If Democrats think Obamacare is a PR disaster now, just wait

Wait till those employer provided plans start getting 86ed next year. Then the real caca hits the fan

One of the things you may have noticed in the past couple of weeks is that some liberal pundits are claiming that ObamaCare is essentially a public relations problem: The program is just wonderful, but there have been some P.R. problems with the rollout.

Democrats need to learn that denial is not the name of a river in Egypt:

Democratic leaders claim the bungled launch of Obamacare is just the latest news sensation — a media-stirred tempest that looks in the heat of the moment like it could upend the midterm election, but ends up fizzling well before voters head to the polls.
Some party strategists say they’re in denial.

And that perceived gap between party spin and facts on the ground is fueling worries that the White House and Democratic higher-ups aren’t taking the possible electoral blowback seriously enough or doing enough to shield their candidates. Democratic contenders in the toughest races are distinctly less convinced that Obamacare will fade as an election-year issue — and they can’t afford to just cross their fingers that things get ironed out or that Republicans revert to political hara-kiri.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a forum hosted by BuzzFeed recently that the rollout won’t “hurt us in 2014,” adding that “we’re proud” of the law. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a recent appearance on CNN, went so far as to assert that Obamacare would be “an advantage” for Democratic candidates next year.

“Democrats will run on the Affordable Care Act and win,” she has also told reporters.

The White House, meanwhile, has come across as equally dismissive of Obamacare’s consequences for 2014.

And the worst news of all came out today in a CNN Poll

And speaking of complete meltdown . . .

We are starting to see a broad polling trend for Barack Obama, and it should have the White House worried — but maybe Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress even more.  The latest CNN poll confirms what the Washington Post/ABC poll first noticed, and what the CBS poll corroborated — Obama’s approval decline involves more than just his performance.  The Americans public is souring on Obama as a person and as a brand, and that spells real trouble for his agenda . . . .

President Obama will not be on the ballot in 2014 or 2016, but the American people will be angry with him, and guess who else? His fellow Democrats, and likely any nominee the Democrats put forward in 2016. They will take the losses, and then the only question is will the GOP use enough common sense to reap the electoral benefits?

 

This is why we call the GOP the Stupid Party

Via Vodka Pundit

Oh fer cryin’ out loud:

A proposed amendment to the state’s Republican Party bylaws would allow the removal of the Alabama College Republicans chairwoman, who spoke out in favor of same-sex marriage in June, from the party’s steering committee.

Following the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act in June, chairwoman and University of Alabama student Stephanie Petelos spoke to AL.com about the generational divide between party leadership and young conservatives on the issue.

She told Buzzfeed the comments reportedly infuriated party leaders, who began attempting then to remove her from the steering committee.

Good Grief! This is the kind of thing that always bugs me. we are not Liberals, we ought to be able to have a difference of opinion on such an issue. As Stephen Green points out this will not help get the youth vote

Sure, the state party can make its own rules and bylaws. That’s its job, after all. But to change those bylaws to target one person for making a personal statement which is pretty much the freakin’ norm for college kids?

BINGO!

 

Is Salon the STD of the Internet?

It might seem a bit harsh to judge Salon so harshly, but, as Stacy McCain points out, Salon is the  Most Worthless Internet Site, Period. He should know, he reads it so we do not have to. I have read Salon’s stuff, it is like watching MSNBS. Sure it is a Tree of Low-Hanging Blogging Fruit, but the mind numbingly bad writing at Salon can cause severe brain irritation, and, if given a choice between reading salon, and watching MSNBS, well I think Stacy McCain sums up my feelings

Which is worse, herpes or syphilis? Herpes is incurable, but the ravages of syphilis can be deadly. This is a story about the liberal media, however, not sexually transmitted diseases . . .

Of course watching MSNBS, or reading Salon can prove as harmful to your love life as an STD. If you think having to explain that “prescription strength cream” your significant other found in your medicine cabinet is bad, try explaining why you read Salon, or watch MSNBS. Talk about a relationship killer! McCain goes on about the utter failure that Salon, and all “progressive media” is

You know how, since Day One of the IRS scandal, every liberal on the planet has been saying it’s not really a scandal? So the umpteenth reiteration of the IRS Scandal (NOT) meme was published Monday by a writer for Salon, the Most Worthless Internet Site, Period.

While AOL paid gazillions for HuffPo, and BuzzFeed is now estimated to be worth gazillion-times-infinity, nobody has ever hazarded a guess of the value of Salon.com, a site that has been losing massive sums of money constantly since the days of dial-up modems.

Because there are no other “progressive” sites on the Internet, you see, and if these investors didn’t keep pouring money into that courageousSalon.com, then Newt Gingrich would take over America and suddenly TV would be in black-and-white again, or something.

Nobody ever pays attention to Salon except in the sense of, “Did you see that stupid/gross/utterly wrong thing they published at Salon?”

But why bring up Tracy Clark-Flory at a time like this?

My point is that nobody really pays attention to Salon except gigantic inflatable dildos like Lawrence O’Donnell, who evidently had anapoplectic fit because this IRS Scandal (NOT) story failed to mention that Lawrence O’Donnell invented IRS Scandal (NOT) stories.

Of course, O’Donnell has a fit every time the wind blows, that is what he does, he works for MSNBS, where being a gigantic inflatable dildo is a prerequisite for a gig on one of their shows, how else do you explain Martin Bashir getting his own show?  But, the larger point is that America, as a nation, does not embrace Progressive causes. Air America failed, talk radio is dominated by Conservative hosts, not crackpot Progressive’s. Salon, FAIL! MSNBS FAIL! Their are only two reasons anyone follows “progressive media”. For laughs and easy blogging material, or because you are a Progressive crackpot who actually buys the tons on  BS spewed by Progressives. And the fact is there are just not enough crackpots that WANT to read Salon, watch MSNBS, or listen to Thom Hartman for anyone to take them seriously. Yet, investors keep shoveling money into those pits of Progressive failure.

McCain, who hates O’Donnell as much as I do, closes his post with this Tweet asking the age old question which is worse a pack of rabid jackals or a Gigantic Inflatable Dildo named Lawrence?

.@pareene is evil, but so are rabid jackals, and if rabid jackals attacked @Lawrencehttp://www.salon.com/2013/07/09/lawrence_odonnell_outraged_to_read_story_that_isnt_about_him/ … GO, RABID JACKALS, GO!

Man TOUGH CALL, but GO JACKALS!

 

Stacy McCain is just misunderstood

As he tries to explain here

  1. My post Friday afternoon, published 17 hours after HuffPo claimed there was a meeting Thursday on Capitol Hill, was astrenuous denial that any such meeting ever took place; anyone who thought it was something else clearly has reading comprehension problems.
  2. I provided a list of conservative writers — or, as Al Franken called them, “Lying Liars Who Lie” — who obviously can’t be trusted, if they were to claim that any such meeting took place.
  3. I specifically disclaimed having been in attendance at The Meeting That Never Happened, contrary to what any of those Lying Liars Who Lie might (hypothetically) claim.
  4. Why do liberals at HuffPo and BuzzFeed think they can trust Lying Liars Who Lie to tell them the truth about a meeting that (a) was off-the-record, and (b) never actually happened? 
See, that clears it up. And by the way Ed and I were still never invited to the secret meeting that everyone knows about that might not have even happened! Gee what is hard to follow about that?

Like a bad case of food poisoning, Governor irrelevant is back

Yep, John Huntsman, of the Charlie Crist/Dede Scozzafava Wing of the Republican Party is auditioning to be “That” Republican. “That” Republican being the Republican that the media will fawn over because “that” Republican will throw Conservatives under the bus, painting the Right as “nutty” or ” out of touch”. In short “That” Republican, be it Davis Frum, David Brooks, Charlie Crist, Meghan McCain, or John Huntsman is willing to be a useful idiot for the media.Stacy McCain, like me, is, shall we say NOT a fan of Huntsman

“Jon Huntsman quit the 2012 presidential campaign just as he ran it all along: Sowing confusion with contradictory messages. …
“Students of American political history who examine the peculiar course of Huntsman’s campaign will undoubtedly scratch their heads and ask themselves, ‘What the f–k was that all about?‘”
– Robert Stacy McCain, “A Fitting Finale to the Huntsman Flop,” Monday, Jan. 16, 2012

And now, Huntsman has gone the way of Crist, sinking a knife into the back of the GOP

Keep that in mind as you read this report from Buzzfeed’s Zeke Miller:

Former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman took a battle axe to his own party, comparing it to China’s Communist Party and criticizing it’s standard bearer in a wide-ranging interview at the 92nd Street Y Sunday night.
Recounting his first experience on the presidential debate stage in Iowa last August, Huntsman says he was struck by the question “Is this the best we could do?”
Huntsman, the former Utah governor and once President Barack Obama’s Ambassador to China, expressed disappointment that the Republican Party disinvited him from a Florida fundraiser in March after he publicly called for a third party. . . .
“So I had to say I believe in science — and people on stage look at you quizzically as though you’re was an oddball,” Huntsman said, explaining why he was “toast” in Iowa. . . .
On foreign policy, Huntsman questioned his former Republican opponents’ hard-line positions on China. “I don’t know what world these people are living in,”he said, not naming Mitt Romney by name.

Dude. I was there at the press conference in Myrtle Beach, S.C., when Huntsman quit and endorsed Romney. What was the New York Timesheadline on the story about that press conference?

Huntsman Leaves Race
With Plea for Party Unity

That was Monday, Jan. 16, just six days after he called his third-place finish in New Hampshire a “ticket to ride” and barely five months after the Aug. 11 Fox News debate in Ames, Iowa, where I first dubbed him “Governor Asterisk.” From the outset, his candidacy lacked any plausible rationale. One might call Jon Huntsman a “useful idiot,” but this would immediately prompt the question, “What actual use did he serve?” He never had any “path to the nomination,” and his faux campaign existed only to garner glowing coverage from the liberal media, to hog up time in televised debates, and to enrich the ruthless campaign consultants who somehow managed to convince him he had a chance.

So here we are in April, three months after he endorsed Romney and pleaded for “party unity,” and Chumpsman is publicly trashing the GOP? Once more we must ask: “What the f–k was that all about?”

It is all about getting a show on CNN or MSNBS maybe, or maybe just a personal vendetta. Or maybe Huntsman is mad at the GOP voters for being too “stupid” to vote for him. No wonder, since all he did was kick Conservatives in the teeth with his pompous act in the campaign. Frankly, Huntsman sounded more like a Liberal every debate. And now, he is going to try to teach us rubes us all a lesson. But, he is too irrelevant to matter.

Well guess who is not rich?

 When is  a millionaire NOT rich?

(BuzzFeed) — The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren — the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism — made the case to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn’t own stock.

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told him.

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

What she means is this. She is “rich” but she is excused from being one of those evil 1%ers because she is a flaming leftist you see. Sure she is, technically rich, but she believes that rich, er OTHER rich folks should be punished by heavy tax burdens so that the “workers” can benefit. Like lots of elitists Warren would never willingly live by the rules she dictates for others.

Exit question. When will all the OWS types figure out that they are being screwed over by the likes of Warren?