Barack Broke That — Democrats Now in Worse Shape Than Before Obama Took Office!

The f-ker's drunk on executive power and he couldn't give a whack about what happens to the Democrat Party. He's gonna have his way or the highway.

So just watch: Top Democrats --- starting with Hillary Clinton --- are going to abandon Obama with a vicious alacrity. He's destroying the party and the Republicans just need to keep playing it on the straight and narrow, not overreaching, keeping their eyes on the prize of 2016.

Man, life is beautiful.

At Politico, "Democrats to Obama: You broke the party, now fix it":

Enough, Donna Brazile told White House political director David Simas the day after the midterms.

Democrats are in worse shape than when President Barack Obama came into office — the number of seats they have in Congress, the number of governors, a party approval rating that’s fallen behind Republicans for the first time in recent history, enthusiasm, energy. The White House, Brazile said when she came to meet with Simas, has got to focus for the next two years on getting the party into better shape, and Obama’s the best and most effective person to get out the message.

As much Hillary Clinton anticipation as there is, two weeks later, Democrats are still reeling and anxious. Obama may have built his political career without the party — and created anti-establishment alternatives — but he’s a lame duck with a new Congress that’s been elected to oppose him. He needs Democrats. And they need him.

“The base craves his leadership,” Brazile said in an interview later that week, following a meeting of the DNC committee that’s beginning to set the rules for the next presidential nomination. “They want him in the mix, talking about what Democrats accomplished, what Democrats are fighting for, and what the president has done to make lives better.”

Nancy Pelosi was reelected minority leader. So was Harry Reid. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s term at the DNC isn’t up until 2017.

Obama said repeatedly before and after the votes were counted that he wasn’t going to fire anyone because of election results. But if no one’s going to take the blame for 2014, Democrats are hoping he’ll take responsibility for getting things better for 2016.

“He may or may not be the best messenger,” said Vic Fazio, the former California congressman who was the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair for the 1994 rout. “But at this point, he is still our messenger. And the first year is very important.”
At least until the next presidential campaign begins in earnest, Democrats say, it’ll be up to Obama to centralize the Democratic message around something other than simply trying to paint the Republicans as extreme.

Interviews with leading party strategists turn to three main suggestions: Obama should be a much more frequent and strong voice on Democratic priorities, he should transform his West Wing political office from a midterm clearinghouse to an instrument for true party outreach, and he should reinvest his energy in the Democratic National Committee — including seeking a full-time chair who can begin the major clean-up and overhaul they need ahead of 2016.

And if doing it for the party isn’t enough for Obama, Democrats say, do it out of self-interest.

“A strong party is the key to a lasting legacy,” said a senior Democratic strategist. “Whether it’s for our ideals as Democrats or it’s for his personal legacy — if we lose the White House and continue to get gutted down ballot, they will repeal the ACA and everything else we’ve fought so hard for, and all of this will be for naught.”

That should be a short-term worry for Obama too, Brazile said.

“The Republicans have not retreated from the battlefield, so why should President Obama surrender?” she said. “He can’t give up, he can’t waver. All of that looks to Democrats like he doesn’t stand for much, and it’s not the truth.”

Keep reading.

Forty-Eight Percent Oppose Obama's Executive Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

From the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, at WSJ, "Obama Faces Skeptical Public on Immigration Action — WSJ/NBC Poll."

More from Noah Rothman, at Hot Air, "NBC poll: Executive amnesty is… pretty unpopular with just about everybody."

And ICYMI, "Obama's Agenda Threatens to Divide the Democratic Party."

Immigration's gonna be a anchor on a lot of Democrat Party election prospects in 2016. But hey, it's all about the legacy!

Senate Democrats Throw Mary Landrieu Under the Anti-Keystone Bus

From Susan Davis, at USA Today, "Senate defeats Keystone XL pipeline."



More at Memeorandum.

Obama's Agenda Threatens to Divide the Democratic Party

And The One couldn't care less. It's all about legacy at this point. The way things are going, he's not going to have much of one come 2017.

From Josh Kraushaar, at Nation Journal, "Obama's Agenda Threatens to Divide the Democratic Party."

Obama 'Has Destroyed the Credibility' of His Administration

Ron Fournier lets loose, on yesterday's Special Report:

Dead Democrat Walking

Heh, that has a nice ring to it, especially the "dead Democrat" part.

 VIDEO: "The Atlantic's Molly Ball: Mary Landrieu Is a 'Dead Democrat Walking'."

Leftist Baloney

From William Voegeli, at National Review, "Liberal Bullshit":

Conservative critiques of liberalism sometimes concede that liberals’ aspirations are laudable before insisting that the means liberals favor are insufficiently practical and at least potentially destructive. The way liberal compassion lends itself to liberal bullshit, however, argues for a less forgiving interpretation. Liberals’ ideals make them more culpable, not less, for the fact that government programs set up to do good don’t reliably accomplish good. Doing good is often harder than do-gooders realize, but doing good is also more about the doing and the doer than it is about the good. Too often, as a result, liberals are content to treat gestures as the functional equivalent of deeds, and intentions as adequate substitutes for achievements.

That's a snippet of Voegeli's book, The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion.

Mitt Romney on 'Face the Nation': Obama, Dude, You Lost the Midterms

Obama "poking a stick in the eye" of Republicans is "not a good idea."

Yeah, Obama's got to learn that "he's lost this election," heh.

Bob Schieffer 'Dumbstruck' by Jonathan Gruber's Brutal Honesty, LOL!

Even good old Bob Schieffer is gobsmacked --- gobsmacked I tell you --- by the audacity of the honesty of Jonathan "Stupid Americans" Gruber!

You gotta love it!

Ellison Barber and Sharyl Attkisson on #GruberGate

Sweet ladies --- and smart!



And ICYMI, "#ObamaCare Architect Exposes Progressive Totalitarianism — And Repsac's Too!"

More on Donald Sutherland

He's a bleedin' lefty, but I think he's onto something about the "youth revolution."

More from Gentleman's Quarterly:

Donald Sutherland's epic Hollywood life and career. The GQ &A: http://t.co/5bku2tjkWH pic.twitter.com/MzIjMqHd7D

— GQ Magazine (@GQMagazine) November 15, 2014

Obama's Executive Amnesty Threatens Constitutional Crisis

If Obama goes for the full 5-million legalization plan, there's going to be hell to pay.

Here's Fox News, "Source: Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week."

Also at LAT, "Going solo on immigration: Obama weighs reform options."

And here's Megyn Kelly's full opening segment last night, which includes comments from Professor Jonathan Turley, who has repeatedly warned against Obama's authoritarian executive actions.

After Shellacking, Democrats Shifting to 'McGovern Model' for 2016

I expect regressive Democrats to increasingly rally around Senator Elizabeth Warren over the next couple of years, pulling the party further to the left. And whether or not "Fauxcahontas" runs in 2016, the Dems are positioning themselves the way George McGovern did heading into the 1972 presidential election: as an ideologically extreme party out of touch with Main Street economic concerns. As such, the Republicans could deliver a massive thumping to the Democrats next time around, perhaps not as dramatic as the one Richard Nixon delivered to McGovern, but certainly for the same reasons. The Democrats will be split between ideological purists and political pragmatists, and the wisdom of the latter won't become evident until a couple election cycles of far-left repudiation by the voters.

An any case, here's the NYT, "After Losses, Liberal and Centrist Democrats Square Off on Strategy."

Arrogance Plus Deception = #ObamaCare.

At the Chicago Tribune, "Arrogance plus deception equals Obamacare. Ask Gruber."

The Loneliest President Since Nixon

From Peggy Noonan, at WSJ, "Facing adversity, Obama has no idea how to respond":

Seven years ago I was talking to a longtime Democratic operative on Capitol Hill about a politician who was in trouble. The pol was likely finished, he said. I was surprised. Can’t he change things and dig himself out? No. “People do what they know how to do.” Politicians don’t have a vast repertoire. When they get in a jam they just do what they’ve always done, even if it’s not working anymore.

Seven years ago I was talking to a longtime Democratic operative on Capitol Hill about a politician who was in trouble. The pol was likely finished, he said. I was surprised. Can’t he change things and dig himself out? No. “People do what they know how to do.” Politicians don’t have a vast repertoire. When they get in a jam they just do what they’ve always done, even if it’s not working anymore.

This came to mind when contemplating President Obama. After a devastating election, he is presenting himself as if he won. The people were not saying no to his policies, he explained, they would in fact like it if Republicans do what he tells them.

You don’t begin a new relationship with a threat, but that is what he gave Congress: Get me an immigration bill I like or I’ll change U.S. immigration law on my own.

Mr. Obama is doing what he knows how to do—stare them down and face them off. But his circumstances have changed. He used to be a conquering hero, now he’s not. On the other hand he used to have to worry about public support. Now, with no more elections before him, he has the special power of the man who doesn’t care.

I have never seen a president in exactly the position Mr. Obama is, which is essentially alone. He’s got no one with him now. The Republicans don’t like him, for reasons both usual and particular: They have had no good experiences with him. The Democrats don’t like him, for their own reasons plus the election loss. Before his post-election lunch with congressional leaders, he told the press that he will judiciously consider any legislation, whoever sends it to him, Republicans or Democrats. His words implied that in this he was less partisan and more public-spirited than the hacks arrayed around him. It is for these grace notes that he is loved. No one at the table looked at him with colder, beadier eyes than outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , who clearly doesn’t like him at all. The press doesn’t especially like the president; in conversation they evince no residual warmth. This week at the Beijing summit there was no sign the leaders of the world had any particular regard for him. They can read election returns. They respect power and see it leaking out of him. If Mr. Obama had won the election they would have faked respect and affection.

Vladimir Putin delivered the unkindest cut, patting Mr. Obama’s shoulder reassuringly. Normally that’s Mr. Obama’s move, putting his hand on your back or shoulder as if to bestow gracious encouragement, needy little shrimp that you are. It’s a dominance move. He’s been doing it six years. This time it was Mr. Putin doing it to him. The president didn’t like it

From Reuters: “‘It’s beautiful, isn’t it?’ Putin was overheard saying in English in Obama’s general direction, referring to the ornate conference room. ‘Yes,’ Obama replied, coldly, according to journalists who witnessed the scene.”

The last time we saw a president so alone it was Richard Nixon, at the end of his presidency, when the Democrats had turned on him, the press hated him, and the Republicans were fleeing. It was Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s standard-bearer in 1964, and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, also of Arizona, who went to the White House to tell Nixon his support in Congress had collapsed, they would vote to impeach. Years later Goldwater called Nixon “The world’s biggest liar.”

Obama's a petulant bitch --- and a freakin' national disgrace.

More.

New RNC Video Hammers Democrats Over Jonathan Gruber #ObamaCare Comments

The Dems are getting Grubered, heh.

'Jonathan Gruber is One of Most Respected Economist in the World!'

That's the quote from outgoing Senate Majority Dickhead Harry Reid, on the MIT economist suddenly Democrats "have never heard of."

Watch:



And ICYMI, "#ObamaCare Sold on a Pack of Lies."

Donald Sutherland Calls for 'Revolution' Among American Youth

I actually agree with Donald Sutherland on this, although I think we differ on the kind of revolution that needs to happen.

At Truth Revolt.

#ObamaCare Sold on a Pack of Lies

I was trying to avoid the whole idiot-gasbag-liar Jonathan Gruber issue (since the fact that lies were used to pass ObamaCare is like so 2009), but if Charles Krauthammer's weighing in ... well, let's just say he's got my vote.

At WaPo, "The Gruber Confession":

Dude RT @jaketapper: Obamacare architect #Gruber in 6th video: 'Mislabeling' helped us get rid of tax breaks http://t.co/DEfjxzAW47

— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) November 14, 2014

It’s not exactly the Ems Dispatch (the diplomatic cable Bismarck doctored to provoke the 1870 Franco-Prussian War). But what the just-resurfaced Gruber Confession lacks in world-historical consequence, it makes up for in world-class cynicism. This October 2013 video shows MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, a principal architect of Obamacare, admitting that, in order to get it passed, the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive. It constitutes the ultimate vindication of the charge that Obamacare was sold on a pack of lies.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” said Gruber. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” This was no open-mic gaffe. It was a clear, indeed enthusiastic, admission to an academic conference of the mendacity underlying Obamacare.

First, Gruber said, the bill’s authors manipulated the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which issues gold-standard cost estimates of any legislative proposal: “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.” Why? Because “if CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” And yet, the president himself openly insisted that the individual mandate — what you must pay the government if you fail to buy health insurance — was not a tax.

Worse was the pretense that Obamacare wouldn’t cost anyone anything. On the contrary, it’s a win-win, insisted President Obama, promising that the “typical family” would save $2,500 on premiums every year.

Skeptics like me pointed out the obvious: You can’t subsidize 30 million uninsured without someone paying something. Indeed, Gruber admits, Obamacare was a huge transfer of wealth — which had to be hidden from the American people, because “if you had a law which . . . made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

Remember: The whole premise of Obamacare was that it would help the needy, but if you were not in need, if you liked what you had, you would be left alone. Which is why Obama kept repeating — PolitiFact counted 31 times — that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

But of course you couldn’t, as millions discovered when they were kicked off their plans last year. Millions more were further shocked when they discovered major hikes in their premiums and deductibles. It was their wealth that was being redistributed.

As NBC News and others reported last year, the administration knew this all along. But White House political hands overrode those wary about the president’s phony promise. In fact, Obama knew the falsity of his claim as far back as February 2010, when, at a meeting with congressional leaders, he agreed that millions would lose their plans.

Now, it’s not unconstitutional to lie. Nor are laws enacted by means of deliberate deception thereby rendered invalid. But it is helpful for citizens to know the cynicism with which the massive federalization of their health care was crafted...

Keep reading.

Senior Democrats Slam Congressional Leaders After Party's Epic Thrashing in Midterm Elections

At the Hill, "Dems fault leaders for brushing off losses."

The criticisms are going to fall on deaf (and dumb) ears. With the Obama-Dems it's like a runaway train to far-left extremist oblivion.