Tag Archives: 2012


The Democrat’s dilemma – go in 2012 with an apparent loser or give up the race card and draft Hillary.  The race card is pretty well played out.  It’s gone from an Ace to a Ten, or maybe a Jack at best.  Drafting Hillary would be the Democrat’s best chance, but what if Hillary declines to run?  Who is up next?  Chuck Schumer.

Sen. Schumer can bring in all of those NY State electoral votes.  He has the stridency that appeals to the party base and the NY sophistication which appeals to the party elites.  Whoever runs, it is beginning to look like it is not going to be Barack Obama.  The man has been a disaster for the economy, has dealt a crushing blow to blacks and has been a great disappointment to socialists who thought their day had finally come.

A day is like a year in politics.  But party strategists must make their decision now.  And now it looks like the Democratic candidate will be a sacrificial lamb.  Hillary isn’t the type to volunteer for a slaughter.  If not Schumer, then who, Al Sharpton?  (That was a joke).  How about Al Gore?  He won once before.


Various media organizations already are setting up debates, Palin is travelling to the Mid-East, Romney is speaking in New Hampshire and Gingrich is crossing his fingers hoping for a shot at the job. But it’s the Democrats who are off to the fastest start. Obama has supported the Bush income tax rates, and now is meeting with the nations business leaders, in person, and without asking how they traveled to Washington.

Dana Milbank, a frequent guest on MSNBC’s Matthews and Olbermann shows, writes for the Washington Post. Milbank’s Wednesday Op-Ed column is entitled “The socialist president plays host to capitalism.” He begins

“The titans of American industry were all assembled at the White House complex Wednesday. There was Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google. There was Kenneth Chenault, the chairman of American Express. And there was Barack Obama, the sometimes owner of General Motors, Chrysler, Citibank, Bank of America, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

In his column Dana said the meeting with corporate executives was the socialist President’s chance “to show, in contrast to the perception that many voters had last month, that he is a big fan of the free market and private industry.” We think Dana was serious.

Before walking into the meeting with corporate America, Obama held a press conference. This time Dana reports

In the space of just four minutes, included seven mentions of jobs, six of growth or growing, and two of hiring. “Spurring economic growth is what I’ll talk about later this morning when I meet with some of America’s top business leaders,” the president said. (READ: I am a capitalist!) “That includes Jim McNerney of Boeing, who also heads up my Export Council, and several members of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board.” (READ: Some of my best friends are capitalists!)

We think Milbank was not serious. Serious or not, the campaign has begun. Lets us remember the time John McCain put Obama on the spot for reneging on a key campaign promise to make all the hearings open for viewing on CSPAN. The President looked McCain in the eye and laughed as he said “The Campaign is over, John.”


Douglas Schoen and Pat Caddell, writing for the Washington Post say President Obama should announce “One and done” with respect to his terms in office. These are the words of two Democratic operatives writing in a liberal newspaper.

“[Obama would be] putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones. To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.”

No, the WaPo has not turned conservative; the paper continues to support the liberal agenda. However, it concludes those goals can best be served if Obama announces he will not run in 2012 because he Obama has “lost the consent of the governed.” The authors reason that, with the President out of the race, Republicans would be more “cooperative’ and less opposed to Obama.

They have it wrong. They still don’t get it. It is not Obama that Republicans and Conservative oppose; it’s his policies. And as for a promise not to run for a second term, who would trust that? The number of politicians who have made that statement prior to running for office must be in the thousands.

Schoen and Caddell acknowledge a measure of hostility and division coming from Obama without noting any similar animosity coming from his opposition.

“In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country’s problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for “mid-course corrections.” At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month’s midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve “hand-to-hand combat” with Republicans, whom he also referred to as “enemies.”

Could it be they are beginning to get it?


The job of a community organizer is not to organize for efficiency  and a smoother running society. The job is more like that of a union organizer. It is to stir up people, get them angry and then focus their anger in a direction that gives power to the organizer. The job is not to unite, but to divide; to divide and conquer.

Obama is dividing the country. He seems not to care. His poll ratings are in free fall. He seems not to care. His party is going to get thrashed in November. He seems not to care. Arizona is enforcing the law. About that, he cares. His Justice Department has just instituted another lawsuit against Arizona law enforcement.

Obama’s chances for a second term look grim. He seems not to care. He must have a plan. What could it be?  He has over 2 years to push for an amnesty program with voting rights. It is a rank speculation, but could that be part of the plan?