December 9, 2013

“Obama’s base crumbling amid health care debacle”

So notes David Freddoso, citing decreasing confidence in and/or favorability for the law among many Democrats.

Fortunately, what’s really happening is that many Democrats are learning that they were never part of Obama’s base — that their rote determination or their habitual and perfunctory inclination to always vote Democrat has led them to empower those among the New Left, once vehement critics of the Democrat Party, who have taken the party over, keeping its name but not its governing philosophy.

That is, they are waking up — and upon doing so, they realize that all the noise they’ve been picking up about the evils of conservatives and teabaggers may just have been a tad misleading, and that they have themselves, through their own intellectual indolence and an incurious complacency, proved the cause of their own current suffering.

Elections have consequences.  I know this, because I heard a dem-God say it.  Then he went out and became his very own performative.

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:56pm
75 comments | Trackback

Comments (75)

  1. Then he went out and became his very own performative.

    - In spite of close to 100 years of mighty effort, starting with the very roots of Progressivism, Madam Goldberg and Woodrow Wilson, all the way up to todays version of “Utopian reality disconnect”, almost anything you can name in life has consequences.

    - Dats da fact Jack.

  2. “Then he went out and became his very own performative.”

    I first read that as “…his own pejorative…”, and still it makes perfect sense.

  3. Obie is a master of the performative, but you can only ride that mule so far before people start to notice.

    Sic transit Gloria Mundi. Tuesday is usually worse.

  4. Thomas Jefferson, in that letter (yes, that letter):

    *** Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat, and model into every form, lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist ? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts ? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted ? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ***

  5. What they are going to have to do now is find a patsy [wrecker] to blame the chaos and failure on. It will have to be either a private sector whatever and or a GOP/Tea Party group in order for the second phase to work. They are already trying out various ways of and people/groups to blame for the failure.

    Phase Two was just trotted out on the runway for a look-see by an old reliable, sheep-dipped, warrior for the left. Gen. Powell.

  6. colon is part of the “monkey wrench gang” of true wreckers/ruining class

  7. “Why Republicans shouldn’t get too excited over Obama’s stumbles”

    - After reading the article there appears to be two possiblilties. Either they need more time to think of a reason, so the article will be continued in the hopes they can eventually, or they’re down to counting on the average LoFo to just scan the lede and then move on.

    - Actually they managed to list a half dozen very good reasons the DemoRats should be shitting themselves right about now, never mind waiting until 2014. The Progs desperately need some OCare relief, and theres none in sight. Mendela will be taking a dirt nap soon so thats not going to do it, and trying to tie OCare train wrecks to the TP is an impossibly bridge to far even for the mighty Obama agitprop mediots society.

  8. “….[They] don’t understand why the United States of America, which uses more health care than just about anybody else, still (has) 40 million people not properly insured.”

    - The good General needs to check his figures. That was before OCare was implimented. By this time next year it could be 140 million+, all because of OCare. Forward.

  9. obamacare bleg: what is to prevent a state or a group of states from directing their state insurance commissions to removing all their mandates save financial requirements for health insurance and throwing open their doors in direct competition to obamacare 4 plans?

  10. The Commerce Clause as currently understood.

  11. >The Commerce Clause as currently understood.<

    what if the ins. co/s. only operates in a particular state?

  12. Just don’t be growing wheat for your own intrastate consumption in backyard of the ins. Co. – Farmer Wickard.

  13. well let us have that debate and court action. that is how the proggtard’s do it.

  14. just remember 10-100 million peeps be losing health ins. next year. wickard could be a shown the constitution.

  15. oh and thanks for reminding me of wickard. that and the obamacare monster need to die.

  16. at some point the 10th amendment needs to be defended. i say here now.

  17. what if the ins. co/s. only operates in a particular state?

    What if I only grow the wheat for personal consumption? Oh, right…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

  18. so the consensus is defer to scotus? i say nay and i say “dred scott” . let the game begin again. at some point you have to start ignoring the dc edicts.

  19. is “dred scott” still valid? when did scotus overturn it? so “wickard” is a proggtard voodoo doll shown to disbelievers. states acting on their own, within the constitution, is a nice eff’ u to the fed gov’t..

  20. when did scotus overturn it?

    They didn’t. Amendments XIII & XIV did.

  21. >They didn’t.<

    well wickard is just another bs scotus thing for the lawyer class. scotus be irrelevant to the constitutional order. that's their bed and such.

  22. >Amendments XIII & XIV did.<

    oh so the scotus needs "laws". gotcha

  23. scotus be irrelevant to the constitutional order.

    That is willful ignorance cubed. Do better than that.

  24. >That is willful ignorance cubed.<

    no scotus is just a john robert's opinion away from redesigning a "penalty" into a "tax".

    sorry those 9 robe peeps are clowns at this point. kabuki if you give a happyfeet.

  25. or a hickenlooper

  26. did any states take the fed gov’t to fed court about wickburn v filburn?

    if not why not? if so where is the verdict?

    i mean fdr would not pack courts would he?

  27. in a wickburn the states have the elusive “standing” in fed court

  28. @ page 131 potpl

    You are not prepared to budge an inch in the face of
    demands for human rights or the slightest measure of democratization.
    You have degraded and debased yourselves to such an
    extent that everything you now do is but a further indictment of
    yourselves, and proves the bankruptcy of your policies. You live in a
    de/acto state of permanent crisis. By crisis I mean the inability to act
    according to your own reason and conscience and to give independent
    consideration to the matter of human rights, justice and the
    welfare of the nation. I mean the inability to take critical stock of
    what you do, because if you did, you might just have the courage to
    ease off, change course, make rectifications and reparations, pursue
    reforms, and so on. By crisis, I mean the state of total abdication of
    personal responsibility, whereby you are incapable of planning and
    implementing anything but suicidal policies. As time goes on, the
    chances dwindle for you to mend your ways and introduce the
    rectifications that would save you. By crisis I mean the level to which
    you have sunk of describing every attempt at improving the status
    quo and restoring the health of national life as a conspiracy or as
    organized subversion, or of trying to find ‘networks’ or links
    abroad, seeking to prove that everything originates in a foreign
    conspiracy.

  29. let us endeavor to make such pronouncements the law of the land:


    Amendment 9
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment 10
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  30. Fortunately, what’s really happening is that many Democrats are learning that they were never part of Obama’s base[.] [T]he New Left, once vehement critics of the Democrat Party, . . . have taken the party over, keeping its name but not its governing philosophy.
    That is, they are waking up[.]

    Personally, and with all due respect Jeff, I think you’re kidding yourself.

  31. @page 104

    What must become fundamental for us is initiation, not
    dissidence. That is, we should consider ourselves first and foremost
    as initiators of future possibilities and not as subversives, drop-outs
    or rebels who are anti-a, anti-b, or anti-c. We should leave resistance
    and repression to the ruling powers and transform our opposition
    into an increasingly clear position! Charter 77 represents the position
    of an independent citizens’ initiative that understands human
    rights as something given not de lege but defacto, And in that sense
    the initiators of a new position must be able not only to formulate,
    but also to bring to life the notion of a harmonious relationship
    between individuals and society.
    Two political tendencies
    ‘Politics is not only the art of the possible, but as well the search
    for, and even the creation of the possible. We cannot passively wait
    for opportunities to arise, we must actively prepare and create them.’
    This is not an abstract essay on individuals living in any society
    whatsoever, but about human beings and their prospects in a system
    circumscribed by power, ideology, and social and cultural manipulation.

  32. What they are going to have to do now is find a patsy [wrecker] to blame the chaos and failure on. </blockquoteL

    They'll blame the Catholic Church.

    Because blaming the Jews would be a tad obvious.

  33. did any states take the fed gov’t to fed court about wickburn v filburn?

    Do you have little cards to carry around that read “1. Inhale. 2. Exhale. 3. Repeat.”? If so, what makes you think that you have any idea what you are discussing? If not, how do you remember to breathe? The stupid stuff you say make me wonder…

    And cutting and pasting paragraphs of words at a time do not make you any smarter, no matter what they might say. You make Forrest Gump look like the Chair of the Astrophysics Department…

  34. NR’s heart is in the right place on this one.

    I know it’s not going to happen, I know why it’s not going to happen, but nevertheless, I’d like to see one or more state’s tell the SCotUS to take their judicial review and shove it up their ass.

  35. Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

  36. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

    That’s up to the Rockefellers and the Fords and the Bushes and their collective cronies Ron

  37. >did any states take the fed gov’t to fed court about wickburn v filburn? <

    answer the question clown. did any state take the feds to court vis a vis wickburn v filburn? give us the whole history you waste of time? and being a douche bag doesn't make you a proggtard. just a clown.

  38. It isn’t his intentions that give me reason to suspect his ability to remember to breathe without prompting. It’s his lack of ability to recognize reality…

    Cousin Ruprecht is not supposed to be a lifestyle model…

  39. well the 1.5 party state is going 1.0 and 1.0

  40. >. It’s his lack of ability to recognize reality<

    what is your idea clown? elect repubclowns? dude go away.

  41. >did any states take the fed gov’t to fed court about wickburn v filburn?

    How does a State go about sueing the Supreme Court over a decision it doesn’t sagree with?

    Especially when the state can’t tell it’s Senators you’d better make sure that sonofabitch is in favor of overturning Wickburn before you confirm his ass.

  42. >And cutting and pasting paragraphs of words at a time do not make you any smarter,<

    'cause you be a commie? did this sh*t already redwaster

  43. “did any states take the fed gov’t to fed court about wickburn v filburn? ”


    How does a State go about sueing the Supreme Court over a decision it doesn’t sagree with? ”

    sue in fed gov’t court about the fed gov’t action? before the 9 clowns!

  44. the state of “mi” (whatever) sues the fed gov’t about wickard early. that don’t happen in the dopey new deal . those proggtards are advancing.

  45. wickard is obamacare. hi johnroberts! ruining class ahole

  46. IT WAS THE UNAMIMOUS OPINION OF THE CLOWNS THAT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS DOING TO MR. FILBURN WAS A-OK AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PEACHY-KEEN.

  47. >United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The opinion described Wickard v. Filburn as “perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce.” In Lopez, the Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from “commerce” as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[3]

    The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. <

    potheads unite the states are effin the scotus

  48. Tell that to the potheads who have the DEA kick in their doors.

  49. >Tell that to the potheads who have the DEA kick in their doors. <

    this ain't a game. get use to the "knock out" punches

  50. @ page 181

    Confirmation of my claim about the ‘origins’ of dissidents can be
    found, for example, in the list of more than 1000 people who signed
    Charter 77. They include former politicians or public figures,
    dismissed journalists, actors banned from acting, singers and
    musicians condemned to silence, clergy without pulpits, writers and
    academics forbidden to publish and carry out research, professors
    banned from lecturing, economists, philosophers, mathematicians,
    lawyers and psychologists obliged to fire boilers or clean shop
    windows, artists with no opportunity to exhibit, doctors without
    patients, and so on. And then there are a whole lot of young people
    who failed to finish their education because of their parents’
    transgressions, or who were thrown out of college because of their
    views.

  51. The DEA knocks you out with a jacketed hollow-point.

    And you stay knocked out.

    (The point I was tying to make is the FED/G-Man don’t give a shit about what states do with their drug laws. If the G-man wants to take down your medical marijuana dispensary, it will.

    And it will be at gun point.)

    Even Obama, who (probably) doesn’t give a shit one way or another about smoking pot on a personal level is in favor of the drug war. But that’s just to remind the peons that they’re peons.

  52. @page 56
    There is another circumstance, however, that considerably
    complicates matters. For many decades, the power ruling society in
    the Soviet bloc has used the label ‘opposition’ as the blackest of
    indictments, as synonymous with the word ‘enemy’. To brand
    someone ‘a member of the opposition’ is tantamount to saying he or
    she is trying to overthrow the government and put an end to
    socialism (naturally in the pay of the imperialists). There have been
    times when this labelled straight to the gallows, and of course this
    does not encourage people to apply the same label to themselves.
    Moreover, it is only a word, and what is actually done is more
    important than how it is labelled.
    The final reason why many reject such a term is because there is
    something negative about the notion of an ‘opposition’. People who
    so define themselves do so in relation to a prior ‘position’. In other
    words, they relate themselves specifically to the power that rules
    society and through it, define themselves, deriving their own ‘position’
    from the position of the regime. For people who have simply
    decided to live within the truth, to say aloud what they think, to
    express their solidarity with their fellow citizens, to create as they
    want and simply to live in harmony with their better ‘self’, it is
    naturally disagreeable to feel required to define their own, original
    and positive ‘position’ negatively, in terms of something else, and to
    think of themselves primarily as people who are against something,
    not simply as people who are what they are.

  53. The DEA knocks you out with a jacketed hollow-point.

    if your state lets act no?

  54. state peeps can detain fed creeps

  55. state peeps can detain fed creeps

    In theory, sure. I’d love to see what that looks like in practice, though.

    Of course, the local constabulary won’t arrive at my domicile in time to do me any good . . . .

  56. Ruprecht blathering on? Still? Better make sure his forks have the corks in place before giving him his daily applesauce…

  57. Let’s talk about (Chevrolet and GM) trucks!

    “U.S. Sells Off Last of Its General Motors Stock, at $10.5 Billion Loss”

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/09/us-sells-off-last-of-its-general-motors

  58. - Yeah, but hey, ~O~ saved Detroit.

  59. - Speaking of Bumblefuck, besides writing unenforcable laws and exceeding his executive powers every day, it turns out another talent he has is insulting whole demographic groups with a single handshake.

    - Who knew he was so talented.

  60. state peeps can detain fed creeps

    Depending on what, if anything, this is supposed to mean: not necessarily.

    In general this is true only if the “state peeps” are instructed by the federal law enforcement agency whose jurisdiction it is to do so.

  61. …which is all of why state & local cops can’t bag illegal immigrants.

  62. I’m having an evil thought, because of the implications: a constitutional amendment explicitly requiring all officers of the federal government to obey the constitution, and duly enacted laws, of the state in which they happen to be, even in the course of carrying out official duties.

    “I’m sorry, Your Honor, but your ruling against my state’s enforcing of federal immigration laws would place federal officers, including DOJ prosecutors, in violation of state law in the event they should ever attempt to enforce it. Since there’s no explicit provision in either the U.S. or state Constitution prohibiting my state from having this law, I’m afraid you’re S.O.L.”

  63. No worries, folks. John Podesta is now advising the prez in this time O’ crisis. That’s right, the same John Podesta who advised Slick Willy right into impeachment.

    All is well!

  64. McGehee, from your keyboard to South Carolina’s legislature. They are not going to enforce any of the ACA, Governor Haley to sign a letter of intent outlining the state’s disinclination to participate. The beauty part is that it’s all legal thanks to the SCOTUS’ ruling prohibiting the Fed from bossing around the State(s).

    The South shall rise again.

  65. If I may get really blog whorish here…

    I did a small essay on this earlier today:
    South Carolina Shows The Way

  66. Well done, Bob!

  67. newrouter, I should have said Farmer Filburn upthread. Here’s a link that explains the case:
    http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wickard-filburn.html
    Short version – the Govt can force a farmer to not grow wheat for his own in-state personal consumption if the aggregate effect could impact interstate commerce. It’s probably the most over-reaching of the Commerce Clause cases.

  68. But getting back to the insurance dealie for a second, given that you can’t buy insurance across state lines, there’s arguably no amount of buying (or not buying) of insurance within a state that could impact interstate commerce. Ergo, oustide the Federal Govts. control.

    Not that they won’t find a way to bend the “we can do anything we want” clause to suit their needs, but at least the contortions involved should be mildly entertaining.

  69. we’re so boned

  70. Roberts actually said the govt could not require health insurance under the commerce clause. ‘Twas a bridge too far. Maybe calling it a tax was his way of saying FU to the NSA and their naughty pictures.

Leave a Reply