There are apparently people who think this is a good idea. Stick a fork in the Republic. It’s done.
There are apparently people who think this is a good idea. Stick a fork in the Republic. It’s done.
Yes, it’s a bumper sticker!
You can find a larger, clearer version here.
Sandberg is an ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. [...]
But why focus the campaign on the word “bossy”?
The answer to that may have something to do with Clinton being called “bossy” during the 2008 campaign by Australian feminist Germaine Greer. Bossy is also more tame than some of the other words Clinton has been called.
Two years ago, Democrats launched a campaign to brand Republicans as engaging in a ”war on women,” a campaign with a lasting impact that will no doubt stretch into the 2016 elections if Clinton runs.
Now the Ban Bossy campaign gives Democrats another weapon to use against those who disagree with Clinton’s policy ideas.
This way, anyone who criticizes Mrs. Clinton for her notoriously imperious, overbearing, domineering, difficult personality can be automatically attacked as “Anti-Woman;” much as all criticism of President Obama is attributed to “racism.” [But rest assured, calling Sarah Palin any crude, insulting name you want will still mark you as one of the Tolerant Enlightened.]
BTW, my good friend Stoaty Weasel has created a very… compelling… poster for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign. It’s a bit… uncivil… to reproduce it here; but here’s a link if you are feeling uncivil toward Mrs. Clinton.
Hillary may be the top choice for President among the low-information “Brawndo’s Got Electrolytes” voters in the USA, but worldwide, she ranks pretty much last.
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who leads all 2016 presidential polls, ranks dead last on a new top 10 poll of who Americans admire most, and at the bottom of who the world admires most, behind celebs like Angelina Jolie and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Challenge: Name one real Hillary Clinton accomplishment. Don’t tell me she graduated from Yale. Don’t tell me she
rode Bill’s coat-tails was elected Senator from New York and Secretary of State. What has she actually accomplished in terms of successful public policy that improved the lives of vast numbers of people?
Not that accomplishment matters to the same Idiocrat voters who, last time around, picked a half-term senator and former part-time community organizer.
Earlier today, NorthJersey.com broke a story that several top aides to Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) conspired to create massive traffic jams in order to punish a town whose mayor failed to endorse Christie’s re-election bid.
According to e-mails obtained by the publication, several of Christie’s top aides — including his deputy chief of staff and a senior executive with the state’s Port Authority — ordered lane closures on the already overburdened George Washington Bridge to get revenge against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich.
This kind of thing is obviously not a scandal when a Democrat does it. The SCOAMF vindictively closed national parks and monuments to punish voters during the Government shutdown, and the MFM had his hack. It remains to be seen if the MFM will protect their
designated Republican loser favorite Republican the same way.
Update: Taking a cue from the man he helped re-elect in 2012, Christie claims he was completely ignorant of what his administration was doing and only found out about it when he read it in the papers.
Guest Post from GP Community Member V The K.
2016 is shaping up like a rerun of 1988, an election coming on the heels of a two-term presidency by a strongly ideological president. And in 2016, as in 1988, the party in power is poised to hand the baton to a defeated rival from the prior primary campaign who served the administration loyally afterward; George H.W. Bush in 1988, Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016.
The Republican Party is in a comparable position to the Democrats 0f 1988; the party has been rejected in two successive national elections, its base is dispirited, and its governing philosophy repudiated by the electorate. Thus, Chris Christie of New Jersey, should he be the Republican nominee, is cast in the role of Bush 41’s hapless opponent Michael Dukakis; a man whose example he is likely to follow into humiliating defeat.
Here are 10 Reasons for that:
1. Christie and Dukakis are both blue-state governors with mediocre records. Christie and Dukakis have both been governors of liberal northeastern states. Both campaigned for governor as reformers, but achieved little in the way of actual reforms while in office. (For all Christie’s screaming at schoolteachers, all he’s really accomplished is increasing the number of years to get tenure from 3 to 4. Yeah, that’ll break the back of the teacher’s union.) Both are supporters of gun control, Amnesty for illegal immigrants, and massive Federal spending in their own states. (BTW: New Jersey’s economic performance under Christie: No so great.
2. Both gained notoriety by dealing with natural disasters. Both Christie and Dukakis burnished their “leadership” credentials during natural disasters. Dukakis went on TV during the Blizzard of ‘78 to deliver weather bulletins. Christie famously hugged Obama in the aftermath of “Superstorm Sandy” and yelled at Republicans to pass a massive “Relief” Bill that contained more pork-barrel spending than actual hurricane relief.
3. Both had rivals who were taken out by bad judgment. Before the 1988 primaries, the Democrat frontrunner was a good-looking senator who was the darling of his party; Gary Hart of Colorado. Hart took himself out of the race after being caught en flagrante with Jessica Hahn. Going into 2016, the Republican Party also had an attractive, much adored senator who was the clear frontrunner… until Marco Rubio got caught in bed with Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.
4. The Republican Primary Field of 2016 is a Bizarro-World version of the 1988 Democrat Primary Field. Christie, like Dukakis, may face in the primaries: an ideological stalwart beloved by the activist base (Jesse Jackson/Ted Cruz), a congressman with deep ties to the party establishment but little appeal outside of it (Dick Gephardt/Paul Ryan); and a senator representing a political dynasty (Al Gore/Rand Paul). Should he prevail, Christie is likely to emerge as a candidate with an unenthusiastic party behind him, just like Dukakis in 1988.
5. Christie has his own Willie Hortons in the form of Abel Hernandez, Andy Maguino, and Jose Luis Galindo-Sanchez… illegal immigrants benefiting from New Jersey’s “sanctuary cities” who killed Americans. Maguino, notably, was sentenced to probation and community service after running down an old lady in his car and fleeing the scene. [Link]
6. Like Dukakis, Christie will also have his “tank” moment. For Dukakis, his desperation to prove he was not a weak-on-defense northeastern liberal led to a photo op riding around in a tank and looking like… a weak-on-defense northeastern liberal riding around in a tank. Christie has to do something to disavow his post -Sandy bromance with Obama. At some point, he is going to have to denounce his BFF, and in doing so, he is likely to end up looking very foolish because the gesture will be so transparently fake… like Dukakis in the tank.
7. Christie Will Need a Running Mate to Pick Up Voters His Party Is Losing. Dukakis picked Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate to reach out to “Reagan Democrats.” Christie will also have to choose a running mate more appealing than he is to a key voting bloc, in his case, women. He may choose someone like New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte; a northeastern moderate who shares his support for Amnesty and Gun Control.
8. Christie, Like Dukakis, will try and turn a negative personality trait into a positive. Dukakis tried to pass off dull detachment as “competence.” Christie tries to pass off being a jerk as “leadership.” The problem is that leadership and competence are just empty slogans. Bush 41 beat Dukakis by promising to continue Reagan’s policies; a promise he almost immediately broke by imposing massive tax increases, but “Read My Lips” got him into office, because he presented voters with something tangible – a continuation of Reagan Era prosperity. Dukakis lost, and Christie will lose, because neither man presents a compelling alternative to the person he did/will run against.
9. Both face opponents who are mediocre politicians riding the coat-tails of better politicians. If Christie is the Mike Dukakis of 2016, Hillary Clinton is the George H.W. Bush. Like Bush 41, she is the heir-apparent to a two-term president who wrought major changes to the country. Like Bush 41, she is an awkward campaigner with a grating speaking style.
10. Like Dukakis, Christie will lose massively. A lot of people are claiming Chris Christie is “the only man who can beat Hillary.” Most of those people want Hillary to win. Hillary will win by promising a return to the era of her husband’s presidency; and a large number of voters are incapable of critical thinking beyond “the last time a Clinton was in office, I was doing all right.”
The title is Jonah Goldberg’s. Apologies for forgetting who/what tipped me off to his recent speech. It wanders, but covers much interesting ground.
Readers of this blog know that I have long been a fan of Jeb Bush, having favored the accomplished former Florida Governor as my candidate for 2012 at least since November 2010.
And while it is still too early to start planning for 2016, when you google that good man’s name, look at what comes up:
. . . the former Florida governor who based a political career on school reform, today called for a “restoration” of lost American values and economic mobility based on educational accountability.
With the gap between the impoverished and privileged in the U.S. widening, the solution lies in a regime of school and teacher evaluation, national standards and more “school choice” in alternatives such as charter schools, he said.
“We have these huge gaps in income,” Bush said at the start of a two-day Washington conference sponsored by his Foundation for Excellence in Education, “with people born into poverty who will stay in poverty.” He said: “This ideal of who we are as a nation — it’s going away, it’s leaving us,” adding: “There is one path that can change this course.”
Emphasis added. Economic mobility, his belief that people born in poverty, reared in dependency, don’t have to stay in that condition and can rise about their circumstances.
It frustrated many Reagan-Kemp conservatives when, right after the Florida primary, Mitt Romney said because of the “safety net,” he wasn’t concerned about the very poor.
Reagan conservatives, however, have long been concerned about the poor because that safety net sometimes traps them in a cycle of dependency. And we want to create the opportunities that will help them find the means to move up into a better economic situation. (more…)
“The president,” wrote Jennifer Rubin yesterday, “who ran with no agenda and is now a lame duck, has not distinguished himself by tackling tough problems.” His reelection campaign made his, as his campaign manager put it, the party of “the micro stuff“.
(Perhaps Mitt Romney would have won last week had he been better at articulating the bigger picture.)
WIth such a small ball focus, Obama doesn’t seem willing to address the big challenges facing our country, notably the coming insolvency of entitlements, out-of-control federal spending and the increasing burdens of the regulatory state.
The sound and fury will be over big fights on taxes and spending. They will look like replays of the last four years and not end up accomplishing much. The big changes to our economy will be the metastatic expansion of regulation, let by ACA, Dodd-Frank, and EPA. There will be no change on our long run problems: entitlements, deficits or fundamental reform of our chaotic tax system. 4 more years, $4 trillion more debt.
Why? I think this follows inevitably from the situation: normal (AFU). Nothing has changed. The President is a Democrat, now lame duck. The congress is Republican. The Senate is asleep. Congressional Republicans think the President is a socialist. The President thinks Congressional Republicans are neanderthals. The President cannot compromise on the centerpieces of his campaign.
Result: we certainly are not going to see big legislation. Anything new will happen by executive order or by regulation.
Read the whole thing. And this is what is truly sad. We need real reform right now, big changes to address fiscal problems looming beyond the cliff. We have a debt problem. And a regulatory problem. And yet now we have an administration committed to moving us in the opposite direction, writing ever more regulations and increasing the costs of compliance to job creators. (more…)
Four years ago, appearing on PJTV the night of the election, I said that Rush Limbaugh had then become the interim leader of the conservative movement. Roger Simon, as I recall, disagreed.
In retrospective, I may have had a point. Rush did give a great speech at the following CPAC (2009) challenging the new president and articulating the conservative vision. But, that talker is more a cheerleader and a motivator, than an actual leader. To be sure, he helps us deliver our message and encourages us.
Perhaps Rush came to mind at the time because, in the first eight years of this century, the conservative movement had become increasingly moribund. The Tea Party was not yet born. Few outside Florida had ever heard of Marco Rubio. Bobby Jindal hadn’t even completed his first year as Governor of Louisiana.
Two years later, a whole host of articulate conservatives would rise to the fore, with Bob McDonnell elected Governor of Virginia the following year, then several thoughtful Republicans including Rubio elected to the U.S. Senate, including Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, Rob Portman from Ohio and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania.
Paul Ryan would soon take over the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee. The Tea Party would become even stronger. (more…)
With the help of David Leip’s Atlas of Presidential Elections, I have compiled the popular vote and percentage of the total vote the presidential candidate of the party which would govern for each of nine electoral “cycles” going from 1912 through 2008. (Available below the jump.)
By electoral cycle, I mean a series of the three elections starting with the one which caused a shift in partisan control of the White House, i.e., in 1912, the partisan control shifted from Republican (William Howard Taft) to Democratic (Woodrow Wilson). Sometimes, in the third election in the cycle, partisan control would switch back as it did in 1920, 1960, 1968, 2000 & 2008. Other times, the incumbent party would retain the White House as happened in 1928, 1940 and 1988.
In each case, a distinct pattern emerges. The party which comes to power in the first election will gain votes and increase its percentage of the vote in the second, then see a decline, sometimes substantial, in the third.
There are, however, only two exceptions.
In the second election in the 1920s cycle, 1924, Calvin Coolidge won fewer votes (and a smaller percentage of the vote) than he did his erstwhile running mate Warren G. Harding four years previously. Four years later, Herbert Hoover would get more votes than either of his two partisan predecessors, but a lower percentage than did Harding. That said, the pattern holds if we begin the cycle in 1924 and end it in 1932. Increase from 1924 to 1928, decline in 1932.
In the 1990s cycle, Al Gore got more votes in 2000 than Bill Clinton had in 1992 or 1996, but, in the first two elections in that cycle, there had been a major third party candidate, Ross Perot. The pattern does hold when you calculate the dominant party’s percentage of the two-party vote.
One minor exception: In 1920 (third election of the 1910s cycle), Democrat James Cox got more votes than did Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916, but that’s because 1920 was the first election when women were allowed to vote.
So, why I am sharing all this with you? To show that there is historical pattern here which suggests that Republicans stand in good stead for 2016. No president, until this week, has ever won reelection with fewer votes than he had in his initial election. And save for 1928*, his party has always seen a drop-off (usually quite significant) from the second to third election in the cycle.
Obama didn’t get that popular vote bump that Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson (running as Kennedy’s successor), Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush got. His party is likely to see a further decline in 2016, though the example of Herbert Hoover in 1928 does provide some hope that they might break the pattern. (more…)
I’ve sequestered myself from news (and I miss Bret Baier already) since about 2200L Tuesday night, so please forgive me if I’m not breaking new ground here. If I’m not, and this happens, I may end up looking pretty damned prescient come 2016:
Given that there’s bound to be some nervousness (it existed before the election even) among Democrats that there isn’t any “bench” of candidates to take the helm after President Obama leaves office in 2017 (Biden-no, Reid-no, Pelosi-no, Clinton—you gotta say likely no), and
Given that he did so much to aggravate Republicans by what many saw as going beyond the customary magnanimous gratitude during a crisis and instead displayed what they considered way-overboard fawning obsequiousness toward the president on the eve of a national election, Chris Christie isn’t in any position to win a Republican primary…
Would it surprise anybody if he switched parties (likely before his re-election campaign for New Jersey Governor next year)? He’d pretty instantly become the heir-apparent to Obama, wouldn’t you think?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)
*ps, Yes, I know…I was the guy who said he was going to turn a new leaf when it comes to politics and ideas. This shouldn’t be misconstrued as a divergence from that approach…just a theoretical academic exercise.
UPDATE: Aw, crap. I should really Google before I post. Well, great minds…