November 12, 2012

"FBI agents investigating CIA Director David Petraeus's affair were shocked when told by bureau officials..."

"... that despite the national security implications, no action would be taken on their findings until after the presidential election: Only then would President Obama ask for Petraeus’ resignation."
“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source told me. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

129 comments:

Pogo said...

Shocked, shocked!

Sorun said...

I'm not even surprised.

Rliyen said...

And I suspect it's just going to get worse.

shiloh said...

Well then, why didn't the FBI source ?!? leak the info before the election?

btw, the FBI and CIA aren't very good at keeping secrets. For that reason alone Petraeus should resign.

Rliyen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

In the old days, back when the Press was not in bed with the President, Journalists would have given their eye teeth, their first born, and their favorite bottles of scotch for such a story to be leaked to them. Now Journalists don't even try to ferret out scandal.

Roger J. said...

Not much into conspiracy theories--I can understand the administration's reluctance to go public with this prior to the election. No dirty laundry prior to. I dont see this contretemps' relevance to the Benghazi thing--it was simply a political ploy by the Obama administration to avoid a bad press. I dont think they were in the least bit concerned about national security implications

DADvocate said...

. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

Oh, come on. This is insignificant compared to the needs and wants of our Dear Leader.

Roger J. said...

As my friend Shiloh notes the FBI and the CIA are the biggest leakers in Washington--And I aplogize to Shiloh if I have misprepsented his views. Bottom line IMO: the administration wanted to avoid a scandle prior to the election.

Roger J. said...

and lest the grammar police descend upon me--its scandal not scandle

Maguro said...

The story will be that Obama knew nothing - nothing! about any of this until his buddy Holder (who is about to resign anyway) informed him just after the election. That's the ticket, yeah.

Patrick said...

In the old days, back when the Press was not in bed with the President, Journalists would have given their eye teeth, their first born, and their favorite bottles of scotch for such a story to be leaked to them.

Well, maybe not the scotch.

Bryan C said...

"...it was simply a political ploy by the Obama administration to avoid a bad press. I dont think they were in the least bit concerned about national security implications."

And that's pretty much the sum total of the Obama administration's foreign policy, God help us.

MayBee said...

Petraeus knew the FBI had investigated, he knew Obama had not asked for his resignation, and he knew Obama wanted the Bengazhi story to be about the video. We don't know that Petraeus didn't know that Obama didn't know.

It doesn't take a conspiracy to see Petraeus was perhaps too compromised to discredit the president before the election.

Perhaps he thought he could keep his job if he said what Obama wanted him to say.

chickelit said...

WTF is it with this particular President that even the FBI officials protect him rather than the nation's best interests. Is there a conflict there?

AF said...

Apparently an FBI whistleblower was going around telling conservatives, including Eric Cantor, about this before the election. I guess Cantor was in on the conspiracy?

pm317 said...

he was vulnerable to potential blackmail

Heh..

MayBee said...

It's disturbing that the FBI can decide on it's own- with no oversight- to start reading the emails of a private citizen to determine if she's having an affair with the director of a competing government official.

It reminds me of what they did to MLK Jr.

Roger J. said...

AF--please, if you would, tell me what the conspiracy was? I have alleged it was a political calulation to avoid a scandal before the election. Would appreciate your take on it.

MayBee said...

AF- Cantor did what he was supposed to do when hearing from an official whistleblower.

The whistleblower did what he was supposed to do, too, unlike the so-called whistleblowers that go right to the NYTs.

chickelit said...

Madison Man: have you visited DC lately for any length of time--intermingled with people who actually work there? The city is in a an enormous bubble, thanks to Obama's largesse which benefits nearly everyone within the Beltway. It will take someone willing to commit economic suicide with the pecuniary equivalent of 79 virgins afterwards before we see a real reporter to spill beans out there. If Bob Woodward can't do it how should some lesser mortal.

pm317 said...

Perhaps he thought he could keep his job if he said what Obama wanted him to say.

No, he thought Obama might lose and then his affair need never come out. That is why he went with the short term remedy of acceding to Obama's demand(read blackmail) that it was all about the video before the election.

Matthew Sablan said...

It's like everything is conspiring to keep me from being able to safely put this issue out of my mind.

edutcher said...

M. L'Inspecteur Renault, s'il vous plait, décrochez le téléphone gratuit blanc.

shiloh said...

Well then, why didn't the FBI source ?!? leak the info before the election?

btw, the FBI and CIA aren't very good at keeping secrets. For that reason alone Petraeus should resign.


Because it's all Petraeus' fault. Harry Truman would understand completely.

lol

And where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?

Makeup consultant for Helen Thomas?

FleetUSA said...

For B0 absolutely everything is about holding office....Libya, Obamacare regs, EPA regs, treason, etc. etc.

shiloh said...

Let the Althouse con conspiracy theories be fruitful and multiply!

And yes, cons put the con in conspiracy ...

elkh1 said...

It's shut him up on Benghazi, hasn't it? They accused the CIA of denying help to its own officers and the CIA was too quiet.

An honorable man would have resigned for the good of the country. A dishonorable man would stay for the good of a president's re-election.

Petraeus will forever live in infamy not for screwing another man's wife but for screwing the CIA, screwing the country.

Mark O said...

What Maybee said.

chickelit said...

shiloh exhales:
And yes, cons put the con in conspiracy ...

And shilho puts the breath in bison.

Matthew Sablan said...

I liked it better when the conspiracies were nuttier, like fire not melting steel, as opposed to who was sleeping with who. At least the nutters were nuts.

bagoh20 said...

It's now obvious that a lot of things were hidden from us in order to get the President reelected and there will be a lot more coming out. But, it doesn't matter, because: 1) the cover-up succeeded, and 2) enough voters wouldn't care anyway.

As I asked in a thread a few weeks back: "Is there anything that would get you Obama supporters to vote against him?"

Nope. And they sure aren't going to care about it now.

edutcher said...

shiloh said...

Let the Althouse con conspiracy theories be fruitful and multiply!

And yes, cons put the con in conspiracy ...


As opposed to the little weasel, who applauds Petraeus' humiliation. What he really hates him for is winning the campaign in Iraq.

And, on the subject of firing, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?

Kos didn't think your BOHICA was good enough?

MayBee said...

1. Petraeus was having an affair
2. The FBI had read intimate details about the affair by hacking into his paramour's emails
3. Petraeus knew the FBI had done this
4. Petraeus did not know if President Obama knew
5. Petraeus had not, even though several months had passed, been asked to resign
6. Obama chose to focus on an obviously incorrect, but politically expedient story about what happened in Benghazi
7. Petraeus backed that story up.

If someone thinks it sounds conspiratorial to point out these facts, please find a way to explain them that sounds innocent.

Tank said...

La la la.

No one cares.

The con continues......

edutcher said...

bagoh20 said...

It's now obvious that a lot of things were hidden from us in order to get the President reelected and there will be a lot more coming out. But, it doesn't matter, because: 1) the cover-up succeeded, and 2) enough voters wouldn't care anyway.

As I asked in a thread a few weeks back: "Is there anything that would get you Obama supporters to vote against him?"

Nope. And they sure aren't going to care about it now.


Another "dip" in the "recession" is coming (will this be the 4th or the 5th?), as well as double digit unemployment and inflation.

They're going to start caring all over the place, because they're the ones that can least afford it.

shilol may even lose his Internet access.

MayBee said...

Does anybody know if the FBI got warrants to read Broadwell and Petraeus's emails in Broadwell's email account?

leslyn said...

I just looked up Kessler's book on the Secret Service in Amazon books and found:

"Books › Politics & Social Sciences › Ronald Kessler › "Snopes family."

Heh. I didn't know they had a "Snopes family."

Pogo said...

I am coming to believe that everything the US government says is a lie or in service to a lie.

Every number, every statement, every judicial decision, every vote.

Matthew Sablan said...

I wonder who has called dibs on being the writer who gets to write the article: "407,000 -- The Margin of Romney's Loss and the Number of Layoffs Since Election Day."

Tank said...

MayBee said...

Does anybody know if the FBI got warrants to read Broadwell and Petraeus's emails in Broadwell's email account?


They don't need warrants when a Democrat or a Zero is President.

Get real. The left and the MSM only care about these things when Bushies are President.



La la la.

elkh1 said...

To be fair, the election result would be the same. There were too many Flukees who wanted free condoms, too many unemployed who wanted a disability check than a pay check, too many Big Birds and Planned Parenthood who demanded handouts, too many "journolists" too few "journalists". It was an ideological election, there were more of them, less of us.

We go to war with the military we have, we go to elections with the electorate we have.

hombre said...

Shiloh wrote: Well then, why didn't the FBI source ?!? leak the info before the election?

The source did, but there is no reason for you to read the article before you comment, just like there was no reason to inform yourself about the economic condition of the country before you voted.

Beta Rube said...

I always believe Obama's claim of profound ignorance. It's easy.

AF said...

"I have alleged it was a political calulation to avoid a scandal before the election. Would appreciate your take on it."

I don't doubt that this was a post-election news dump just as it was a Friday afternoon news dump. I don't believe that it was a scandal that would have affected the election.

If this issue had serious implications for the election, it would have been in Cantor's interest as a leading Republican to break the story, or force the story to be broken, before the election, which he easily could have done.

pm317 said...

Beta Rube said...

I always believe Obama's claim of profound ignorance. It's easy.
------------------

Thread winner. He knows nothing, zero, nada, zilch.

EDH said...

Those who try to compare Obama to Nixon come up short.

Obama is like Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover.

TWM said...

"Does anybody know if the FBI got warrants to read Broadwell and Petraeus's emails in Broadwell's email account?"

I imagine they did. Although since it involves national security matters, the process is no doubt different from a regular search warrant.

Roger J. said...

AF--thanks for your response--agree

William said...

There's much here that doesn't make sense. Why would Petraeus resign in such a way as to maximize the scandal? Couldn't he simply have resigned for "reasons of health" several months ago. On background, he could have leaked that he was facing a major illness, and the press would have let him quietly fade from public view. The way this scandal is unfolding is damaging not just to Petraeus but to Obama and to everyone else involved. Couldn't all the parties involved have managed this with more tact and discretion?

Matthew Sablan said...

"If this issue had serious implications for the election, it would have been in Cantor's interest as a leading Republican to break the story, or force the story to be broken, before the election, which he easily could have done."

-- Counter thought: Cantor did not have hard proof, just a whistleblower's words. With how harshly the administration has punished whistleblowers and IGs (illegally firing/reassigning them, etc.), there was too much risk to the whistleblower to go forward without hard proof.

Which, apparently, the administration had, but decided to do nothing about.

MayBee said...

Although since it involves national security matters, the process is no doubt different from a regular search warrant.

They didn't know if it involved national security matters when it first started. The "social liason" chick thought she was being cyberstalked by somebody.

But yes, they have different ways of getting warrants for different situations. I just haven't read "got a warrant" in any of the timelines.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Couldn't all the parties involved have managed this with more tact and discretion?"

-- The principles are an adulterer and the woman he was sleeping with who thought it was good to steal classified information from the general and send threatening letters to other women.

Something tells me tact and discretion aren't high on their list of virtues.

pm317 said...

AF is BSing again.

Cantor would have weighed in outing a General that the Right respects and who they think was responsible for ending the Iraq war brilliantly against Obama losing the election anyway by other means. Who on the Right in their right mind would have volunteered to out Petraeus before the election? AF is ridiculous as usual.

shiloh said...

Althouse congrats, another conservative pity party thread!

As her con blog hits just keep on comin'. And again, what do depressed cons do to make them feel better? They purchase Althouse stuff! :)

America, what a country!

AllenS said...

According to the New York Times, high-level officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department were notified in the late summer that F.B.I. agents had uncovered what appeared to be an extramarital affair involving Petraeus. It's easy to understand how Petraeus just wasn't that concerned about Libya on Sept. 11. Too bad. Four Americans were left on their own with nobody to back them up.

pm317 said...

"Couldn't all the parties involved have managed this with more tact and discretion?"

No, not when he was expected to go on congressional hearings and under oath say what he wanted to say as opposed to what the WH wanted him to say.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...

No, not when he was expected to go on congressional hearings and under oath say what he wanted to say as opposed to what the WH wanted him to say.

Exactly. He took away any power the secret had.

pm317 said...

Couldn't he simply have resigned for "reasons of health" several months ago.

Good point. My own view is that he is an ambitious guy and he thought if Obama were to lose the election, his little secret never would come out. Benghazi hadn't happened yet. After it happened, he bet on Obama losing but when that didn't happen, he was in a pickle.

edutcher said...

pm317 said...

AF is BSing again.

Cantor would have weighed in outing a General that the Right respects and who they think was responsible for ending the Iraq war brilliantly against Obama losing the election anyway by other means. Who on the Right in their right mind would have volunteered to out Petraeus before the election? AF is ridiculous as usual


Precisely.

Once again, the facts don't add up.

General Betrayus, however, is the only military hero since Stormin' Norman and I don't doubt the Lefty Establishment has an axe to grind against him for spoiling all their fun trying to turn Iraq into 'Nam.

shiloh said...

Althouse congrats, another conservative pity party thread!

The little weasel seems incapable of discerning intelligent discussion when he sees it.

Or is it the idea that this mess, among so many, may bring down his Messiah?

As her con blog hits just keep on comin'. And again, what do depressed cons do to make them feel better? They purchase Althouse stuff! :)

America, what a country!


Then leave, but, before you do, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?

Flight tester for Moochelle's vibrators?

Colonel Angus said...

The way this scandal is unfolding is damaging not just to Petraeus but to Obama and to everyone else involved. Couldn't all the parties involved have managed this with more tact and discretion?

The Obama supporters could care less about this. These are the same people who didn't care Clinton was nailing an intern, why would they care about Pretraeus?

Although I am surprised about the press. Ignoring up the Benghazi fiasco is one thing but even the syncopantic MSM doesn't pass up on a juicy sex scandal.

Hagar said...

It is difficult to believe that everybody in Washington, except those who were supposed to be told, knew about this and have been talking about it for six months or more. Especially since the media have taken this long to get their stories straightened out and matching.

Perhaps this really is all a big unicorn's nest made of horsefeathers and moonshine, but I think I will wait and see if anything else comes to light before I buy into that theory.

And the unicorn nest theory still does not explain the manner and timing of Petraeus' resignation.

pm317 said...

Drudge has a mild teaser 4-5 days before the election about a high profile sex scandal coming out. But then he went in the direction Menendez(NJ) and his Brazilian prostitutes which was a fizzle. Now I wonder if it was about Petraeus. Outing Patreaus by the Right before the election would have hurt the good General and not done any damage to Obama. My own sleuthing is saying that Petraeus surprised the WH with his resignation especially if he was blackmailed about the coming hearings on the Hill. Good move. Now he just has to go one step forward and tell us the truth of Benghazi. He owes it to his country.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm pretty sure Drudge's hint was about Menendez. He was probably as surprised as the rest of us that prostitution tourism wasn't a bigger story.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

Since when does it require asking someone to do the right thing before he will do it? A person of integrity will do the right thing before and without being asked.

Obama has a lot of things to answer for, but delaying this until after the election is not one of them. Petraeus' actions are his and his alone. Whenever Petraeus became aware that the secret was out, at that point he should have taken the initiative himself and resigned -- which, outside of the military, does NOT require that it be accepted before it is effective.

rcommal said...

I don't think public knowledge of this before the election wiuld have affected the outcome.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Never got an answer from the Obama supporters to my question a couple of days ago if they thought it was OK to delay the "19 hours response" story until after the election. Now add this item to that same question.

Trashhauler said...

Considering what the FBI apparently learned, there was zero chance of any kind of blackmail. Certainly none after Petraeus learned that they were investigating him.

Sam L. said...

Really? They don't know they work for politicians? Hmmmmph!

Alex said...

Let the Althouse con conspiracy theories be fruitful and multiply!

The left sure had no problems with the endless conspiracy theories against Bush. Fucktard.

Trashhauler said...

Considering what the FBI apparently learned, there was zero chance of any kind of blackmail. Certainly none after Petraeus learned that they were investigating him.

Joe Schmoe said...

If Clinton was the Teflon president to whom nothing stuck, Obama is in another class entirely.

Not through his own machinations or faculties, mind you, but through a critical mass of fanatical followers who are simply willing to ignore or whitewash any of his corrupt actions.

I've not seen the like of it in my lifetime, and I'm now less surprised about the election results. Like bagoh said, a plurality of voters don't care.

pm317 said...

Trashhauler said...

--------

Oh, you don't understand. Blackmail was not about the big reveal. WH blackmail was about 'if you didn't do this, WE will out you'. Petraeus who had sat on it hoping it will go away now had two options: do what the WH said or out himself. If he had done what the WH wanted, the FBI investigation would have been hushed up and he would have resigned for health reasons. And then there would have been a stain linking him to Benghazi. But he and his family would have been protected against the shame of a sex scandal.

Baron Zemo said...

None of this matters.

Obama could kill a baby on national television and it would not matter to his voters. They will not demand answers to what happened in Benghazi. Ever. It doesn't matter to them. They got their Obamaphone and that is all that counts.

You need to hunker down and protect yourselves and your family.
Move to the suburbs so to speak.

This is Detroit in 1974.

Saint Croix said...

Contrast the way the NYT is spinning this story. They are like Pravda. Party line all the way.

Report to the NYT for your daily propaganda!

Saint Croix said...

Know them by their actions! Who is mad, who is not mad? Who knew the secret and who did not?

The head of the CIA is having a clandestine sex affair. The FBI finds out about it during a criminal investigation. And they keep it to themselves? My ass!

Is Obama furious that he was not told of this affair months ago? Diane Feinstein is pissed. Why is she pissed? Because it's a security issue and she and her committee had no knowledge.

Obama's not pissed! Obama's not pissed because Obama knew.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. But go ahead, NYT, try to sell your Pravda paper. Spin that horseshit, that feeble lie.

Saint Croix said...

You libs need to go to the Huffington Post for the truth. Don't trust Pravda!

Saint Croix said...

I want the FBI agents under oath. I want the head of the FBI under oath. I want them to say, under penalty of perjury, when they knoew of the affair and when they reported it to the White House.

Saint Croix said...

Honest reporting from the NYT here.

David said...

No, no, none of this is true.

Haven't you read the New York Times?

shiloh said...

Again, HP broke the Obama "bittergate" story. If it's news Huffington Post will report it ...

unlike fixednoise.

Methadras said...

Anything for Urkel.

pm317 said...

Again, HP broke the Obama "bittergate" story. If it's news Huffington Post will report it ...

Moron thinks HP intentionally broke the story. It was accidentally broken by a 'citizen' journalist. One of the few things that got out from the stranglehold of Pravda media. Actually there are many self-inflicted dumb errors on the part of Obama and if we had an honest press, the moron would not exist.

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Baron Zemo said...

It is only a matter of time until all the facts come out. Too many people know what went on and they will spill the beans eventually.

But what you don't understand is that it does not matter.

President Obama withheld assitance to Americans who were about to be murdered by terrorists for political purposes. He covered it up to win the election. When this fact is proven beyond a reasonable doubt people like shiloh and garage and all the rest will not care. They will say to make an omlet you have to break a few eggs.

51% of our country is happy with this. You can protest all you want. But they will not care.

Saint Croix said...

Jennifer Rubin is asking all the right questions. I think the questions, for the most part, answer themselves. But those are definitely the questions!

Mamie said...

I have to believe that some of that 51% who voted for Obama is simply young and stupid and will get smarter with each passing year. And also that some of that 51% are crazy old boomers who might just change their mind about Obama if they ever actually hear the truth about Benghazi.

We just can’t give up. Yet.

phx said...

51% are crazy old boomers who might just change their mind about Obama if they ever actually hear the truth about Benghazi...

...if they are ever privy to the secret and reliable information that I get from the Instapundit and Althouse web sites.

bagoh20 said...

"some of that 51% are crazy old boomers who might just change their mind about Obama if they ever actually hear the truth about Benghazi.
"


I don't think so. The election was a clear choice, and Obama had seriously lied to the people who voted for him the first time, and he has managed the worst recovery in their lifetimes, and every year the biggest deficits in history.

I don't think anything can turn those remaining people who voted for him this time. Half the country is absolutely impenetrable and beyond being shamed by facts. I believe he could actually be found guilty of treason and not lose a vote. Certainly his supporters in here are too thick to be affected. They don't even want to know, and will fight tenaciously to keep those blindfolds on.

Cedarford said...

Baron Zemo -

President Obama withheld assitance to Americans who were about to be murdered by terrorists for political purposes. He covered it up to win the election. When this fact is proven beyond a reasonable doubt people like shiloh and garage and all the rest will not care. They will say to make an omlet you have to break a few eggs.

51% of our country is happy with this. You can protest all you want. But they will not care.


-----------
The 51% will come back and remind you that all the conservative self-righteous outrage about 4 DEAD HEROES!!!! - is nothing compared to the 6,000 dead and 45,000 casualties at Muslim terrorist hands , for two failed Nation-building wars the Right was avid cheerleaders for.

Not that the 51% is happy with the events of Sept 11th - not Benghazi or the 11 embassies that were besieged, attacked, even overrun as a direct consequence of the Rights scumbag 1st Amendment Hero - unlike Benghazi.

It's just that the Right fucked up mightily on war and the economy and dogmatic faith that tax cuts for the rich create more jobs, trickledown, and help create a dynamic Wall Street.

And we Republicans have not done enough to convince people that we will not return to the days of Neocon wars of adventure, letting the richest betray the rest of us.

Obamites corrupt? Not as bad as Tom De Lay and K Street days.

4 DEAD HEROES??? Bad, but not as bad as the idiot American Churchill spending 2 trillion and 45,000 HERO!! casualties on two failed adventures.

Obama borrows from China to bribe voters?
Yes, but Dubya decided to reward Big Pharma and keep drug prices in America far higher than the rest of the world and give a huge free goodie package to seniors that is as big as all the Obama bribes to his voters put together with the non-funded, non-means tested Prescription Drug Entitlement.

And voters had to balance Obama's odious moral social engineering against the Rights desire to return to Terri Schiavo, open dislike of gays and hispanics, saving rapists blastocysts..


Saint Croix said...

I don't think anything can turn those remaining people who voted for him this time. Half the country is absolutely impenetrable and beyond being shamed by facts.

Look up the election of 1972 when you have a chance.

Baron Zemo said...

The 51% will not care how many Americans die to protect Obama's relection. It does not matter. Just as it does not matter to Cedarford. He just calls them "dead heros." That we should stop wailing about our "sacred parchment." That Obama can commit any crime or misdemeanor and it is just fine because the Neocons (Jews) are so much worse.

We saw this with Clinton. He could abuse women in the exact same way that feminists decryed for year upon year. But they didn't care. It was "Just sex."

This was just "Four dead Americans."

No big deal.

Aridog said...

Baron Zemo said...

None of this matters ... This is Detroit in 1974.

Thread winner.

EMD said...

Let's face it, government is the only thing we all belong to.

Aridog said...

EMD said...

Let's face it, government is the only thing we all belong to.

Agreed. What bothers is that it is literally true...the "belong" part, that is...

Just to elaborate on B. Zemo's "Detroit" comment...Coleman Young was twice the man Obama will every be...even with his political scores to settle at the expense of the city.

pm317 said...

This is Detroit in 1974.
---------

Please explain for people who were not here then.

bagoh20 said...

"This is Detroit in 1974.
---------

Please explain for people who were not here then."


Detroit was a mythical place were Americans lived and worked in growing prosperity.

chickelit said...

Cedarford is clearly bipolar.

mariner said...

Roger J.,
and lest the grammar police descend upon me--its scandal not scandle.

The grammar police don't care that you misspelled "scandal". The spelling police OTOH ...

The grammar police may have an issue with mistaking a spelling mistake for a grammatical error. (But of course I wouldn't know about that.)

;)

pm317 said...

bagoh20 said...
----------------

Well, 10 richest counties in the nation voted for Obama and that does not even count the deep blue Montgomery county in MD where I live. The rich and the prosperous had Obama's back. They must live in a 'Detroit, 1974'-like place.

There is some discussion on other boards that the Rs should call Obama's bluff and go back to pre-Reagan tax rates for the wealthy. I think they should.

Saint Croix said...

Half the country is absolutely impenetrable and beyond being shamed by facts.

I think much of the support for Obama is irrational and emotional. Obviously there are leftists who like Obama. But to surmise that most Americans now love our government and want more of it is ridiculous.

Obama ran on birth control and evil rich man. A lot of racial politics, too. This is an awesome article about Obama's cult of personality.

Obviously the fix for Republicans is not to veer to the left of Romney. The fix for Republicans is to wait this out. Obama's politics will be disastrous for the country. We know this and the country will know it. And Obama has zero coattails.

Does anybody think that 4 years of Biden will follow Obama? It's absurd. Obama's victory isn't ideological at all. It wasn't about ideas. It was about him. And when he's gone, he's gone.

Consider too that irrational infatuation ends, sooner or later. You either find a rational basis for your love, or you (irrationally) start hating what you once loved.

I think the first debate was so jarring to Democrats because Romney seemed like a far better boyfriend than Obama. The illusion was shattered.

What helped Obama was the hurricane, as Chris Matthews gleefully noted. It gave the illusion that Obama was nice and capable, heroic even. He's a good boyfriend!

But manipulative Obama, cover-up Obama, lying Obama, dishonest and deceitful Obama? I do not think people will like this Obama at all.

Bender said...

51% of our country is happy with this. You can protest all you want. But they will not care.

It is not just them who do not really care.

Oh, sure, some in Congress, like Boehner, will meekly say that this is wrong, etc., and Obama will look him in the eye and say, "So? So what? What's your point? What are you going to do about it? Hmm?"

And Boehner will do absolutely NOTHING about it. In fact, he will continue to facilitate Obama as he has for the last two years. Not having a single clue as to the concept of "check and balance," Boehner will even strong-arm fellow Republicans into continuing to finance Obamaism, continuing to spend, spend, spend, rather than make any real effort at shutting Obama down because, in the final analysis, it isn't all that crucial for him to stop Obama, he doesn't really care all that much.

phx said...

Does anybody think that 4 years of Biden will follow Obama?

IMHO you righties aren't giving the voters a choice. The right-wing base is alientating the women vote big-time, immigration policies (or non-policies) are alienating Hispanics, a lot of blacks perceive you as disrespectful and even hostile to their interests.

If you believe at this point 2016 is going to be a gimme for Repubs, you haven't learned anything.

Saint Croix said...

IMHO you righties aren't giving the voters a choice. The right-wing base is alientating the women vote big-time, immigration policies (or non-policies) are alienating Hispanics, a lot of blacks perceive you as disrespectful and even hostile to their interests.

If you believe at this point 2016 is going to be a gimme for Repubs, you haven't learned anything.


Gee, I think you didn't answer my question!

Does anybody think that 4 years of Biden will follow Obama?

frank said...

Petraeus was the dog that 'didn't bark' about Benghazi before the election. He would have taken the Fifth before Congress,no other answer would work for him.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

Rather than dinosaurs Joe Bite-me or Hillary, I agree with those who say that the Dem nominee will probably be Andrew Cuomo, son of one of the great precursors to Obama's disingenuous arguments and attitude of condescension, Mario Cuomo.

phx said...

Gee, I think you didn't answer my question!

Does anybody think that 4 years of Biden will follow Obama?


How is that not answering your question? "IMHO you righties aren't giving the voters a choice."



phx said...

If you mean specifically Biden, or Hillary or Andy, I don't see what diff it makes to you guys.

If Biden goes down for some reason there's plenty of Dems in the wings.

Saint Croix said...

The right-wing base is alientating the women vote big-time, immigration policies (or non-policies) are alienating Hispanics, a lot of blacks perceive you as disrespectful and even hostile to their interests.

And the identity politics of the left is merely demonization of people. "You're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a homophobe." Republicans can, and will, play that game too.

One of Romney's flaws as a candidate might simply be that he was too nice a person. And so one of the lessons for future Republicans may be to engage in that sort of scorched earth demonization that Obama used to win.

My larger point is that there are econimic realities aside from this emotional horseshit. I assumed 4 years of Obamanomics would cure people of Obama love. I was wrong. But 4 more years is likely to work wonders.

And--thank God--after FDR we amended the Constitution so this cult shit has to stop. So you libs will have to find another deity. Good luck with that.

EMD said...

IMHO you righties aren't giving the voters a choice. The right-wing base is alientating the women vote big-time, immigration policies (or non-policies) are alienating Hispanics, a lot of blacks perceive you as disrespectful and even hostile to their interests.

Identity politics are awesome.

EMD said...

A white Democrat candidate in 2016 won't have as many luxuries as Obama has.

He (She?) won't carry quite the same symbolism.



phx said...

And the identity politics of the left is merely demonization of people. "You're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a homophobe." Republicans can, and will, play that game too.

I didn't read the rest of your post but I'm no fan of identity politics - although I can tell when it's going to bite the GOP in the ass, and often deservedly so. I wouldn't call someone those names unless they actually personally are and I know it, and even then I would more likely ignore them. I'm not someone who thinks being a member of the Tea Party means your racist.

But the GOP is extremely artless at this game. They walk into it big time more often than not.

Mamie said...

I still think there’s something especially abhorrent about abandoning one’s fellow countrymen and leaving them to die. Even the crazy old Obama-loving boomers might be susceptible to a change of mind if that were clearly brought home to them.

Then, again, there is Olga.

Saint Croix said...

And the amazing thing, to me, about Obama is that he has a cult of personality without actually being a gifted speaker or anything like that.

It's like Stalin's cult of personality. It depends upon a complicit media and iconic images. But the actual reality of the guy is not inspiring at all.

What was amazing about Reagan was that he inspired a cult of personality on the right with the media attacking him every step of the way.

Bender said...

One of Romney's flaws as a candidate might simply be that he was too nice a person

He wasn't nice in the primaries, and he wasn't nice when he ran in 2008. Moreover, he knew that his staff rivaled the Dems in their contempt for and condescension toward conservatives.

Don't mistake weak and wishy-washy in the face of the Dems for nice.

Mamie said...

Reagan had already firmly established his own media image with all his years in the movies, and especially on TV as the host of General Electric Theater -- every Sunday night, prime time, for nine years.

Saint Croix said...

Reagan was so huge liberals today pretend they like him.

What's the over-under on naming a statue, a coin, or an airport after Obama? Not gonna happen.

He's got his name on an economic disaster that's going to destroy private health insurance.

When Obama said "you didn't build that," he was probably thinking of his Nobel prize, or his election to the White House, or his re-election.

I didn't earn that!

Or maybe he was thinking of his two autobiographies, both published before he fucking did anything.

You know what Obama is? Potential! 20 years from now, people will still be talking about all the "potential" Obama had. It's pathetic.

He's a walking, talking argument for the abolishment of affirmative action. He's a life lesson on why it's bad to spoil children with gifts.

Baron Zemo said...

Detroit was a place that came to be controlled by unions and Democrats in a one party city where politicians were re-elected without any reference or accountability as to their performance. Failure year after year.

Social programs grew and grew until the tax base couldn't sustain them anymore. Everybody on a government check. And they thought it would never end.

Somebody else was going to pay for it.

Businesses closed and moving out of town. And you know what they did?

They raised taxes. Because all of those rich business owners and wealthy people weren't paying their "fair share."

How did that work out for them?

Saint Croix said...

And what's interesting is that the egotist did not actually want his name on Obamacare. Why not? Well, perhaps because he didn't write it. Or read it! Maybe he was embarrassed, like he was embarrassed at winning the Nobel prize. I get the feeling that Obama has been embarrassed all his life by the benevolence of liberals.

What are Obama's accomplishments? Getting elected to the Presidency! And then getting re-elected! If Obama can brag about anything he's accomplished, it's getting the job.

But the actual job that he's done? Not so much. So Obama's ambivalence about having his name on Obamacare. His name is now tied with his one achievement, a disastrous bit of legislation that, like a rock, will sink his legacy.

phx said...

So Obama's ambivalence about having his name on Obamacare.

Didn't you watch the debates? He used it himself and said he liked it.

You wingers can't get nuthin' right!

EMD said...

But the GOP is extremely artless at this game. They walk into it big time more often than not.

Please weigh the attention and impact the following statements made on the election from a media standpoint.

“It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

"He is going to put y'all back in chains."

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

"What's happening down in New Orleans? Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense. ... Tells me that somehow the people down in New Orleans they don't care about as much."

Mamie said...

I think it was Freeman Hunt, who, in some thread here at Althouse right after the election, made the point that it was the struggling working/middle class people who voted for him who were going to suffer the most from Obama’s re-election.

I thought of this when I read this piece over at First Things that looks at what might have prompted some of these folks to vote for Obama. We conservatives should take heed.

From the article:

We should not underestimate how many voters in the muddy middle went for Obama because they feel vulnerable and just don’t trust the Republican Party to look out for their interests. Here, Republican operatives and strategists made a big mistake. They rightly saw that our weak economy was the main issue. But they wrongly assumed that crucial swing state voters were primarily concerned about who is to blame, or even who is most likely to promote growth in the long or even medium term.

No, the struggling middle class voters in places like Ohio were primarily concerned to know which candidate and party is most likely to protect them tomorrow.

This is a long-term concern. Globalization has threatened and will continue to threaten the viability of middle class life in America. Both parties whistle past this issue because they haven’t a clue what to do. The Democrats, however, have the old New Deal rhetoric and a long history of founding and funding social programs. Unrealistic, perhaps, given our fiscal crisis, but tangible. The Republicans? They promise jobs in an unshackled economy that encourages entrepreneurial initiative. Nice, but hypothetical.

Warmed over New Deal “solutions” to the economic pressures and suffering caused by globalization won’t work. In fact, they’ll make the situation worse, because market interventions, protectionism, and social spending garble the market signals that we all need to hear in order to make the sorts of decisions necessary to navigate successfully through the process of globalization.

But all that is very academic when you go to the voting booth. If I were a high school-educated male who has recently lost his job at manufacturing plant, I’d roll my eyes at promises about how the free market, if given a chance, will heal itself and resume its job-creating function. Who’s to say those jobs will be in Youngstown, or suitable for me? Social issues aside, I’d vote for Obama.

Saint Croix said...

He used it himself and said he liked it.

I don't think he likes it at all. He's got no choice now. Obamacare is what people call it. And we will continue to call it that over the next four years. It's his, now. He owns it.

But he'd much rather be a high-flying icon, rather than tied down to an actual law that will affect actual people.

phx said...

He owns it.

Well we all do now. It'd be great if we can work together to fix the parts of Obamacare that need to be fixed. But if we can't, we can't.

Tim said...

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

-- John Adams

Yep.

EMD said...

Who’s to say those jobs will be in Youngstown, or suitable for me?

Youngstown and surrounding areas are victims of their own antiquated thinking. They still act like it's 1967 there.

An educational failure that just built a brand new multi-million dollar high school despite an eroding tax base in a poor (and getting poorer) city.



Saint Croix said...

Here is the supposed timeline.

I wonder if Mr. Contempt of Congress will be put under subpoena now? Every Obama scandal seems to have Eric Holder in the middle of it.