Bloodthirsty Liberal

I can see him dancing around the ring like Muhammmad Ali in his prime, skipping shuffling, calling out his challengers:

C’mon “Uncommitted”, let’s see what you got! I can take on all no-names and imprisoned felons, and kick all of their asses!

President Obama easily won Tuesday night’s Democratic primary in Kentucky, capturing 58 percent of the vote.

That sounds like a solid victory. But with the president running unopposed in the Bluegrass State that means more than four in 10 voters didn’t pick him.

Who did they choose instead? Forty-two percent of those going to the polls rejected the president in favor of “uncommitted.”

And, according to Louisville’s Courier-Journal newspaper, in 67 of Kentucky’s 120 counties, “uncommitted” received more votes than the president.

Over in Arkansas, where he had an actual opponent, Obama lost a similar percentage of the vote. According to preliminary returns from the state’s open primary, John Wolfe, a lawyer from Tennessee, is polling at about 40 percent.

Though little known, Wolfe is no stranger to politics. The Washington Post reports he was previously on the primary ballots in Louisiana, Missouri and New Hampshire, and will be on next week’s ballot in Texas. He has also run four failed campaigns for Congress.

Both Kentucky and Arkansas are considered solid red states for the general election and their less than enthusiastic support for the president comes as no surprise. Still, as the AP points out, “it’s a bit embarrassing for the Democratic Party and highlights Obama’s political weakness in Southern states.”

Just two weeks ago, more than 40 percent of voters in West Virginia’s Democratic primary chose a federal inmate named Keith Judd over the president.

These were Democrat voters, remember, not Republican neanderthals (tautology!). Primaries tend to bring out the extreme voter—or rather not to exercise the average voter to leave home or work to pull the lever for Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul or whomever. So, these voters came out with a purpose. They may vote “Uncommitted”, but they do so with great commitment.

PS: I was going to comment that this is what happens in states that sue over ObamaCare, but neither Arkansas nor Kentucky has signed on to the lawsuit that 26 other sates have. Obama will win California, New York, and other big electoral college states—but he will certainly lose the majority of states. It remains to be seen whether he can win enough battleground states to eke out reelection, but I am hopeful and growing more convinced that he cannot.

Our next item is a hedge clipper. Manual. Save on energy, get exercise. Do a lot of damage with this sucker. Who wants to open the bidding at a dollar? Anyone…? I’ll throw in lunch with me and Joe. Nobody…? Fifty cents and no Joe, how ’bout that? Thank you ma’am. Sold to the lady in rhinestone glasses.

I’ve see angles of this event showing neighbors behind red, white, and blue bunting. But this is too delicious an image to let pass. He looks so small, so alone.

In what could be a disastrous photo opportunity for the President’s campaign, Mr Obama spoke to a handful of people in the crucial swing state.

The president’s 15 minute address outside the home of Paul and Val Keller on Friday afternoon, drew a small audience of neighbours and supporters – though even his hosts said they were not sure if they would vote for him in the coming election.

Next, we have a bike! Training wheels attached. And tassels! The Tassels alone ought to fetch a few dollars.

Democrats to white middle-class voters: drop dead

Rudy is the quintessential average white guy, right down to his last name. “It literally is Guy,” he said, laughing at the irony.

Born in New Eagle and raised in Charleroi in Pennsylvania’s Monongahela Valley, Guy comes from a long line of Democrats. “My grandfather worked at Corning Glass, my father worked in the mines, the steel mill and finally at Corning,” he recalled. “The family always had union ties, and that usually meant a tie to the Democratic Party.”

That’s no longer true for him, however: “As my life started to improve financially, I realized that unions seemed to be damaging the economy and Democrat legislation always seemed to impact my wallet.”

…

His story is not much different than that of those West Virginia Democrats who protest-voted for a convicted felon over a sitting president in last Tuesday’s state primary.

Yes but, to quote John Kerry, the felon had “better hair”.

The problem for President Barack Obama and down-ticket Democrats on November’s ballot is that average white guys aren’t just found in West Virginia; they’re in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other states, too, and they can tip this fall’s election.

According to Gallup’s latest battleground numbers, Obama’s main electoral strengths are with voters who are nonwhite, nonreligious, single or postgraduates. Republican Mitt Romney’s strength is with white voters, particularly men, those who are religious, and those who are 30 or older.

Romney leads Obama with white male and female voters and does significantly better among men, 59 percent to 32 percent.

Among white women, Romney leads by nine points, 50 percent to 41 percent.

So, it’s not just white men (racist, all of them) who are leaving Barack in droves; it’s white women, too:

They’re at the Republican Party HQ, Cleavon!

But wait a minute, you say—didn’t I read somewhere that the Democratic strategy was to write off the whole caucasian demographic?

So who abandoned whom?

RUSH: There is a fascinating story in the New York Times by Thomas Edsall: “The Future of the Obama Coalition.” Let me read this first paragraph to you. “The Future of the Obama Coalition — For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.” The Democrat Party is just abandoning white working class voters. The Democrat Party is punting. The Democrat Party is saying, “Sayonara, we don’t care.” They are going after the welfare state full-fledged. They are going after the entitlement mentality people in this country full-fledged. They’re not making any pretenses.

…

Here’s a pull quote. “A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.”

…

“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.” So the Democrat Party, according to the Obama coalition, according to the New York Times, is going after the entitlement class, the welfare dependent class and the elite in academia, art, human resource management, lawyers, librarians, and social workers and so forth. What a coalition, the backbone of America. And that’s who they’re going after. They’re ceding it, c-e-d-i-n-g. They are ceding working class voters.

It’s kind of funny, in a sad and frightening way. Even voters given two fat middle fingers right in their face are slow to face up to the truth (which was revealed six months ago in this and other stories, after all). Sad because the media are so biased, this confession isn’t part of daily political discourse. Frightening because Obama may yet pull it off.

I can get you two on the aisle in the orchestra, half price—but that’s my final offer. Make that quarter-price. Ten percent. I can’t go any lower.

Oh, just take them!

Richmond, Va. — President Barack Obama has been in campaign mode for months, but he made it official Saturday in front of enthusiastic young supporters at two events that illustrated some old strengths and significant new hurdles for the incumbent.

If a white Republican had kicked off his candidacy in the capital of the Confederacy, wouldn’t the press have raised a stink? Just asking.

Anyway…

The big Obama show — heralded by a huge “Forward” banner atop OSU’s Schottenstein Center and a fire-’em-up presidential introduction from first lady Michelle Obama — was less targeted at the national media than his 2007 announcement in Springfield, Ill., when the Obama campaign sought to project the image of an unstoppable nationwide movement.

This time, Obama’s team is localizing its message and targeting key constituencies — students, veterans, women, Latinos, African Americans — in too-close-to-call states such as Ohio and Virginia, while firing up young voters and volunteers whose support Obama sorely needs.

If the carefully choreographed kick off was any indication, Obama will face some challenges in recapturing the 2008 magic — especially among young voters who weathered three years of souring job prospects and rising college costs.

The campaign was only able to muster 14,000 supporters at the first event in an arena designed to hold more than 18,000. Several thousand empty seats ringed its upper deck, mostly out of view from the cameras.

Unless, of course, the cameras showed the crowd. But why would they do that? That would be reportage, news. Not their line of work, don’t you know.

So, the candidate who once promised to bring us together, to unite in post-partisanship is appealing to key demographics in battleground states. I feel so included!

No wonder no one gives a hoot. He’s a slightly swarthier Walter Mondale.

Looks like no one likes you. Forward my a**.

I’m thinking!

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.

…

Vowing in 2008 to ‘launch the most sweeping ethics reform in US history’ Obama said that if elected he would ‘make government more open, more accountable and more responsive to the problems of the American people’.

In his State of the Union speech in January, Obama bemoaned the ‘corrosive influence of money in politics’. The following month, he reversed course and announced he was allowing cabinet members and top advisors to speak at big money events for so-called super PACs – unaccountable outside groups raising money for his re-election.

During the 2008 election, Obama abandoned a pledge to opt for public funding of his campaign, instead opting to raise an unlimited amount privately. He then raised and spent approximately $730million, almost double the campaign funds of Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent.

Boy, they almost say it: Obama is full of [bleep]. Almost, but not quite.

Of course, in libel law, truth is an absolute defense.

Michelle says: get those wallets out of the dark pockets and into the light!

Here’s Michelle’s schedule for next week. Notice the official events which ensure that taxpayers will pick up many of the trips’ costs, even though each excursion has campaign stops. The Florida official event looks like a meet and greet at the airport.

Mrs. Obama thanks you for your contribution.

Based on an announcement from the White House:

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Omaha, Nebraska 12:00 PM CT – Delivers the keynote address at Girls Inc. of Omaha’s 12th annual lunch in support of the work that the organization does to inspire girls and young women to be “Strong, Smart and Bold.” . . . She will deliver remarks commending Girls Inc. for their work to support young women and girls. Inspired by the Let’s Move! initiative, Girls Inc.’s teenagers will present Mrs. Obama with a special video that highlights the many ways they stay active.

Omaha, Nebraska 1:45 PM CT – Delivers remarks at a fundraiser

Des Moines, Iowa 5:00 PM CT – Meets with Obama campaign volunteers from the Des Moines area.

…

Friday, April 27, 2012

Naples, Florida 3:15 PM ET – Arrives at Naples Municipal Airport where she will be greeted by students from Avalon Elementary School. Students at Avalon recently won first place in a University of Florida School Garden Competition, and their Global Garden introduces students to new foods and new ways to prepare the food that is grown. In maintaining their garden, the students work with the Naples Botanical Garden, a member of the First Lady’s Let’s Move! Museums and Gardens initiative. Mrs. Obama will also be greeted by students from Mike Davis Elementary School, which recently started a running club called “Kids on the Go” for its third to fifth grade students. Both schools participate in the Florida Farm to School program to provide their students with seasonal, fresh produce from local farmers.

Naples, Florida 4:00 PM ET – Meets with campaign volunteers.

Naples, Florida 5:15 PM ET – Delivers remarks at a fundraiser.

I wish the FLOB (First Lady of Bloodthirstan) worked like that for me! When she says “Let’s Move!” she’s usually handing me the hedge clippers or the dog’s leash.

Why has no one compared Obama to Jesus Christ before? It’s so obvious!

Michelle Obama made a remarkable claim when talking up her husband, President Barack Obama, at a campaign event earlier today in Nashville, Tennessee.

“I am so in,” Michelle Obama said toward the end of her remarks. “I am going to be working so hard. We have an amazing story to tell. This president has brought us out of the dark and into the light.”

The crowd of nearly 450 folks applauded as the first lady likened her husband to a Jesus-like figure.

In the book of Matthew, we read, “the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.” (Matthew 4:16) The phrase is used to describe the words Jesus preached.

In Micah, light, however, is a reference to God’s words. “Rejoice not over me, O my enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD will be a light to me,” it says in Micah 7:8.

Either way, in religious terms, light is used to denote the true path, presented either by God or a savior. Or by Barack Obama.

I sort of see Michelle’s point: red ink is a heck of a lot brighter than black.

But this guy has been told of his godliness (or at least his cleanliness) for so long, he’s come to believe it. As Jesus said to Pilate, “I won.” Jesus also had an optional Galilean dialect he could turn off and on at will. And articulate! That man (or son of man, depending) could talk the wings off an angel.

Michelle no more believes her old man has brought us into the light than my wife believes it of me. “Why don’t you start by just bringing the garbage to the curb, sport?” she usually says to me.

Really, John? You really want to wade in that Mekong Delta of charges and countercharges?

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has lent his name to a fundraising solicitation that raises the specter of millionaires and billionaires funding an outside effort against President Obama.

“When I was the Democratic nominee for president in one of the closest and toughest elections in history, a group of billionaires did something unprecedented,” Kerry wrote. “They wrote million-dollar checks to fund lies about my service on what were called “Swift Boats” in Vietnam — and in so doing, they turned the boats my crewmates and I served on into a new political shorthand for the most vicious smears imaginable: ‘swiftboating.’”

In 2004, an anti-Kerry 527 group formed to raise questions about his war record and air ads against the senator, then running as the Democratic nominee for president. Its’ spokesman, Jerome Corsi, would go on to become one of the leading proponents of the ‘birther’ conspiracy that falsely suggests Obama was born in Kenya or elsewhere.

Kerry points to a $3 million dollar donation to a pro-Romney super PAC by Houston construction magnate Bob Perry as the next round in an outside effort against Obama.

“One man. Three million dollars. And that’s just the start,” Kerry writes.

“I know all too clearly that these guys will do or say anything to win. They’ll stop at nothing. But forewarned is forearmed. Their multi-million dollar smear tactics were new in 2004; in 2012 we know their playbook, and shame on us if we don’t tear it into shreds. Join me and we will stop the ‘swiftboating’ of President Obama,” Kerry emails.

Not really true, John. Your fellow senator, John McCain, a Republican and Bush supporter (who by the way served in Vietnam), condemned the Swift Boat campaign as “very, very wrong”. But then, how would he know, strung up as he was in the Hanoi Hilton throughout the war?

And isn’t it a little bit, heh, rich to complain about fundraising when Obama has outspent all the Republican candidates combined?

Not to mention complaining about fundraising in a letter seeking to raise funds.

But that’s our senior senator. He not only looks French, he speak nuance as well.

Or see that he sleeps with the fishes, I don’t care which:

Rubio has long been at the top of nearly everyone’s vice presidential short list — and with good reason. Rubio could help deliver the key swing state of Florida, and as the first Hispanic vice presidential nominee he would give the Romney team a fighting chance with Latino voters. His humble roots and compelling personal narrative could help blunt the class warfare attacks President Obama will surely level at Romney this fall. Rubio is telegenic and a dynamic speaker who can fire up crowds and generate desperately needed enthusiasm for the GOP ticket. He is beloved by the Tea Party, and he could help Romney win over the conservative grassroots (who are still wary of an “Etch a Sketch” nominee). In short, if you were to design the perfect running mate for Romney, you would come up with Marco Rubio.

So Rubio should have the VP slot locked up, right? Not if the Great Whisperer has anything to say about it. In recent months, a whispering campaign has spread in Washington suggesting that Rubio may look good on paper, but he cannot “pass vet” for the vice presidential nomination. The whispers became more audible last October following a hit piece by Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, who accused Rubio of deliberately “embellishing” his family history by saying that his parents arrived in the United States after Castro took power when they, in fact, arrived during the Batista years. (I pointed out at the time that the story offered zero evidence that Rubio intentionally misled anyone).

Then in February came the revelation that when Rubio was 8 years old and living in Las Vegas, his family was baptized into the Church of Latter-day Saints and attended a Mormon church for a few years before returning to Catholicism. Rubio’s detractors pounced, ridiculously arguing that this disqualifies him from serving as Romney’s running mate, because conservatives would never accept an “all Mormon ticket.”

Rubio also faces the lingering inquiry by the Florida Commission on Ethics into a 2010 complaint that he misspent campaign contributions and abused his perch as Florida House speaker to gain a teaching position at Florida International University. Rubio calls the charges “baseless” and politically motivated and recently demanded the commission close out its investigation.

…

The Post’s Chris Cillizza writes, “We hear whispers that his time in the state legislature could be mined by a good opposition researcher.” And this month, the National Journal downgraded Rubio’s position on its vice presidential power rankings because, it claimed, Rubio “skated into office without much of his past being vetted in the media. That would change in a hurry if he’s tapped for the vice presidency, and coming four years after Sarah Palin had such trouble adjusting to harsh scrutiny, that’s a very real concern for some Republicans. After all, Tallahassee has its own secrets.”

I quote the oracle Rush: they tell you whom they fear. They fear Sarah, they feared Herman Cain, and they fear the hell out of Marco Rubio. Like weasels, you never want to corner a Democrat: when threatened, they get really nasty.

As our own Buck O’Fama put it, he’s so transparent, you can see right through him:

President Obama’s campaign appears to be censoring viewer comments on the YouTube presentation of “The Road We’ve Traveled,” the 17-minute campaign documentary about the Obama presidency, with positive comments outnumbering negative by more than five to one.

Obama has staked a claim to conducting an “openness” presidency, with the White House frequently touting measures it says increase transparency. But not on his campaign’s YouTube channel.

As of 9 am ET this morning, 84 of the last 100 comments could be construed as supportive, while 16 were negative.

Many of the negative comments are benign. More than a third didn’t even directly criticize the president, arguing instead that General Motors should not have been bailed out by the government.

The positive comments were sometimes ecstatic in their support for Obama and the largely hagiographic video, which went up on YouTube March 15. Among the tributes are “My President is an amazing human being,” “Truly one of the greatest President’s ever,” “So majestic,” and “Thank God we have presidents like this.” [Love the improper apostrophe, just to make it realistically illiterate, like so many Obama supporters.]

That the comments are being edited is clear because as of 9 am, the last one had been posted 12 hours before. Apparently, whoever is selecting comments took some time off to sleep.

In addition, several White House Dossier readers have complained that attempts to place negative comments about the video have failed.

Obama lives on “the range”, where never is heard a discouraging word. And I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism! Teach me to believe a bumper sticker.

Is it just me, or is such thought control spooky?

It’ll cost you big bucks to find out how:

Could you pass the Grey Poupon?

The White House extended state dinner invitations to more than 30 of President Barack Obama’s top fundraisers, including a handful of donors to an independent political group backing his re-election effort, an Associated Press review has found.

Such coveted seats for Wednesday’s event honoring British Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife went to about two dozen supporters who each raised $200,000 or more for Obama’s campaign. Those included film producer Harvey Weinstein, New York financier Orin Kramer and Miami public-policy consultant Joseph Falk.

Indeed, it is not uncommon for presidents to reward major supporters with access to dignitary dinners: President George W. Bush invited dozens of his “pioneer” supporters to state dinners, and President Bill Clinton did the same. But Obama previously has criticized Washington’s pay-for-access privileges, and even donors themselves complained early in his presidency that they were kept at arm’s length.

The AP’s review also found some of those same donors, including Kramer and Falk, have written big checks to Priorities USA Action, a “super” political action committee run by former White House aides. Both donors contributed more than $10,000 to the group, which has struggled to raise the kind of big cash that Republican-leaning super PACs have banked on.

The nearly three dozen top donors who mingled with the dinner’s 360 total guests are also known as “bundlers” — the high-profile fundraisers who collect campaign checks from friends and business associates. Since federal campaign rules cap individual contribution limits — $2,500 each for the primary and general elections — bundlers have become significant figures for Obama’s campaign.

All told, bundlers at Wednesday’s event raised more than $8 million for his re-election efforts, records show.

No wonder Clooney works so much! Carrying Obama’s a** across the finish line takes big money.

Obama encouraged his supporters last month to donate to Priorities USA Action, a decision that drew criticism from campaign-finance watchdogs and Republicans who said Obama flip-flopped on his earlier stance assailing super PAC money. For their part, Democratic aides said they were playing by the same rules as everyone else, but also conceded they would not be left at a disadvantage in November.

An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment for this story.

You know, I think this might qualify as a random act of journalism. It takes no stand, but merely reports both sides. (How old must the reporter be, 97?)

Just an intimate little gathering of close friends (with deep pockets):

Seriously, dude. What’s so funny?

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

…

For the third consecutive day, Mitt Romney leads President Obama by five points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. It is still, however, too early to tell if these results reflect a lasting change in the race or are merely statistical noise. Today’s numbers show Romney at 48%, Obama at 42%. That matches the largest lead Romney has ever enjoyed over the president.

Romney’s support among Republican voters has moved up to 83%, just about matching the president’s 84% support among Democrats. However, only six percent (6%) of GOP voters would vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee. Twice as many Democrats (12%) would cross party lines to vote for Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts also has an eight-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

Consider this: Romney has been the default leader among Republican candidates since 2008—yet he still can’t close the deal! Even so, he’s still kicking Obama’s a** (inshallah)!!!