So Much for That

Back in 2013 a shutdown occurred.  The media helped the Democrats spin it as a horrible event for the GOP.  It was supposed to have fallout..

All of this news, has been music to many Democrats ears, many of whom believe the last three weeks -- and the Republicans fledgling poll numbers around the shutdown -- have made it less likely the those vulnerable Democrats will lose in 2014.

Before the shutdown, Jim Manley, a longtime Senate Democratic aide, said the vulnerability of Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina made Democrats losing control of the Senate a possibility. Now, he is far more bullish on his party's chances in both the Senate and House.

"I think that for the first time, in light of what has happened, I think for the first time we can honestly take a look at it and question whether it is possible" to keep control of the Senate and win the House, Manley said. "The Republican Party brand is broken and I am not sure if it can be fixed."

What was that Yogi Berra said about making predictions? They are tough because they involve the future? Or maybe it can be chalked up to the mainstream media doing what they do.  

Impeachment

It's clear as to why John Boehner gave an unequivocal "no" on the impeachment question--rank politics.  Let's face it, he's not a principled conservative, he's a political playa who understands the game.  And the game continues to be using pushback (proposed or actual) against the president as an example of racism and hate.  Democrats know the Tea Party exists on principle.  Game playing isn't something they do well.  So they can be gamed. 

That's why we get stuff like this:



The prez is a playa, too.  He's such a playa he's managed to make some believe he's not a playa. He needs enthusiasm, anger and spirit from those who typically don't come out to vote in a mid-term election.  So he uses canards and race cards to stoke the flame, hoping for the best. It also helps him to divide the opposition, something else Boehner knows.  Let's face it, Democrats don't care about means, it's the ends that count.  Winning keeps the hope and change train rolling, American institutions be damned if they get in the way. 

Impeachment?  No Speaker should ever remove it from the table.  An actual constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley, has outlined the abuses of power he claims have brought our system of government close to a tipping point.  So yes, some non-racist individuals have been talking about the executive abuses and others have discussed the constitutional remedy. This is racist?   Whether the abuse has reached a level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' yet is debatable, probably not--but Boehner knows he can't do much more than offer a lawsuit against the first black president or risk losing it all.  It's ugly, but shrewd.   

Speaking of rank politics, it's funny how the president was painted as a constitutional scholar during the 2008 campaign.  They were clearly using it to contrast him with the evil Bush, who everyone accused of having an "imperial presidency" with a "unitary executive".  Now that Obama has said that abusing his power is just "doing my job" and that his opponents are 'hatin' for actually doing the job they were elected to do, nobody is mentioning those C-V credentials anymore.

Political Chaos Theory

What's with all the chaos? Drudge has been blathering out link after link about the border problems for a week while the administration pretends there's no crisis whatsoever.  This government's inaction--especially from the Commander-in-Chief charged with defending our borders--tends to inflame the usual conservative suspects, while really jazzing the more extremist wingers, who are calling for militias on the border.

Then yesterday the Attorney General of the United States came out and suggested that any opposition to his performance and Obama's administration is probably due to racism.  He provided zero evidence, which is very unlike a lawyer.  But he didn't need any evidence.  And no, using the phrase "take our country back" is NOT evidence of racism.

He followed by saying that one of the things that keeps him awake is worrying about domestic terrorists, not just the Major Hasan/Boston bomber types, but the other ones--those dissatisfied with government. In other words, the ones displaying Gadsden Flags or talking about tea who may go to the border.

This after a lengthy news feast over the Hobby Lobby ruling and how it affected women.

Yet it's entirely possible that none of these things are coincidences.  Some perspective may be useful, from 2012:



"They gonna put y'all back in chains". The clip was reported far and wide in the mainstream and social media. It was bare naked identity politics with a racial edge, but it helped get the vote out that November. Obama wasn't without his moment--he famously told a Telemundo audience they should "punish their enemies", and he wasn't talking about drug cartels or al Qaeda terrorists (who were officially on the run back then).

This isn't to say the Democrats are manufacturing news stories, no, simply capitalizing on them.  Never let a crisis go to waste, but they have an impending crisis--a lame duck president at year's end. 

Historically blacks don't show up in the same numbers for the mid-terms as they do for generals.  This was the case in 2010 when Obama got 'shellacked' by those he now calls tea baggers.   But the Democrats need a big turnout from the blacks, Hispanics and females to keep the train rolling towards the change they believed in, a Utopian place where white folks' greed doesn't run a world in need.

Oddly enough the mainstream media has been hitting three stories very hard these past few weeks, each pointing towards those very same voter demographics:  women's issues, immigration, and now race.

Amidst this forest of towering strawmen, Fox host Megyn Kelly is literally beside herself.   She's a person that thinks methodically and logically, as do most lawyers, and has never been afraid to challenge Bill O'Reilly's occasional foray into populism or panderism.  She went after Nancy Pelosi's idiotic comments about the Hobby Lobby decision, or how "five men" on the Supreme Court are trying to take away women's contraception (at least she didn't say five "white" men like Harry Reid).

Kelly is right of course--Pelosi's argument shouldn't impress an either-grader much less a voting adult, but Kelly's audience isn't San Fran Nan's target.  Pelosi might be addled but she's still a skilled politician and likely knows exactly what she's doing and where her message is going.  Kelly should approach it from that angle. 


As the months wind down expect to see the media continue to churn the identity politics commode while continuing to ignore actual stories such as a potentially partisan IRS (and whether anyone ordered their targeting), the president's actions on the night of the Benghazi attack, the VA scandal, or a flagrant abuse of executive powers.  It can all be blamed on racist white men.  They are the ones with a stranglehold on the world while others remain in need.  It's really a win-win for the media because sex, race and immigration stories tend to sell better.

The right needs to understand this effort and react accordingly (which means sensibly, not emotionally). What are the odds?

Steyer Contradicts Administration on Keystone

Tom Steyer, a Democratic version of the Koch Brothers, told Bill Maher the following on the Keystone pipeline after a question from Maher:

That's a good thing, right, postponing that indefinitely? Did you have something to do with that?

TOM STEYER: No. I think the president made a decision that he wanted to get all the information before he made a decision. There is no route right now through Nebraska because the way that they defined the route has been ruled by a judge to be illegal. So it's being appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. And so realistically the president said, 'I can't approve a route that doesn't exist. I'm going to wait until it exists, when all of the information is in and then I'll make a considered opinion when the time comes.' I thought it was a very natural thing for the president to do.

The problem with that statement is that the White House denies they made any decision at all on Keystone; that it was John Kerry's State Department that delayed it:



Yet Carney is contradicting reports from February that said Obama himself would decide on Keystone in a few months. So when talking to governors back then it was Obama's call; when talking to the press after the decision has been made it was Kerry's call.  When explaining the delay now it's not about politics, when explaining the delay back in 2012 it was about politics.  Does anyone in the press believe this crap? 

Utopia by the Numbers

Utopia as in Obamacare, at least that's what it seemed like from listening to the bubbly Jay Carney describe the sign-up numbers on the O-Care deadline yesterday.  He was go giddy he even messed up the numbers.  But the media seems to be buying it.   If not outright celebrating.

Carney's talking point was that the 6 million sign-ups were unexpected based on the website problems and therefore must reflect the popularity of the awesome program.

But hold on.   The baby bird media might buy such a thing but average humans should be skeptical.  Do a bunch of people signing up for a program right before the deadline actually mean it's popular, or does it simply mean there was a deadline?  After all, if surges of activity before government deadlines are now an indication of popularity then paying taxes to the IRS via the Post Office must be a hugely popular!

The GOP should be addressing this as a "no duh" moment.  Of course there was a surge--it's THE LAW.  Obama was recently out warning people they may GET FINED for not applying.  The hugely popular IRS is involved, who may TAKE MONEY FROM YOU if you don't 'get covered'.  So what do the numbers mean?   They could mean the program is popular, but they just as easily may mean there are a lot of people are law-abiding Americans who take deadlines seriously.  After all, wouldn't more have signed up earlier if it was so awesome?  As the WH said, there were many ways to sign up apart from the website. 

No, the only metric to gauge popularity right now is the polling data, which does not back up Carney's fantasy.  ABC reporter Jonathan Karl started down that road in the press briefing yesterday but he didn't go far enough.  The GOP should take it the rest of the way.  After all, the administration claims to be science-friendly--they should be made to show how such a contention is verifiable.   

YES,  BUT  4/1/14

As predicted by some the administration just came in with just a smidgen over 7 million sign-ups, which triggered one of the biggest end-zone dances ever seen on the 25 yard line.  The question "how many actually paid?" was not answered by Carney today--heck, he didn't even refer reporters to HHS/Sebelius for a non-answer, just saying "we'll provide it later".  Perhaps on the evening before Memorial Day weekend.

Speaking of sports, Obama welcomed the evil Boston Red Sox (evil because they beat the Cardinals, that's all) to the White House for a World Series congratulation ceremony and made yet another sports gaffe, this time botching the pronunciation of Mike Napoli's last name.  When added to the self-proclaimed "baseball lover" and White Sox fan's description of Comiskey Park as "Kamensky Field"--then not being able to name a single favorite White Sock--it surely appears the president is a pretend baseball fan.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with not being a baseball fan--he would share it with millions, but it appears he simply can't bring himself to admit it publicly.  Maybe it's out of fear of being called an outsider from Kenya, etc.  But ask yourself which is worse, a guy who stands up and says "I'm not the biggest baseball fan but I love basketball" or a guy who calls himself a baseball lover then calls his favorite team's ballpark "Komensky Field"?   And yes it's relevant, because it reflects character and an ability to flim-flam for a cause.