Strange New Respect Mode: On

25 10 2016

Los Angeles


Obama: McCain and Romney Were ‘Honorable,’ Wouldn’t Have Worried About ‘General Course’ of US If They Had Won

On Monday’s broadcast of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” President Obama said of his former opponents Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R), “they’re both honorable men, and if they had won, then I wouldn’t worry about the general course of this country.”

Obama stated, “[T]here is something qualitatively different about the way Trump has operated in the political sphere. I — look, I ran against John McCain. I ran against Mitt Romney. Obviously, I thought that I could do a better job, but they’re both honorable men, and if they had won, then I wouldn’t worry about the general course of this country.”

Funny, I remember 2008 and 2012 pretty well; I was a thirtysomething during both of those election seasons, and I was lucky to squeeze out one more Presidential season as a thirtysomething. And what I remember is that John McCain was a dangerous hot head who would be Bush’s third term and couldn’t be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button, even though he was an old fogey klutz because he had never sent an e-mail in his life. Mitt Romney killed women because he denied them health care after having hog tied his dog to the roof of his gas guzzling SUV.

If nothing drastic changes in the country and Hillary wins, then four years from now, as Hillary is running for re-election versus the Republican nominee of 2020, everyone then will develop strange new respect for Donald Trump. “You know, at least he was a moderate-liberal on social issues, he openly appealed to LGBTQ, made Peter Thiel the first gay RNC speaker, and had some innovative proposals on a lot of things and genuinely cared about working people. Unlike the evil reprobate the Republicans sent up this year, a social issue Neanderthal and total elitist corporate-plutocrat shill who can’t deviate even one iota from conservative orthodoxy.”  In fact, I’m making this my first post in the new category “Campaign 2020” so we’ll be able to check back in four years to see if I’m right; of course, if Trump wins, I wouldn’t possibly be able to be right unless he declines to run for a second term.


Birther Death Certificate

17 09 2016

Washington, D.C.

The best thing that fell out of the design of Trump trolling and Rickrolling the media is that for the first time, the Clintons and Sid Vicious are having to go on the defensive and be held accountable for the fact that they originated this Obama birther business.  What that’s doing is making most people aware that the Clintons started it, and that was not widely known before yesterday.

I never paid much attention to it, nor cared for it as a tactic, for two main reasons:

1. What Hunter Wallace said.

2. That even if the matter was pressed in Federal court, they would find, “at best,” that while the American citizenship laws that were extant in 1961 meant that Baraq Obama was not a natural born citizen (if he was actually born in Kenya), that they would find them unconstitutional, that they should have never existed, and that Mr. Obama was indeed a natural born citizen because he has one American parent.

Je Me Souviens

8 06 2016


Claire McCaskill was a very early endorser of Baraq Obama’s Presidential campaign in 2007, which was her own first year in the Senate.

Who was Obama’s main political opponent in the Democrat primaries and caucuses that year?

Oh yeah, right.

Reevaluating Obama

11 08 2015

Los Angeles


Bernie Sanders, Phenomenon?

Bernie Sanders. Folks, I have to tell you something.  Bernie Sanders is drawing record crowds.  Portland, Seattle, and now Los Angeles. (interruption) What are you frowning at in there?  (interruption)  It is amazing, but wait.  Let’s put this in perspective.  Let’s go back seven years, shall we? Maybe eight years.  At this time in the 2008 presidential campaign, everybody thought Barack Hussein O was a political phenomenon.

We thought the crowds, we thought the excitement and the cult-like atmosphere was unique to him.  It turns out that Obama wasn’t a phenomenon at all.  The phenomenon happens to be anybody who runs against Hillary in a Democrat primary.  I mean, that’s the way I, your beloved host, choose to look at this.  Bernie Sanders?  Come on.  Nothing against Bernie.  He’s a nice old codger, and he’s an honest but insignificant little socialist from Vermont.  A perfectly fine human being.

He’s wrong about everything, but he’s harmless.  Bernie Sanders drawing record crowds?  Barack Obama drew record crowds.  What’s the common denominator?  Hillary Clinton.  I’m here to tell you that the big secret here, the thing that nobody wants to talk about. Maybe they figured this out on the Democrat side, I don’t know. But it sure seems to me that in this primary cycle and in 2008…

I mean, you got Obama. He came out of nowhere. Nobody knew who he was.  I mean, he hadn’t made a speech.  I’m not trying to put Obama down here.  I’m trying to be honest and perspective.  He is getting these record crowds, and we all thought, “Oh, my God!” “Oh,” we thought, “he’s Bill Clinton Jr. able to fool all these people with all these platitudinous speeches.”  It turns out given what we’ve seen with Bernie Sanders that the common denominator is in the Democrat Party.

They’re gonna treat anybody this way who runs against Hillary, whoever is the first out of the box.  It might have been Martin O’Malley, but he waited.  It might have been Jim Webb, but he waited.  I’m not denying that Bernie Sanders’ uber, extreme, off the charts left-wing radical liberalism is not a factor; it is.  Because that’s what the Democrat Party has become.  I’m not take anything away from him here, don’t misunderstand.

In other words, maybe the Obama phenomenon in 2008 wasn’t about Obama himself or anything about him, race included.  If Bernie Sanders is drawing the same multitudes in 2015 that Obama drew in 2007-8, it means that the multitudes have nothing to do with any one person or the distinguishing characteristics of any one person.  Rush is half right in noticing that the common denominator is HRC, but I think there’s another crucial half to the puzzle. Remember, there were other Democrats running in 2008 other than Obama and HRC, but Obama was the only one who could mount a serious challenge to her which did wind up beating her in the end. Likewise, there are other Democrats running other than Sanders and HRC, but so far, Sanders is the only one who is drawing huge crowds and is the only one who is close to a threat to HRC in the polls. The difference is that the campaigns of both Baraq Obama and Bernie Sanders openly challenged HRC from the populist hard left.  Meaning that as it turns out, the allure of Obama wasn’t his half-blackness, because Sanders isn’t black.  The attraction is that grassroots liberals don’t want the crony corporatist neoliberalism that HRC represents.

Remember what happened in the long run with Obama — He won the nomination and then the Presidency, but some time in between he started sucking up to the big money corporatist interests that orbit the Democrat Party in particular and also the ones that orbit both parties.


12 01 2014

Arlington, Virginia

The Hill, on the Clinton, Inc. making a list and checking it twice:

When the Clintons sat in judgment, Claire McCaskill got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in Missouri in 2006. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a “Meet the Press” debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent in October 2006.

“He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

Instantly, McCaskill regretted her remark; the anguish brought her “to the point of epic tears,” according to a friend. She knew the comment had sounded much more deliberate than a forgivable slip of the tongue. So did Hillary, who immediately canceled a planned fundraiser for McCaskill.

A few days later McCaskill called Bill Clinton to offer a tearful apology. Bill was gracious, which just made McCaskill feel worse. After winning the seat, she was terrified of running into Hillary Clinton in the Capitol. “I really don’t want to be in an elevator alone with her,” McCaskill confided to the friend.

But Hillary, who was just then embarking on her presidential campaign, still wanted something from McCaskill—the Missourian’s endorsement. Women’s groups, including EMILY’s List, pressured McCaskill to jump aboard the Clinton bandwagon, and Hillary courted her new colleague personally, setting up a one-on-one lunch in the Senate Dining Room in early 2007. Rather than ask for her support directly, Hillary took a softer approach, seeking common ground on the struggles of campaigning, including the physical toll. “There’s a much more human side to Hillary,” McCaskill thought.

Obama, meanwhile, was pursuing her too, in a string of conversations on the Senate floor. Clearly, Hillary thought she had a shot at McCaskill. But for McCaskill, the choice was always whether to endorse Obama or stay on the sidelines. In January 2008 she not only became the first female senator to endorse Obama but she also made the case to his team that her support would be amplified if Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano came out for him at roughly the same time.

McCaskill offered up a small courtesy, calling Hillary’s personal aide, Huma Abedin, ahead of the endorsement to make sure it didn’t blindside Hillary.

But the trifecta of women leaders giving Obama their public nod was a devastating blow. Hate is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill, who seemed to deliver a fresh endorsement of Obama—and a caustic jab at Hillary—every day during the primary.

And why did all these prominent women break early for Obama over HRC?  Because…Reverse Queen Bee Syndrome aka Female Crabs in a Bucket Syndrome.

As someone who was on the other side of Claire McCaskill’s ledger in 2012, from my vantage point, she got absolutely no help from Clinton, Inc. that year.

Many of the other names on the traitor side of the ledger were easy to remember, from Ted Kennedy to John Lewis, the civil rights icon whose defection had been so painful that Bill Clinton seemed to be in a state of denial about it. In private conversations, he tried to explain away Lewis’s motivations for switching camps midstream, after Obama began ratcheting up pressure for black lawmakers to get on “the right side of history.”

Lewis, because of his own place in American history and the unique loyalty test he faced with the first viable black candidate running for president, is a perfect example of why Clinton aides had to keep track of more detailed information than the simple binary of for and against. Perhaps someday Lewis’s betrayal could be forgiven.

Ted Kennedy (another seven on the hit list) was a different story.

He had slashed Hillary worst of all, delivering a pivotal endorsement speech for Obama just before the Super Tuesday primaries that cast her as yesterday’s news and Obama as the rightful heir to Camelot. He did it in conjunction with a New York Times op-ed by Caroline Kennedy that said much the same thing in less thundering tones. Bill Clinton had pleaded with Kennedy to hold off, but to no avail.

John Lewis is easy to explain — Race race race race race.  Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama over HRC is harder to figure, but I think I know the answer, though it might be an answer he took to his grave so we’ll never be able to confirm in this world — One hint to the answer is the use of the word “Camelot” here.  The only Kennedy that was ever President was John, and only for 1,036 days.  If HRC would have been elected President in 2008, it would have meant that the Clintons would have instantly become more of a credible Democrat Presidential dynasty than the Kennedys, by definition of two different Clintons winning the White House as opposed to just one Kennedy.  If I’m right, look for either an above or below the surface jihad from the remaining living political Kennedys to bring down HRC when the Presidential campaign season begins in the second half of next year going into early 2016.

Other reasons why I don’t think HRC is inevitable in 2016.

Behind You, All the Way

19 03 2012

This image has been on the Drudge Report all day.  Yeah, the angle that Santorum was for Romney in 2008 is the most obvious.

What grabbed my eye is who is in the background.  I won’t blame you for not knowing who he is, because most of you aren’t supposed to know.  But I won’t even blame you even if you’re supposed to know and don’t; he’s been that passe and irrelevant for a long time.

He’s very relevant to me.

Pop quiz:  Who is he, and why is he relevant to me?


Six days of nobody having the answer is enough.

It is former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt (2004-8), son of current U.S. Senator Roy Blunt.

Why is he relevant to me?  All this St. Louis Countian have to do is look at my drivers license with the CCW endorsement.

While it was under his predecessor as Governor, Bob Holden, that CCW was passed (over his veto, that was the subject matter of the very first post on this blog), the bill that ultimately got passed forgot to require the collection of a permit fee.  St. Louis City and St. Louis County hid behind the Hancock Amendment curtain to deny issuing anyone permits, even though every other county in the state had no Hancock problems.  It was just an accidental legal loophole that St. Louis City and County exploited not to issue permits.  It wasn’t until Matt Blunt’s first year as Governor that the General Assembly passed the fix and Blunt signed it.  If Claire McCaskill would have won Governor in 2004, (yes, her), she probably wouldn’t have signed the fix legislation, or the General Assembly would have had to try to override like they did CCW in general in 2003.

Buyer’s Regret Presents Itself in Georgia

2 12 2008

In the days and weeks before the election on November 4, a lot of talking heads thought that if Barack H. Obama won, that there would be a lot of buyer’s regret in the weeks after the election.

Today’s special election in Georgia is the first numerical evidence of it, I think.

Let me start off by saying that I wanted Saxby Chambliss to lose.  He’s an amnestyaire and bailoutaire.  Based on that, I’m not happy with tonight’s results.

In November, McCain beat Obama in Georgia by a 52-47 margin, a 5-point win.  Saxby Chambliss got 49.75% in the Senate race, compared to Jim Martin’s 46.83%, not even a 3-point spread.  Since Chambliss didn’t get above 50%, Georgia law required a runoff between the top two votegetters.

With 96% of the boxes counted in today’s runoff, Chambliss has 57.6%, to Martin’s 42.4%.

The most pressing issue for conservatives in the last several years has been immigration, and the biggest issue in the last few months has been the bailout.  On those issues, Chambliss = McCain = President Bush.  For the tenure of his time in the Senate, Chambliss has been closer to President Bush than John McCain.  But both Chambliss, McCain and Bush suffered from the sullied Republican brand name thanks to the latter, in the minds of 2008 voters.  Jim Martin = Obama in that he actively courted Obama’s support, and the support of Obama’s rapper friends, and even used vacated Obama offices in Georgia for his own runoff campaign.  Sarah Palin campaigned hard in the state for Chambliss.  In essence, this was McCain vs Obama all over again in Georgia, one month later.

So, in a matter of one month, Chambliss went from 49.75 to 57.6, Martin sank from 46.83 to 42.4.  Chambliss’s 57.6 today is higher than McCain’s 52.1 percent in November.  That means a 5.5 swing for Chambliss over McCain in a month, and 7.85 percent swing for Chambliss over himself in a month.  Split the difference, and let’s say that this represents a 6.6% swing towards the Republicans in Georgia in a month.

That said, if you apply that 6.6% swing as a “buyer’s regret” within a month to the Presidential election, this would swing VA, NC, OH, IN and FL from blue to red.  It wouldn’t be enough to swing the other states that swung from red to blue from 2004 to 2008, like IA, NM, CO, NV.  So Obama would have still won with 279 electoral college votes, with a very slight (about 0.35%) popular vote win, if you take the 6.95% he did win by and take away the 6.6% buyer’s regret.