Bloodthirsty Liberal

Look at her: can’tcha tell?

I voted for Obama for me, not for you. I voted for hope and change and all the intangibles that Obama was peddling in the wake of the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, Sept. 11 and all the other ills that shook our country in the last decade. I wanted something new. Something different. What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for - a spin doctor. And not a very good one at that.

…

Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.

“What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for.” You can say that again, sister. And you can dry those tears and blow your nose, because we aren’t interested. Here’s a quarter—call someone who cares.

But if the reader is wondering how Sarah Palin got lumped in with 9/11, the financial crisis, and other “ills that shook our country”, let the writer explain:

Before John McCain unwittingly picked a tabloid-magazine cover girl for his running mate… as soon as Palin climbed out of her igloo and onto the national scene, well, there was no turning back for me… I felt my choice was to risk McCain dropping dead and letting the world’s most well-known hockey mom run this country… between picking Palin, suggesting that the first debates be delayed and, well, picking Palin

…

I want a president with experience and savvy, a Commander in Chief who puts our country and its citizens first.

I only hope the Republicans can find him the next time around.

Why, so you can turn your snooty nose in the air and justify your superiority to him/her, too? You don’t have to like Sarah Palin (God knows, many don’t), but if this is the level at which you make political choices, do the nation a favor and stay home on election day. You give the 19th amendment a bad name.

If a man had written what this dingbat wrote, NOW would cut off his balls—if they had any themselves.

Like a “human rights activist” scorned:

And then there is Darfur–where, since 2003, government-supported militia have left 300,000 dead and 2.7 million people internally displaced. The situation was so dire that in April 2007, Susan Rice, now the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, wrote, “The U.S. should press for a Chapter VII U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week, or face military consequences . . . If the U.S. fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it as [we] did in 1999 in Kosovo.” The International Criminal Court then issued arrest warrants for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, the first for a sitting head of state, and other Sudanese leaders implicated in the atrocities in Darfur.

Through all of this, we have been waiting and wondering what the outcome would be to save the people of Sudan and help break the cycle of impunity.

The Obama administration recently unveiled its new policy of engagement with Sudan, aimed first at securing the full implementation of the treaty that ended the north-south Sudanese civil war. While the administration maintained it will not deal with al-Bashir or any other official charged with arrest, it has not yet announced any serious moves to enforce the decision of the ICC and execute its warrants.

There will be pressure on the United States and its partners to bring stability to Sudan, even at the expense of criminal accountability. Regardless of the rationale, the end would be the same: victims left without justice while perpetrators walk away.

Angelina, sweetie—they don’t vote. Trust me, if ACORN could register Darfurians, they would, faster than you can say “janjaweed genocide” (three times, fast), but they can’t. So “victims left without justice” get what the rest of us get who don’t trust, believe, like this president of ours: a heaping, steaming pile of bubkes.

I’m sorry. And I have a shoulder to cry on if you need one.

Mia Farrow is similarly disillusioned (sorry, honey, no shoulder for you):

The Enough Project at the Center for American Progress today released the following statement in reaction to news that the government of Sudan had arrested several members of the opposition political party, the SPLM:

“It was fanciful of the United States and other donor nations to think that the ruling National Congress Party (NCP), which has ruled Sudan with an iron fist and tolerated no peaceful dissent, would suddenly loosen its grip and allow peaceful elections and their necessary precursor: peaceful freedom of assembly,” said Enough Co-founder John Prendergast. … “President Obama should recognize that any benchmarks-based policy of incentives and pressures will have no credibility unless consequences are imposed immediately when such an obvious benchmark like today’s denial of a basic element of the existing North-South peace deal — freedom of assembly for the elections — has been violated.”

We’ll excuse the convoluted syntax—but the wooly-headed thinking is inexcusable. President Obama can recognize only his reflection in the mirror, nothing else.

BTW, I don’t include the link, because Mia has the tendency to post upsetting pictures of starving and deformed children—I understand why, even if I don’t approve—as well as one-sided and ignorant attacks on Israel—which I understand (bleeding hearts tend to bleed a lot less for bleeding Israelis) and don’t approve.

Why am I so dismissive of well-intentioned, big-hearted people, with nothing but kindness and empathy in their souls?

Oh, I don’t know. You tell me:

THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL human rights watchdogs that were created to offset the unethical behavior and biases of anti-democratic governments, have become accomplices. Superpowers like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), and similar groups work closely with and support the agendas of the UNHRC and other international frameworks.

They joined officials from Arab countries in campaigning on behalf of the Goldstone Report. Instead of speaking truth to this blatant abuse of power, officials of these self-proclaimed human rights groups are part of the problem, and most journalists blindly follow their lead. The past year has seen even greater cooperation between the UN and NGOs in distorting human rights values beyond recognition. Human Rights Watch was caught raising funds from wealthy members of Saudi Arabia’s elite. Instead of leading the campaign against the abuses imposed by the Wahhabi religious police, this “watchdog” hosted a member of the Shura council at a dinner which featured more Israel-bashing and sinister warnings of the power of the “pro-Israel lobby.” And HRW’s “senior military analyst” and author of numerous attacks on Israel was suspended, while questions were raised regarding his professional qualifications and credibility.

In parallel, Amnesty International and other groups continue to warp human rights and international law into ideological platforms for fighting Western democracy and open societies. Like HRW, a highly disproportionate percentage of Amnesty’s reports and campaigns focus on criticizing the United States and NATO countries for alleged infractions in Iraq and Afghanistan, while terrorists and their state supporters get relatively little attention.

BUT IN 2009, there were also some signs that the “halo effect,” which protects human rights frameworks from scrutiny and criticism, has begun to deteriorate. Robert Bernstein, the founder of HRW, published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he denounced his own organization for betraying its moral principles. Although HRW officials launched a campaign to discredit Bernstein and other critics, the charges are too serious to be ignored, and HRW will need an entirely new and unbiased leadership to restore its credibility.

In addition, the April 2009 attempt to reproduce the catastrophic 2001 Durban NGO Forum - in which 1500 radical NGOs used a UN anti-racism conference to promote anti-Semitism - was defeated. Canada led the way, and this process highlighted the need to redesign the entire UN human rights structure.

I don’t have any clever or conclusive remarks about Darfur, or any of the other butt-holes of humanity for that matter. If President Obama can pretend they don’t exist, so can I. And I’ll be damned if I can think of a single “consequence” (as the director of the Enough Project calls for above) that people would be willing to impose that would change a damn thing.

We’re not willing, and Sudan won’t change. What else is on?

PS: Here’s what (how could I forget?):

I have been in Oslo, Norway the past few days working with the Oslo peace community in their opposition to Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

…

I sat with my hosts and watched the speeches given by the Chairman of the Nobel committee (who seemed like he was going to bounce off the platform and float over to Obama and begin french kiss him in ecstasy), and the Laureate and we were shocked and appalled at the way the speeches gave legitimacy and Robber Class honor to the “necessity” of war.

The protests today were large, energetic, youthful, and angry! It is nice to see some international rejection of the “hope-nosis” that has been infecting our world with rosey-colored violence and gold-plated oppression.

“Hope-nosis”—brilliant!

I know it’s not original with her, but still…

As the old joke goes: what’s the secret of comed—timing.

If these climate clods had only camped out couple of days earlier, they might have made a point. As it is, I think they just made out:

Night after night, in bustling college quads and quaint town greens, on urban fire escapes and the storied Boston Common, scores of college students have taken sleeping bags to hard earth and huddled under billowing tents. For six weeks they have done this, forsaking the comfort of the indoors as a grand gesture about what is happening outdoors - and the connection between the two.

They are protesting what they call “dirty electricity,’’ power generation that pollutes the environment. So, last night, on the eve of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, they massed one last time in the shadow of the golden dome of the State House, colorful tents rising amid the crunch of icy snow underfoot.

“Icy snow” wasn’t a clue? Not for these “scores” of college students. (Word of advice to the co-eds among them: “scoring” is all your male counterparts are there for, I promise you. Promise. That shaggy-haired, unshaven, vaguely smelly guy—which one? doesn’t matter—huddled in the sleeping bag next to you would gargle with sweet crude if he could so much as fondle your barrels. Sorry, but you know it’s true.)

Now, if only these Warming Wimpies had camped out just a couple of days earlier, they might have enjoyed weather like this:

It was not Christmas in July, but it sure felt like it.

As T-shirted workers prepared Boston’s Christmas tree today for its official lighting — the symbolic start of the city’s holiday season — joggers, dog-walkers, and college students playing hooky were delighted and dumbfounded by the record-breaking high temperatures.

“I’ve never worn shorts in December before,” said Emerson College sophomore Margaret Bateman, who was skipping class sprawled in the Boston Common grass.

Temperatures hovered in the upper 60s from dawn to the late afternoon, hitting 69 degrees at Logan Airport at 2 p.m. Boston’s previous record high for Dec. 3 was 65 degrees in 1932. Norwood hit 70 just after noon.

Lesson number one I hope you learn in college. The Left will lie to you. They always have, they always will.

Oh dear, what’s an environmental activist to do?

The administration of Governor Deval Patrick, in a sharp disagreement with Patrick’s handpicked Senate appointee, said yesterday that it would be a mistake for President Obama to grant US Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr.’s request to delay federal approval of the Cape Wind project.

In a letter to Obama earlier this month, Kirk, who has largely shied away from divisive issues during his two months in office, urged the Obama administration to hold off on a decision until a federal panel can devise comprehensive guidelines for development in the nation’s waters. But officials from the Patrick administration said the governor strongly disagrees with Kirk’s request and urges quick approval. “After eight years of thorough review and as the world convenes shortly in Copenhagen to tackle climate change, the governor believes the time is now to move forward with this landmark clean energy project - the only offshore wind project that has the potential to be built in President Obama’s first term,’’ Patrick’s secretary of energy and environmental affairs, Ian A. Bowles, said in a statement yesterday.

Nice touch, Guv. That’s going to hit President Obama right in the breadbasket (or a little lower). How could he resist such an appeal?

Here’s how:

In taking up the fight against Cape Wind, Kirk is continuing a battle long waged by Kennedy, his close friend, who strongly opposed the construction of 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.

“He’s taking a stand that Senator Kennedy would have taken,’’ said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers, who added that Kirk is sending a message that “even though the person who was the most prominent opponent of it is gone, the opposition to it still remains.’’

Each tower, each turbine, would be a urination on the grave of the late Senator Ted. Kirk is just holding up his end of the (Faustian) bargain to do as Ted would have done.

Liberal on liberal crime is always so sad.

I have to say, now that Ted is gone, that building a wind farm in one of the most scenics spots in America is a dubious proposition. I’m not saying it’s wrong—midwesterners probably object to windmills befouling the prairiescape, yet they live with them—but the Kennedy side of the argument is not without merit (wouldn’t catch me saying that when he was alive).

I just don’t trust these imbeciles to get anything right:

IT ALWAYS seemed bizarre to think that cutting down trees and burning them for fuel could be a good way to reduce carbon emissions. And yet both the Kyoto climate change treaty and a key bill in the US House look favorably on generation not just from biofuels such as ethanol but also from so-called biomass, including wood. Fortunately, scientists are beginning to consider biomass with a more skeptical eye. Late last month, Massachusetts launched a study on whether biomass power-generation plants are sustainable - the crucial question in the debate on four plants proposed for the western part of the state.

These plants could burn wood left over from landscaping, milling operations, and forest-thinning projects. But these unobjectionable sources might not be enough to feed the plants; their operation, critics worry, would require major cuts in private and public woods, reducing the forests’ ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The state’s study, which will be reviewed by an independent advisory panel, should ensure that the state does not give a boost to biomass plants that harm both the atmosphere and the state’s forests.

Calling trees “biomass” was a nice try, but they’re still trees. And the insatiable demand for power would surely lead to more chopping and more sawing. There’s room for some, I’m sure, but when we’re on the verge of paying Brazil not to cut their trees, it seems illogical to be cutting our own.

Who thinks up these ideas?

Speaking of Massachusetts, as we just were, below, see if these two stories, juxtaposed, don’t tell you all you need to know about our benighted state.

Story one:

Maria Bonilla - who has trouble walking because of a congenital heart defect - feeds, houses, and clothes her two young children with $942 of state and federal cash assistance every month, though it barely covers her rent, utilities, and everything else her family needs to survive, from diapers to subway fare. But in a few months the 27-year-old victim of domestic violence expects to be homeless.

The Bonilla family is one of thousands of low-income families who will suffer from steep budget cuts.

The state estimates that the children of 9,100 families with parents so severely disabled that they qualify for federal Supplemental Security Income benefits will lose their state cash assistance as a result of the $600 million in budget cuts that Governor Deval Patrick announced late last month. The $15.8 million reduction of the Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, on top of $8 million in cuts made earlier this fiscal year, means families who receive the assistance will lose an average of more than $400 a month.

“I don’t want to be out on the streets,’’ said Bonilla, of Boston, whose family will lose $238 in state assistance Jan. 1, and she cannot work because of her heart. “That little amount of money helps a lot. If they take it away, my kids will suffer. I’m scared.’’

Wow. S**t man, I mean, sucks to be her. Although am I heartless, mean, insensitive, and cruel to wonder how a person so ill she can barely walk delivered two children and survived beatings? Is her congenital heart defect intermittent?

No, I take it back. That’s too heartless, mean, insensitive, and cruel.

Anyhow, I want to use the unfortunate Ms. Bonilla to make a point, so she’s fine by me.

Story two:

Governor Deval Patrick today will unveil a state-commissioned report that urges him to push for driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, as well as English classes for foreign-born Massachusetts residents who need them.

…

It is unclear whether Patrick will embrace the recommendations, which he has declined to release since he received them in July. He will refer the list to his Cabinet for an action plan within 90 days, said his spokesman Kyle Sullivan.

The majority of the 912,310 immigrants in Massachusetts are here legally; almost half are naturalized US citizens and other legal residents are waiting in line. But the authors of the report also urged Patrick to press federal officials to create a path to legal residency for immigrants here illegally, saying the harsh national debate casts a pall over all immigrants.

“We need to get past the rhetoric of hate that has dominated this debate and instead strive for policy choices that are in the best long-term interests of our nation,’’ Westy Egmont and Eva Millona, cochairmen of the Governor’s Advisory Council for Refugees and Immigrants, which authored the report, wrote in a letter to Patrick.

“The rhetoric of hate” seems to have deafened the governor, since he’s ignored your ridiculous recommendations for a good four months.

I just wonder how much these “policy choices” are going to cost the state—going to cost poor Ms. Bonilla, who may be an immigrant herself (the story doesn’t say). Is she going to go hungry so that a criminal immigrant can drive legally, park illegally (their disrespect for the laws of the land already well established), and get cut-rate prices for our state colleges and universities? ‘Pears so.

It’s a given Ms. Bonilla won’t be able to take advantage of our generosity—she’s not here illegally (we assume), and she can’t walk to her classes. Metaphorically speaking (and liberally speaking), she’s taking another beating from a Latin male.

But I also heard a former cop call into a local radio show. He said that withholding licenses from criminal immigrants gave the criminal justice system at least the tiniest hold on them. If they were pulled over for any violation (you think their cars are up to code?), and they didn’t have a license, they could be cited for that, and the record would at least indicate they had crossed the system at some point. (Whether immigration officials decided to act on that information is an entirely separate—and largely moot—issue.)

The ex-cop also pointed out that drivers licenses are also “gateway” IDs, that with an official certificate from the state, one could essentially document oneself, transforming from illegal immigrant to a legal resident in all but name.

Of course, with Brookline and Cambridge declared “sanctuary cities”, and Somerville and Orleans not far behind—not to mention Amherst’s active solicitation of Guantanamo inmates—local illegals have nothing to fear as it is.

It’s the rest of us, rich and poor, well and ill, that have to watch out.

PS: Leave us not forget the president’s sainted Aunt Zeituni, who is in the country illegally, illegally ignored court orders to leave, and lives illegally in Boston public housing. She’s the public face of our illegal immigrant “policy choices.”

Okay, so maybe Massachusetts can’t compete with low-tax states like Texas, or demi-Edens like California.

But we’re getting pwned by Michigan? [Bleeping] Michigan?

Two years ago, Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm visited alternative fuel maker Mascoma in Boston with one goal: to persuade the company to build a factory in her job-hungry state.

“She personally had us on the list to recruit,’’ recalled Mascoma’s chief executive, Bruce Jamerson. “Massachusetts, they knew we were looking to build a plant. It wasn’t a priority for them at the time.’’

But Michigan made Mascoma a priority. Granholm offered the company tax incentives, grants, and promises of federal funding while promoting Michigan’s charms: manufacturing expertise, a workforce loaded with engineering talent, and a population of ready-made clients.

Today Mascoma, which makes a gasoline substitute from wood chips and other materials, is spending more than $200 million to build a factory in Kinross, Mich. Groundbreaking is set for next year.

Michigan is emerging as one of Massachusetts’ fiercest competitors in the race to become a hub for clean technology companies. And Massachusetts, despite being the birthplace of many of these technologies and the companies they spawn, is losing ground to Michigan’s money and determination.

“Michigan’s money and determination”: how can they even write that with a straight face?

But then we’re not that friendly to wood processors here:

The Patrick administration is rethinking its support of wood-burning power plants, a key element of its long-term strategy to wean the state off fossil fuels.

Wood, also known as biomass, has long been part of the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources, along with solar, wind, and geothermal.

But some environmental activists say biomass plants could lead to the clear cutting of forests while pumping more carbon dioxide into the air than coal plants, adding to global warming. That criticism has ramped up recently in Western Massachusetts.

,,,

Meg Sheehan, an attorney based in Cambridge, calls biomass “a false solution to the climate change crisis.’’

“They are trying to convince the public that this is clean and green when it is neither,’’ she said. “It is an incinerator that burns wood.’’

Not wood, sweetheart, “biomass”.

Honest to God, could we have our heads any further up our own arses? Didn’t they know when they wrote this policy that wood doesn’t grow on trees?

Well, okay, it does, but you have to cut down the tree in order to burn the wood. If we were smart, we’d figure out how to transfer all the heat generated by the California wildfires (where they don’t need it) here (where we do). What a waste.

And imagine all the CO2 spewed into the atmosphere! I think I need to lie down.

Cue the John Williams theme music. Ready lightning bolt generator and wind machine (and I do mean wind).

Action!

Just kidding. Aunt Agatha’s already told you about the local family that intends to get through the winter without any heat. (Try moving to Mattapan or Dorchester, I want to tell them, where a lot of people do the same thing—but not by choice.)

I want to look at how our local unwashed celebrated International Day of Climate Action.

What, you didn’t know?

Schools of environmentalists clad in snorkels, inner tubes, swim caps, and wellies flocked to Boston Harbor yesterday to raise awareness about climate change.

A man wrapped in a wet suit slid belly down near the crowd of 200 people gathered at Christopher Columbus Park, home to one of more than 5,200 events in 181 countries organized for the 350.org International Day of Climate Action.

“I want the earth to survive,’’ said 60-year-old Susan McLucas, a red snorkel pushing up her gray hair. “I don’t want our children and grandchildren to have to rush for higher ground.’’

As people hoisted green and yellow kayaks in the air, Seth Itzkan of Medford held a hockey stick and a poster that read: “Bring back the ice!’’

Patience, Seth. You’ll have all the ice you can stand come January. We’ve already had snow.

Instead of exerting themselves filling useless sandbags, couldn’t they have planted trees, or something equally useful? Do they really think we’re moved by images like this?

An actress dressed as Henry David Thoreau was among 50 people picking up bits of trash and spreading seaweed in a giant 350 on a beach in Wellfleet.

How did Thoreau dress exactly, and why was it important to copy his haberdashery? But thanks for picking up the trash—as I do every day I take the Bloodthirsty Puppy to the park. I average about four water bottles, three candy wrappers, and a sock (plus the BTP’s own contributions to composting) every trip. That’s how you’ll recognize me—not because I’m dressed like Louisa May Alcott.

We busted a potential terrorist in Sudbury, MA today; two of the hijacked planes on 9/11 took off from Boston’s Logan Airport; bin Laden’s family had ties to Boston—and Amherst, MA thinks it would be swell to have a couple of Guantanamo detainees move into the neighborhood.

If it meant that only they would be in danger of having their throats slit, I might support it, but as we know all too well, terror travels:

This quaint leafy town in Western Massachusetts is known for its diverse mix of college students and retirees, a former farming community characterized by suburban small talk just as much as cultural institutions. But it is never one to shy from foreign policy, either.

“We like to set our own foreign policy,’’ said Ruth Hooke, a retired University of Massachusetts professor, a Town Meeting member, and participant in Pioneer Valley No More Guantanamos, a local chapter of a national movement calling for the release of detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

…

Under a petition Hooke submitted to the town’s Select Board - approved by a 2-1 vote Monday night - the town will call on Congress to rescind its ban on detainees resettling in the United States, and will welcome Ahmed Belbacha, originally from Algeria, and Ravil Mingazov, arrested in Pakistan, to Amherst. The measure will go before a Special Town Meeting on Nov. 2.

Aw, they even know which ones they want to adopt. The one with the cute spot around its eye and the one with floppy ears.

But who is this Ruth Hooke, who likes to writer her own foreign policy?

Ruth Hooke, of the Western Massachusetts chapter of The Raging Grannies.

Just the person I want guaranteeing my safety. If she so much as offered a cookie to my kids on Halloween, I’d tase the bitch until she begged to die. (But she’s entitled to her opinion!)

This is all a dumbass publicity stunt by a group of people so sheltered in their little inland New England valley they couldn’t possibly know any better.

But let me pass a message along to the Gitmo schmoes who are being offered asylum in central Mass. The average daily temperature for Cuba is low to mid-70s, with 11 hours of sunlight. In Amherst, it’s 25 degrees F, and the sun sets at 4:30 in the afternoon. And the women all look like Ruth Hooke.

If we don’t hear back from you, we won’t take it personally.

So says DemocracyCorps

These base Republican voters dislike Barack Obama to be sure – which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush – but these voters identify themselves as part of a ‘mocked’ minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Now, who does that sound like?

My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

…

Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

…

Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”

It’s awfully big of James Carville to excuse conservatives (Rush most of all) from charges of racism—but he’s not done with them, not by a long shot:

The Republican base voters are not part of the continuum leading to the center of the electorate: they truly stand apart. For additional perspective, Democracy Corps conducted a parallel set of groups in suburban Cleveland. These groups, comprised of older, white, non-college independents and weak partisans, represent some of the most conservative swing voters in the electorate, and they demonstrated a wholly different worldview from Republican base voters by dismissing the fear of “socialism” and evaluating Obama in very different terms.

Oh, really?

Among independents, who provided Obama’s margin of victory last fall, 64 percent have severe doubts about his plans. The polls are averaging nearly 50 percent opposition.

Oh really?

The reason is Obama’s sinking numbers, particularly with independent voters. With all voters, Obama’s favorable ratings have slid 22 points since he was inaugurated in January. He still has a firm majority. However, a new Marist poll shows he has a small net negative with independent voters. Among independents, 45 percent approve and 47 percent disapprove. His disapproval rating is up 10 percentage points since August among independents.

Independent voters don’t matter much in New York, but they do in swing states that Obama won like Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio. And their congressional Democrats are watching.

Oh really?

Forty-three percent now of Americans, only 43 percent, would vote for him for president today.

You look at his approval ratings, he slipped back into the 40s, but more interestingly, independents, he’s losing, 46-41. And on health care, he’s losing independents, 53-36.

Oh really?

The approval ratings of the president by Democrats and Republicans are as one would expect with 77% of Democrats giving President Obama positive ratings compared to 14% of Republicans. Independents, however, are more down on the president as 60% give him negative ratings while 40% give him positive marks on his overall job performance.

Oh really?

A slim 43 percent plurality of Americans now disapproves of the job Barack Obama is doing on Afghanistan, an increase from the 32 percent who disapproved last month. Only Democrats, at 63 percent, assign positive marks to the president on Afghanistan, compared with 20 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of independents.

Oh really?

As health care legislation moves out of the Senate Finance Committee, a majority of Americans says they oppose the reforms being considered. A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms.

…

Predictably, a 65 percent majority of Democrats favors the legislation, while 86 percent of Republicans oppose it. Independents oppose the reforms by 62 percent to 23 percent.

You get the point. Independents are trending Republican, and the Democrats are soiling their shorts.

Via reader Judi, this two-by-four to the left temple from climate-change skeptic Christopher Lord Monckton.

Just watch and listen.