The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 22, 2014, 01:09:31 pm
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/390859/krauthammers-take-dems-midterm-strategy-total-humiliation-obama-and-he-cant-take-it (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/390859/krauthammers-take-dems-midterm-strategy-total-humiliation-obama-and-he-cant-take-it)
Krauthammer’s Take: Dems’ Midterm Strategy Is ‘Total Humiliation for Obama. . . and He Can’t Take It’
By NRO Staff
October 21, 2014 7:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG-QPLvjL0g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG-QPLvjL0g)
Democratic candidates want nothing to do with President Obama, and, says Charles Krauthammer, “he can’t take it.”
“This is a guy who six years ago had a worship service at a Denver stadium, being cheered by people while he was behind Greek columns. A few weeks earlier, he had been the hero of 200,000 Germans in Berlin,” Krauthammer observed on Special Report. “Here was a man, as Rich Lowry said earlier, bestriding the world. He was a citizen of the world, the most interesting, most sought-after political rock star on the planet. And now he’s got to hide under his desk until November.”
Statements like the president’s yesterday “pop out” because “this is a total humiliation for him and every once in a while he can’t take it.”
-
The narcissist child has never been able to take criticism. This is just bigger and more obvious now that he has fallen from his pedestal and his idolaters have turned their backs on him.
But I don't feel any sympathy. None at all.
-
The narcissist child has never been able to take criticism. This is just bigger and more obvious now that he has fallen from his pedestal and his idolaters have turned their backs on him.
But I don't feel any sympathy. None at all.
Yes, musiclady. No matter how painful to have to watch - we're at the place where we need to see this played out. America needs to see what happens when you elect style over substance. The next two years are not going to be pretty to watch.
-
"Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President."
-
Yes, musiclady. No matter how painful to have to watch - we're at the place where we need to see this played out. America needs to see what happens when you elect style over substance. The next two years are not going to be pretty to watch.
America will learn nothing. Democrats, including the media, will chalk this up to an explicable failure by Obama. Obama was everything they dreamed of, and somehow, he still failed. Obama should have succeeded, so, the only explanation is that Republicans obstructed and sabotaged Obama. Those Democrats are recalibrating, and are now, "Ready for Hillary." Sadly, they will be joined by a good number of otherwise conservative women who will vote for Hillary because it's time for a woman.
-
America will learn nothing. Democrats, including the media, will chalk this up to an explicable failure by Obama. Obama was everything they dreamed of, and somehow, he still failed. Obama should have succeeded, so, the only explanation is that Republicans obstructed and sabotaged Obama. Those Democrats are recalibrating, and are now, "Ready for Hillary." Sadly, they will be joined by a good number of otherwise conservative women who will vote for Hillary because it's time for a woman.
That strategy has been working for them. I'm a little concerned about these polls - tightening up a few weeks before election. This is how they did in 2012.
-
That strategy has been working for them. I'm a little concerned about these polls - tightening up a few weeks before election. This is how they did in 2012.
The polls are probably fixed so that the electorate will accept the fraudulent vote 'count'. We've recently seen articles about vote-fraud already happening. Those are just the ones someone happened to both discover the crime and get it out to the internet. The Demonrats must be getting confident that they have fixed enough races to start releasing fraudulent polls.
-
That strategy has been working for them. I'm a little concerned about these polls - tightening up a few weeks before election. This is how they did in 2012.
If after the November election Hillary emerges a strong front runner, I think it will behoove us to groom one of our own estrogen warriors. If they want to play the genitalia card, I say bring out our best and brightest dos equis chromosomes and give the 'rats both barrels.
-
If after the November election Hillary emerges a strong front runner, I think it will behoove us to groom one of our own estrogen warriors. If they want to play the genitalia card, I say bring out our best and brightest dos equis chromosomes and give the 'rats both barrels.
The only way for the Republicans to have a chance in 2016 is to nominate a female candidate. It would be just enough to confuse a lot of women voters, something the "war on women" proved is easily accomplished.
-
The only way for the Republicans to have a chance in 2016 is to nominate a female candidate. It would be just enough to confuse a lot of women voters, something the "war on women" proved is easily accomplished.
Ouch! I'm sure there's a complement to the fairer sex somewhere in there.
-
Ouch! I'm sure there's a complement to the fairer sex somewhere in there.
If there is, it's not a very big one!
-
If there is, it's not a very big one!
Well, he did acknowledge that a woman could be president. I give him that.
-
Why have any sympathy at all for someone that has done so much damage to the country and the world?
-
Ouch! I'm sure there's a complement to the fairer sex somewhere in there.
I'm simply going by observation. If I am in error, please correct me, and I'll apologize.
Obviously, it's a generalization. Generalizations can be proven wrong in specific cases, but if women didn't do a lot to keep Obama in office, I'd like to know that I'm in error on this.
-
I'm simply going by observation. If I am in error, please correct me, and I'll apologize.
Obviously, it's a generalization. Generalizations can be proven wrong in specific cases, but if women didn't do a lot to keep Obama in office, I'd like to know that I'm in error on this.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, just noting how umm, straightforward you were in characterizing some women as easily confused by political rhetoric. Gutsy, considering the strong women who regularly post here.
-
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, just noting how umm, straightforward you were in characterizing some women as easily confused by political rhetoric. Gutsy, considering the strong women who regularly post here.
We want our politicians to be straightforward. We complain of political correctness corrupting the culture. If we don't have the guts to post on a forum, in a somewhat anonymous fashion, what we feel are fair observations, we have no room to complain.
I love women. I recognize the complementary partnership that is a marriage. But, to ignore women are, in general, emotional beings is either dishonest, or stupid.
-
We want our politicians to be straightforward. We complain of political correctness corrupting the culture. If we don't have the guts to post on a forum, in a somewhat anonymous fashion, what we feel are fair observations, we have no room to complain.
I love women. I recognize the complementary partnership that is a marriage. But, to ignore women are, in general, emotional beings is either dishonest, or stupid.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” ― George Orwell, Animal Farm
-
We want our politicians to be straightforward. We complain of political correctness corrupting the culture. If we don't have the guts to post on a forum, in a somewhat anonymous fashion, what we feel are fair observations, we have no room to complain.
I love women. I recognize the complementary partnership that is a marriage. But, to ignore women are, in general, emotional beings is either dishonest, or stupid.
I completely understand your point of view. I'm a big fan of Leave It To Beaver myself, mostly for its innocence and for its unapologetic portrayal of gender roles accepted as normal in the early 60s. The roles that feminism so successfully attacked later in the decade.
-
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” ― George Orwell, Animal Farm
Not a case of equality, or some contrived version of equality. It's simply reality.
In my toolbox, I have a crescent wrench, and a screw driver, among other things. Both are tools. Both incredibly useful. If you give me a crescent wrench when I need the screw driver, you'll make me unhappy, and the job won't get done.
-
We want our politicians to be straightforward. We complain of political correctness corrupting the culture. If we don't have the guts to post on a forum, in a somewhat anonymous fashion, what we feel are fair observations, we have no room to complain.
I love women. I recognize the complementary partnership that is a marriage. But, to ignore women are, in general, emotional beings is either dishonest, or stupid.
No attempt to hijack the thread, but rather to participate in the conversation (as a woman).
Yes. Women, in general, tend to be emotional. But I'll posit the theory that men are as well...... only in different ways. (I was raised by a father who was far, far, far more emotional than my mother was, and they were very traditional in their gender roles...... just one example of many any of us could give).
In addition, some of the most emotionally out-of-control 'anonymous' people I've ever encountered on political forums have been men.
I would also venture to say that conservative women tend to be more cerebral than emotional, and that liberals of both genders tend to be far more emotional than conservative women.
That's perhaps why it's not really a discussion of what's PC that's involved here, but rather a question of whether such generalizations are valuable.
-
I completely understand your point of view. I'm a big fan of Leave It To Beaver myself, mostly for its innocence and for its unapologetic portrayal of gender roles accepted as normal in the early 60s. The roles that feminism so successfully attacked later in the decade.
Again.....my two cents here......
What I believe you're talking about is politically motivated leftist feminism, and not a genuine attempt to equalize the inequities (particularly in careers) which existed in the Leave it to Beaver world.
-
I may take heat for this, but I don't want a woman president! That would be a turn-off for me because I don't know of a woman right now that is qualified to be the president of the US - especially in these dire times. Any woman candidate is skating on her gender - just like Obama did with his skin color - I want someone who has a proven track record in governing. I would be insulted if they pick a woman right now.
-
No attempt to hijack the thread, but rather to participate in the conversation (as a woman).
Yes. Women, in general, tend to be emotional. But I'll posit the theory that men are as well...... only in different ways. (I was raised by a father who was far, far, far more emotional than my mother was, and they were very traditional in their gender roles...... just one example of many any of us could give).
In addition, some of the most emotionally out-of-control 'anonymous' people I've ever encountered on political forums have been men.
I would also venture to say that conservative women tend to be more cerebral than emotional, and that liberals of both genders tend to be far more emotional than conservative women.
That's perhaps why it's not really a discussion of what's PC that's involved here, but rather a question of whether such generalizations are valuable.
I heard this a long time ago, and I like it. A description of gender characteristics that is close to my view of things.
In the case of a fire in the home, the man thinks "Must get out, must get out, must get out" and is great at finding the way to safety. The woman thinks "Get the kids, get the pets, get the important papers". And is great at assembling the important things to save. Both are critical, but they aren't the same.
Now, as to my characterization of women as emotional, I stand by it, but I don't see it as a negative. It is simply reality. Yes, there are emotional men, and yes, there are stoic women. And because women are emotional, doesn't mean that women aren't capable. One of the best directors of my department was a woman. However, I work with women as coworkers, and I'll tell you, they are challenging in the work environment.
A woman can be president. Currently, we have woman voters who will cross party lines to vote for a woman. So, nominate a woman, fite Democrat fire with fire.
-
In my toolbox, I have a crescent wrench, and a screw driver, among other things. Both are tools. Both incredibly useful. If you give me a crescent wrench when I need the screw driver, you'll make me unhappy, and the job won't get done.
There are plenty of women that will give you the screw driver you are asking for. And, I bet the whole episode might make YOU very emotional when SHE gets the job done !!!!!!
"Relic" it is !!
-
Krauthammer's observation is correct - but I will never feel sympathy for that ba$tard in the White House.
-
I may take heat for this, but I don't want a woman president! That would be a turn-off for me because I don't know of a woman right now that is qualified to be the president of the US - especially in these dire times. Any woman candidate is skating on her gender - just like Obama did with his skin color - I want someone who has a proven track record in governing. I would be insulted if they pick a woman right now.
Here's a question for you, alice.....
How do you know if any person, male or female, leadership experience or not, is going to be a good President?
You can say that governing a state is a good indicator, but all you have to do is look at Jimmy Carter to see that doesn't always work out well. **nononono*
My point is that we don't really know who is going to have what it takes to lead us in troubled times until it happens. There's always a risk. That's why looking to gender only, whether pro or con, doesn't seem to me to be a valid plan.
There may well be a courageous woman out there who could be a good President. I don't know who she might be, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility out of hand this far ahead of the process.
-
I heard this a long time ago, and I like it. A description of gender characteristics that is close to my view of things.
In the case of a fire in the home, the man thinks "Must get out, must get out, must get out" and is great at finding the way to safety. The woman thinks "Get the kids, get the pets, get the important papers". And is great at assembling the important things to save. Both are critical, but they aren't the same.
Now, as to my characterization of women as emotional, I stand by it, but I don't see it as a negative. It is simply reality. Yes, there are emotional men, and yes, there are stoic women. And because women are emotional, doesn't mean that women aren't capable. One of the best directors of my department was a woman. However, I work with women as coworkers, and I'll tell you, they are challenging in the work environment.
A woman can be president. Currently, we have woman voters who will cross party lines to vote for a woman. So, nominate a woman, fite Democrat fire with fire.
Male and female brains are NOT wired the same and that has been scientifically proven I do believe!
Not saying that females are any less capable than males but they definitely react differently in most situations.
-
equal is not same
-
Relic wrote above:
[[ Obama was everything they dreamed of, and somehow, he still failed...]]
He failed because the Republicans blocked his every move.
He failed because of Bush and his policies which were destroying hope in America.
He failed because conservatives hated him for no reason.
He failed because the loathsome old white guys LIKE YOU wouldn't give him a chance.
Right?
/s
-
Relic wrote above:
[[ The only way for the Republicans to have a chance in 2016 is to nominate a female candidate. It would be just enough to confuse a lot of women voters, something the "war on women" proved is easily accomplished. ]]
I can think of one who speaks her mind to traditionalism quite well... ;)
(Unfortunately, there aren't any more...)
-
Here's a question for you, alice.....
How do you know if any person, male or female, leadership experience or not, is going to be a good President?
You can say that governing a state is a good indicator, but all you have to do is look at Jimmy Carter to see that doesn't always work out well. **nononono*
My point is that we don't really know who is going to have what it takes to lead us in troubled times until it happens. There's always a risk. That's why looking to gender only, whether pro or con, doesn't seem to me to be a valid plan.
There may well be a courageous woman out there who could be a good President. I don't know who she might be, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility out of hand this far ahead of the process.
I would love to see a woman president some day - AND - right now, you could pull a person off the street randomly, and they wouldn't be a worse president than what we've got.
But, it's like throwing a half white/half black community organizer out there and expected the whole black community to vote for him simply because he is "black". Voting for a person based on the color of his skin is RACIST. Voting for a person based on their gender is no different.
The fact that you would have to think for a minute to come up with a woman that is barely qualified means that just coming up with a woman to head off Hillary/Granny Warren shows that we don't have any women on the A Team. We're catching up, but we're not there yet.
Our country is in too big of a mess to vote for another person that has to have on-the-job-training. We need someone who can hit the ground running on day one. Of course, I'm thinking of someone like Rick Perry or Scott Walker.
And PLEASE! It isn't because women are different than men in a way that makes us worse leaders - - NO!
-
America will learn nothing. Democrats, including the media, will chalk this up to an explicable failure by Obama. Obama was everything they dreamed of, and somehow, he still failed. Obama should have succeeded, so, the only explanation is that Republicans obstructed and sabotaged Obama. Those Democrats are recalibrating, and are now, "Ready for Hillary." Sadly, they will be joined by a good number of otherwise conservative women who will vote for Hillary because it's time for a woman.
In the end, the women always take us down....well, almost always.
Sad to say.
Here's an opportunity to redeem themselves.
-
Give me the right woman to vote for and I'll vote for her.
-
There are plenty of women that will give you the screw driver you are asking for. And, I bet the whole episode might make YOU very emotional when SHE gets the job done !!!!!!
"Relic" it is !!
Thank you for proving my point. :seeya:
-
I would love to see a woman president some day - AND - right now, you could pull a person off the street randomly, and they wouldn't be a worse president than what we've got.
But, it's like throwing a half white/half black community organizer out there and expected the whole black community to vote for him simply because he is "black". Voting for a person based on the color of his skin is RACIST. Voting for a person based on their gender is no different.
The fact that you would have to think for a minute to come up with a woman that is barely qualified means that just coming up with a woman to head off Hillary/Granny Warren shows that we don't have any women on the A Team. We're catching up, but we're not there yet.
Our country is in too big of a mess to vote for another person that has to have on-the-job-training. We need someone who can hit the ground running on day one. Of course, I'm thinking of someone like Rick Perry or Scott Walker.
And PLEASE! It isn't because women are different than men in a way that makes us worse leaders - - NO!
Just for the record, I'm not one here who thinks we need to nominate a woman (hope that was clear before).
And I'm in total agreement that running a woman just because Hillary will most likely be the Dem nominee is not a good plan.
I'm just saying that sometimes people appear without perhaps being "on the A list," so dismissing the possibility of nominating a woman out of hand just because we don't see one right now, is not a good plan either.
OBVIOUSLY that women and men are 'wired differently' doesn't make a lick of difference in whether or not they have principles, the wisdom to choose good people around them, integrity, strength of will, patriotism, determination, intellect, an understanding of the Constitution, and a whole host of other qualifications required in a leader.
And OBVIOUSLY we have a male person in the Oval Office right now with the emotional age of about 6, so anyone arguing that being male is a necessity won't get very far these days. ^-^
-
I despise identity politics, style over substance and political correctness. But, if Hillary runs and is the nominee, we better have a woman opposing her or we will be steamrolled again.
Look, the fact is, first the culture has to change. Only then will the sniveling, feckless politicians "get it" and begin behaving like representatives of a mature republic instead of like Saturday Night Live caricatures.
-
Just for the record, I'm not one here who thinks we need to nominate a woman (hope that was clear before).
And I'm in total agreement that running a woman just because Hillary will most likely be the Dem nominee is not a good plan.
I'm just saying that sometimes people appear without perhaps being "on the A list," so dismissing the possibility of nominating a woman out of hand just because we don't see one right now, is not a good plan either.
OBVIOUSLY that women and men are 'wired differently' doesn't make a lick of difference in whether or not they have principles, the wisdom to choose good people around them, integrity, strength of will, patriotism, determination, intellect, an understanding of the Constitution, and a whole host of other qualifications required in a leader.
And OBVIOUSLY we have a male person in the Oval Office right now with the emotional age of about 6, so anyone arguing that being male is a necessity won't get very far these days. ^-^
I agree musiclady. And I should have been clearer at what I meant - which was, that at this time!
As soon as this mid-term election is over - it's going to be 2016 campaign time. That's just less than 2 weeks away. Anyone that is thinking about running as the GOP candidate better be getting ready. We can't afford to waste any time with these Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Michelle Bachman, Huckabee, Santorum, Gingrich, ......TIME WASTERS!
WE'VE got to get the process going in our favor as much as possible. It is TIME to roll up our sleeves and work together to support the most conservative candidate that can also WIN! It is vital!
So, to make myself clear - I don't see a woman that fits my qualifications this time around that can be groomed and prepped this late in the game. Having said that, yes - sometimes candidates come out of nowhere and end up being the president! I know they are going to be looking for a woman to counter the Democrats. But I have been maintaining that the Democrats are going to stab Hillary in the back again - I don't think Granny Warren will catch fire. The Democrat nominee is probably going to be a young and dynamic hispanic man.
-
I despise identity politics, style over substance and political correctness. But, if Hillary runs and is the nominee, we better have a woman opposing her or we will be steamrolled again.
Look, the fact is, first the culture has to change. Only then will the sniveling, feckless politicians "get it" and begin behaving like representatives of a mature republic instead of like Saturday Night Live caricatures.
The problem AC is that the media never treats our women candidates with the same stature and respect they accord Democrat women. There is a clear bias, and LIV tend to go with the same view as popular culture - which is, unfortunately, the mainstream media.
So, even if we had the best female candidate - a serious contender - the media would smear her with innuendo, out-of-context sound bites and outright lies - until she becomes a caricature with the LIV. They do it to the men too, but I think they are especially vicious to conservative women that they fear. Ironic, in light of their "War on Women" mantra!
But nobody ever said they weren't angry and repressed lying hypocrites!
-
"...we better have a woman opposing her or we will be steamrolled again."
WHO?
-
"...we better have a woman opposing her or we will be steamrolled again."
WHO?
Preferably a tri-racial, black/Hispanic/Asian, physically challenged, lesbian; from a poor, immigrant background. Surely we can find someone who fits that description.
-
The problem AC is that the media never treats our women candidates with the same stature and respect they accord Democrat women. There is a clear bias, and LIV tend to go with the same view as popular culture - which is, unfortunately, the mainstream media.
So, even if we had the best female candidate - a serious contender - the media would smear her with innuendo, out-of-context sound bites and outright lies - until she becomes a caricature with the LIV. They do it to the men too, but I think they are especially vicious to conservative women that they fear. Ironic, in light of their "War on Women" mantra!
But nobody ever said they weren't angry and repressed lying hypocrites!
I really like this post! :beer:
-
The problem AC is that the media never treats our women candidates with the same stature and respect they accord Democrat women. There is a clear bias, and LIV tend to go with the same view as popular culture - which is, unfortunately, the mainstream media.
So, even if we had the best female candidate - a serious contender - the media would smear her with innuendo, out-of-context sound bites and outright lies - until she becomes a caricature with the LIV. They do it to the men too, but I think they are especially vicious to conservative women that they fear. Ironic, in light of their "War on Women" mantra!
But nobody ever said they weren't angry and repressed lying hypocrites!
BRAVO!!!
Nail meets hammer!
-
Preferably a tri-racial, black/Hispanic/Asian, physically challenged, lesbian; from a poor, immigrant background. Surely we can find someone who fits that description.
You got the LG but forgt the BT
-
The problem AC is that the media never treats our women candidates with the same stature and respect they accord Democrat women. There is a clear bias, and LIV tend to go with the same view as popular culture - which is, unfortunately, the mainstream media.
So, even if we had the best female candidate - a serious contender - the media would smear her with innuendo, out-of-context sound bites and outright lies - until she becomes a caricature with the LIV. They do it to the men too, but I think they are especially vicious to conservative women that they fear. Ironic, in light of their "War on Women" mantra!
But nobody ever said they weren't angry and repressed lying hypocrites!
To your point (well, mostly):
UPDATE: CNN’s Costello: Violent Assault of a Woman is 'Disturbing' – Unless It’s Bristol Palin (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2014/10/23/cnns-costello-violent-assault-woman-disturbing-%E2%80%93-unless-its?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=costello-palin-family)
-
To your point (well, mostly):
UPDATE: CNN’s Costello: Violent Assault of a Woman is 'Disturbing' – Unless It’s Bristol Palin (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2014/10/23/cnns-costello-violent-assault-woman-disturbing-%E2%80%93-unless-its?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=costello-palin-family)
That is my point, thank you Lando. :beer:
-
That is my point, thank you Lando. :beer:
Astounding isn't it? Costello took glee in in Bristol Palin's assault or, at least her recounting the assault. Genuine glee.
-
"...we better have a woman opposing her or we will be steamrolled again."
WHO?
Preferably a tri-racial, black/Hispanic/Asian, physically challenged, lesbian; from a poor, immigrant background. Surely we can find someone who fits that description.
hmmm, well, yes, that would be a good start.