, because it may provide a window into how the Obama White House really works.
As the corpse of the Obama presidency freezes up tuning Barack’s lips purple-er Barack defenders are now ready to blame the women. It’s a war on women closest to Barack, under the bus style. Valerie Jarrett is a monster and Michelle Obama is an old style Chicago ward boss spawn who loves to Mooch. But the problem is Barack Obama.
Jarrett is an abuser of the under-staffed Secret Service from whom she receives undeserved round-the-clock protection. Jarrett is a monster. But deep down the cobwebbed halls the knives are out to behead her. ‘I’m a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me.’”
The Insiders: Obama’s policies and management are on the ballot
Good for President Obama. It is not unfair to extrapolate out from the president’s own words and argue that his management record is also on the ballot. Which brings us to the obvious question about the management of the latest crisis: the Ebola epidemic. [snip]
And given all the lies and incompetence we have witnessed from this administration, it is not unreasonable to be skeptical about what the White House is saying. It isn’t cynical or partisan to believe that mistakes are being made today and that we are not being told the whole truth.
There are plenty of examples to illustrate this administration’s inability to manage things — from Obamacare to the Veterans Affairs Department to the IRS to combating terrorists in Syria and Iraq (including the Islamic State) to the Secret Service. Just look at CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen, who relates her own incredible, shocking experience returning through U.S. customs from Liberia with her colleagues, reporting that they were not uniformly questioned about their potential exposure to Ebola or screened for the disease.
The Ebola threat is a vivid illustration of why competence in government matters, and recent history confirms that Obama and the Democrats can’t deliver. Voters can see for themselves that there is a pattern of how the Obama administration deals with a crisis. After mistakes are revealed, the White House will first deny anything is wrong, then proclaim the problem is being fixed, next say everything is fine and finally deflect any blame from the president by blaming President George W. Bush or crying about partisanship in Washington. In addition, the White House will claim that Obama didn’t know anything until he saw it in the newspaper, and then it will move on to the next crisis in short order.
The president was right to say that his policies are on the ballot; whether it was wise to do so depends on your perspective. I’m sure that his partners in governance — a.k.a. the Democrats on the ballot in November — are not happy about it, but voters have every reason to make this election a referendum on how the president and his party have performed over the past six years and whether more of the same is desirable.
The structure of the president’s speech was familiar. First, blame his predecessor for leaving the economy a shambles. Second, tout a few “accomplishments,” such as enacting Obamacare and fighting for financial regulation that has made it harder for people to get mortgages. Finally, call for the same economic prescriptions he has been promoting since 2011.
But the speech quickly became noteworthy for the pronouncement that simultaneously delighted Republicans everywhere and caused huge headaches for every vulnerable Democrat seeking re-election:
“Make no mistake,” Obama said of his agenda. “These policies are on the ballot. Every single one.”
With those few words, the president turned an election that many Democrats wanted to make about local issues into one that will be decided on his national policies. Vulnerable Senate incumbents such as Mark Pryor, Mark Begich and Mary Landrieu can no longer talk about all they have done for Arkansas, Alaska and Louisiana. They now have to answer for Obamacare, the uneven recovery, and instability in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. [snip]
The working-age population has risen since October 2009, but the number of people who aren’t in the labor force has increased by 11.7 million. Since he took office, workforce participation has dropped steadily, from 65.7 percent to the current 62.8 percent. Average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, are down from $10.38 to $10.33. And the number of people in poverty has risen by more than a million from 2008 to 2013.
It’s a terrible cement filled worn out rubber tire of a noose for Obama to hang Dimocrats with. In state after state, Obama Dimocrats are dead because of Barack Obama:
Many voters in states with competitive Senate races have already taken their measure of the president and his policies. His approval ratings are in the low 40s in these states, and this impression of him isn’t changing before November. A broad majority thinks the country is on the wrong track, and Obama earns low grades for his handling of almost everything, from jobs and the economy to foreign policy.
Maybe it was good, then, that Obama gave his speech in Illinois, one of the few places where Democrats still welcome his presence. But vulnerable Democrats in other states are wishing that what he said in suburban Chicago could have just stayed there.
Why Is First Lady Scarce in Campaign? Her Last Name Is Obama
MILWAUKEE — She can rouse a crowd as she did here this week, connect with women and drive turnout among African-American voters. Yet despite the nail-biting closeness of state contests to decide which party will control the Senate, Michelle Obama has been largely absent from the campaign trail so far.
She has her reasons, Democrats say: Mrs. Obama hates to be away from her daughters. She loathes Washington’s toxic politics. She resents Republicans for their opposition to her husband’s agenda. But she also believes some Senate Democrats have been insufficiently supportive of her own efforts to end childhood obesity.
Michelle Obama, like a dutiful daughter of Chicago ward politics does not want to do anything unless she is paid up front in cash. Or in travel to exotic places on the taxpayer dime. Michelle Obama wants to be paid.
Michelle Obama will campaign for some governors. No doubt even she does not want to get blamed for the November disaster a’coming (N.B. to Hillary: get a clue) in the senate races. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton “crisscrossed the country for Democrats in 1998, visiting about 20 states”. Michelle Robinson wears that Obama scar and senate candidates worry her “deeply unpopular” husband’s name is a cement filled tire and “Mrs. Obama’s presence would tie them too closely to the president they are trying to distance themselves from“.
In 1998 Hillary Rodham Clinton became “a one-woman campaign machine” and “the hottest politician in the land,” according to the New York Times article lamenting Michelle Obama’s disappearance from the campaign trail.
Registered voters are more likely to view their choice of candidate in this year’s midterm elections as a message of opposition (32%) rather than support (20%) for President Barack Obama. That 12-percentage-point margin is similar to what Gallup measured for Obama in 2010 and George W. Bush in 2006, years in which their parties performed poorly in the midterm elections.
In 1998 Bill Clinton was in his sixth year in office facing impeachment and at 60% popularity. Hillary Clinton campaigned ceaselessly in every part of the country. Instead of a disaster, seats were gained in the House and there were no losses in the Senate. It’s not 1998.
It’s 2014. “Read my lips, this November my policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.’
Update: Obama corporate culture strikes again – Ebola Obama Infects CDC. The Director of the CDC said some remarkably stupid political, not medical, assertions which echo from the Obama refusal to secure the nation’s borders.
First, nobody is arguing flights carrying medical personnel should be banned in and out of West Africa. People who argue for flight restrictions are referring to flights that allow anyone from the U.S. to get on a plane and head to Liberia or other countries and then returning after filling out a less than effective medical screening form. The man with the case of Ebola in Dallas isn’t a medical worker, he went over to attend a funeral and after helping a woman sick with the disease and came back to the U.S. anyway. Second, France, England and a slew of Africa countries have either restricted travel or sealed off borders to prevent the disease from spreading.
So how exactly is the CDC screening for Ebola before people leave West Africa for the U.S.? What preventative measures are being taken? As he said in the clip above, “We are doing very good temperature screening.”
As we wrote below, Obama sending thousands of American troops to fight Ebola in Africa is dangerous. These troops are not medical personnel. We’ve already seen that even trained medical personnel can contract Ebola despite all the medical “protocols” in place. The wackadoodle-two-headed-dentist has a point: ‘Can You Imagine If a Whole Ship Full of Our Soldiers Catch Ebola?’
Barack Obama said it was “unlikely” to happen here. But it’s here. And Ebola might have spread to D.C. where Obama should be able to see it close up. Michelle might have to trade her cocktail waitress clothes for designer Hazmat outfits. Ebola has already struck Obama protection headquarters MSNBC.
Corporate culture. The CEO is the face of the organization The CEO imbues the organization with the “corporate culture”. What is the corporate culture of the Obama White House?
Obama corporate culture reflects the lazy, naive, “blame the staff”, “let someone else do the work I only set the direction then go golf”, zero accomplishment on behalf of others history, zero executive experience, spew words unconnected to action, politically correct tampering, politically exploitative pseudo-idealism, self-interested, selfish, bumbling, stumbling, refusal to admit he is in over his head while the ship sinks, know-nothing know-it-all-ism, culture embodied by Barack Obama himself all his life.
Is anyone surprised that those at the greatest proximity to Barack Obama are infected the most by Barack Obama corporate culture? Once one of the most respected of organizations the United States Secret Service is infected by Obama corporate culture.
Obama apologists know that the Obama corporate culture is exposed to the public the more the unraveled mess world-wide continues. The New York Times, knows. The Obama Dimocrats know. Everyone knows that Obama is not up to the job. The worry by these Obama stalwart dead-enders is that the truth is exposed:
Democrats joined in the grilling, and some were as tough as or tougher than any Republican on the Secret Service director, Julia Pierson. But privately, some Democratic officeholders and strategists have complained that the episode contributes to a broader impression that the Obama administration’s competence has come under fire on a variety of fronts, including last year’s botched rollout of Mr. Obama’s health care program, the breakdown of services at the Veterans Affairs Department and the handling of a series of international crises.
Coming just weeks before midterm elections, they said, the intense focus on the matter might further undercut confidence in the government Mr. Obama runs even though it was hardly his fault an intruder with a knife made it into the White House.
“This is an opportunity to make it seem like nobody’s in charge in the Obama administration, even though it’s almost certainly not the case that political appointees could have done anything to change the facts in this situation,” said Matt Bennett, a White House aide under President Bill Clinton and now vice president of Third Way, a political group. “I’m not surprised that they’re doing this.” [snip]
“I do think for a lot of Republican congressmen, this is a twofer,” said Erik Smith, a former House Democratic aide and a campaign adviser to Mr. Obama. “The Secret Service may be in the line of fire, but they’re not the only target.”
After days of strong Obama White House support for the politically correct first woman Secret Service director – appointed to end the earlier Obama White House Secret Service problems – the pink slip arrived today. Breaking: Pierson resigns.
Navy sailors distrust commanders, fear crippling political correctness
Complain of zero-tolerance disciplinary environment, excessive political correctness
Navy sailors harbor “widespread mistrust” in the admirals who command them, complaining of poor leadership and a disciplinary environment that tolerates absolutely no mistakes, says a survey of the fleet.
The disgruntlement runs deepest in the officer corps, where scores of commanders have been relieved of duty in recent years. [snip]
“What was originally intended to demonstrate accountability to the public has, instead, resulted in a significant breach of trust with our sailors and resulting in an almost ‘reality TV’ mentality.”
The independent survey was released amid complaints by some aviators about excessive political correctness as the military seeks to stamp out sexual harassment and misconduct in an increasingly gender-integrated Navy.
“Most troubling is the perception sailors hold of senior leadership,” the report says under the heading “Widespread Distrust of Senior Leadership.”
“Sailors feel strongly about their distrust of senior leadership, and believe the Navy has a significant risk-averse culture and zero-defect mentality,” the report says.
Instead of doing their jobs sailors are at the equivalent of Human Resources classes on gender studies at sea. A “risk adverse” mentality in the armed forces repudiates American military history from Trenton to Midway. But it is politically correct.
Politically incorrect, we have written that Obama will get us all killed. We’ve also taken to write about “Ebola Obama” because of how no candidate for office wants to be seen with him. But “Ebola Obama” might get us all killed with… Ebola.
Obama assured us all that Ebola would not erupt in America. Now there is a man from Liberia with Ebola in America. Even Chris O’Tingles notices Obama’s assurances on Ebola are not exactly accurate:
Chris Matthews vs. Ezekiel Emanuel on Ebola: “Obama Said It Was Unlikely. It Has Happened. It’s Here”
On MSNBC’s Hardball tonight, host Chris Matthews tussled with Obamacare architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel over the how serious a threat Ebola is to Americans. Matthews and Emanuel also spar over President Obama saying it was “unlikely” that an Ebola case would strike the U.S.
“Obama said it was unlikely. It has happened. It’s here,” Matthews said. [snip]
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I’m just trying to follow the logic here. Everybody’s being told, don’t worry unless they have the infectious symptoms, you can see them, that you don’t have to worry about catching them. Yet, this guy picked up the disease apparently from somebody who did not have the infectious symptoms.
DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: Again, don’t hypothesize because we just don’t know. We have no idea what he did or didn’t do and how he got it. I’m sure that’s going to be vital information to try to understand the transmission, but the idea that there’s going to be a widespread outbreak here, I think is just, again, it’s a bit of fear mongering. We have a single case. This is not a big, widespread –
MATTHEWS: Yeah, yeah, but I’m just going back to the president’s statement, doctor, and that is that the president said it would be unlikely if we had a case in this country. Unlikely to even have one case. You want to see the tape again?
EMANUEL: He said there wouldn’t be an Ebola outbreak.
MATTHEWS: No, and in the second part of his sentence he said in the unlikely case someone brings it here. In the unlikely case someone brings it here. Well, they’ve done it. We’re living in the world of the unlikely already. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not fear mongering. I’m stating the facts and I wonder if everybody else is. [snip]
MATTHEWS: No, the president said it was unlikely two weeks ago. Well, it’s not the unlikely, it has happened. It’s here.
Ebola must be fought but the idea of thousands of non-medical personnel sent into the cauldron of Ebola infections appears to be a politically correct exercise and does not seem wise. But few will say so. It’s politically incorrect.
Ebola Obama is protected says Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan was once the left’s icon/goddess due to her protests against George W. Bush and the Iraq war. The left now views Sheehan as Ebola ridden because Sheehan persists with her antiwar protests at a time when the left is only interested in protection of Barack Obama.
Sheehan said the left anti war movement is being ignored by the democrats because they are “reverse racists” who are supporting Obama only because he is an African-American.
She said, “I think that there are some people on the so called left, who might say we have to circle our wagons around the first African American president, and to me that is racism in reverse because his policies are actually still the racist policies of empire.”
She’s still a bit of a loon with that “racist policies of empire talk” but her point on Obama’s skin color as the main motivational factor in support for him from the left is on target. The left makes the judgment of a person based on skin color and that is the rankest form of racism. Hate for someone’s actions based on skin color is racist. Admiration for someone’s actions based on skin color is also racist. The left is racist and hypocritical and ultimately self-destructive.
But the left does not care about it’s hypocrisies nor it’s racism. All it cares about is protection of Ebola Obama. But Ebola Obama kills. As the Left is about to find out. In the House, in the Senate, in the statehouses.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."