It Appears that History Will Pause in 2014

Our liberals feel that they are on the side of history – that things always go their way in the long term and that the United States is certain to eventually be a social democratic nation.  Perhaps, but it does seem there are some bumps on the way:

The Democratic Party’s biggest super PAC, recently retooled as an early pro-Hillary Clinton effort, will sit out the midterm elections this year.

A spokesman with the group, Priorities USA Action, confirmed to BuzzFeed on Wednesday night that it would not be involved in House or Senate campaigns.

“House Majority PAC and Majority PAC are doing everything right and making a real difference. We fully support their efforts,” said the spokesman, Peter Kauffmann, referring to the main groups supporting Democratic congressional candidates.

Priorities USA, which operates under loose campaign finance rules that allow it to raise and spend unlimited sums, put $65 million behind Barack Obama in 2012…

This, as VP Biden would say, is a “big f’ing deal”.  It is an essential surrender on a large part of the Democrat money machine.  They are giving up on 2014 and setting their sights on 2016.  And there is a certain logic in this – with Obama increasingly unpopular and heading for his second mid-term, a wipe out of the Democrats was always possible.  But Democrats have learned something under Obama – as long as you’ve got the White House and one house of Congress, you can do as you please.  Just write all the executive orders you want, refuse to pass a budget and live on continuing resolutions which allow the President to move money around pretty easily to whatever is the cause of the day for Democrats.  Democrats are confident (with reason, it should be said) that they can get Hillary in to the White House…and, given the electoral map of 2016, reasonably confident that even if they lose the Senate in 2014, they can win it back in 2016 (and thus Reid has already signaled his intent to run for -re-election that year).  This is just hard nosed, political reality coming in here.

But it also means the GOP can win big – and that can set the stage for us to win in 2016, as well.  It’ll be an interesting couple years.

22 thoughts on “It Appears that History Will Pause in 2014

  1. Amazona February 6, 2014 / 7:42 pm

    “…Democrats are confident (with reason, it should be said) that they can get Hillary in to the White House…”

    Says who? Oh, I know the Complicit Agenda Media are touting her as the only logical successor to The One We Have All Been Waiting For, but aside from this noise machine and a lot of giddy posturing from some die-hard Lefties, I just don’t see what she brings to the table regarding experience, talent, charisma, integrity or qualifications.

    She has never succeeded at anything. She wasn’t even a good First Lady, dissatisfied with the job and angling to be co-president, alienating all who worked around her, and what was supposed to be her signature contribution to the regime was such a flop it quickly became a running joke. She moved into the Senate only because she was Bill’s wife and he staked out his territory in Harlem, helping her solidify New York and its black vote, and pardoned FALN terrorists to help her win the Puerto Rico/Latino vote. But after getting into the Senate on Bill’s coattails, she was nearly Obamalike in her lack of actual performance, going through the motions but really eying the Big Game all the while.

    She was an embarrassment as Secretary of State, classless and impotent, and her little “RESET BUTTON” gaffe in Russia was cringeworthy even for her. She has no credentials, other than the name Clinton. Benghazi will haunt her—she put the election ahead of her job, she stood by while the people she was supposed to protect were attacked and butchered and in one case sodomized and dragged through the streets, and then she lied and lied and lied and lied about what had happened, her role in the debacle, etc. She stood there as coffins came off an airplane and told the families of those killed a blatant lie, one she knew from the get-go to be a lie, a lie that originated in her agency.

    Her past is tawdry and littered with scandals and involvement in shady deals. She is harsh and strident with all the charm of a wolverine.

    And her politics, if the GOP gets its head out of its heinie enough to actually run on politics for a change, are hard-core radical Left. We are watching the inevitable outcome of Leftist policies in action, and there is no reason think they are going to look any better in two years.

    The Complicit Agenda Media are pushing Christie because they know they need to shove a weak candidate down our throats to give Hillary a chance.

    Someone the other day suggested that she might run with Michelle as her VP candidate, to try to hang onto the black vote, which is, as we have seen, based exclusively on skin color. That would be interesting. The Obamas hate her, and the chances of Michelle agreeing to play second fiddle to Hillary are slim to none.

    No, I just don’t see how Hillary can be a strong candidate. She would have edged out Barry in 2008, if she had not been cheated, but she has had about five years of decline since then, and being made Secretary of State, which was supposed to give her cred in international affairs, only pointed out her incompetence.

    • dbschmidt February 6, 2014 / 9:27 pm

      But Ama,
      Everything you listed and others you left out (like FileGate, Whitewater, trading options, among others) are the creds the Dems and Progressives are looking for. The more vile and corrupt–the better. Look no further than the Emanuel brothers.

      We, here in NC (on Terra) have a new competitor for Sen. Elmers seat in the form of another 2-time loser, Clay Atkins. I just hope the voters of NC can distinguish between idol-ology and substance. We have been moving forward since the Republicans took over the House, Senate and Governorship. Hate to be the new embarrassment of the nation in 2014 or 2016.

      • Amazona February 7, 2014 / 7:42 am

        db, I agree, to some extent. Though while to the hard-core Left, these are all resume-building events, I still think there is a core of decency in the mainstream Dem voter demography that has just been suckered into a simple-minded, yet effective, reaction to anything negative said about their side.

        I think they have been carefully led into the assumption that anything negative about one of theirs is only, always, part of a smear campaign—because it has to be coming from the Right, and the Right is so inherently eeeevil, blah blah blah—–so it is dismissed without examination or thought. There is now such an effective knee-jerk reaction to anything negative about the Left that truth hits that brick wall and never gets any further. If you think about it, it is this core of decency that makes them reject what they see as viciousness and vitriol.

        This is why I think we need to stop talking about things that will always run into this resistance. They have been carefully schooled to see this as horrid attack politics, and to see the vile nature of the commentary from their own side as “speaking truth to power”.

        But the real weakness of the Left is its true ideology. They know this, which is why they have worked so hard to establish this nearly impenetrable shell of emotion. Once that shell is penetrated, and reality starts to seep in, they are lost.

        So I see a campaign in which, on one side, is the strident harridan, Hillary, and her cadre of vicious hateful street fighters, depending on manipulating the emotions of the masses to hate and fear the Other—but, hopefully, on our side a happy, cheerful, upbeat campaign with likable people who are refusing to get down in the gutter with the Left and who are just saying to the people “This election is not about issues or personalities, scandal or slander—it’s about government.” And then about a simple comparison of the two basic forms of government, and the need to get it back into the hands of the people and out of the jawsof the insatiable leviathan that has been nurtured by the Left.

      • GMB February 7, 2014 / 8:58 am

        “The Complicit Agenda Media are pushing Christie because they know they need to shove a weak candidate down our throats to give Hillary a chance.”

        This is true. The media will push the candidate most likely to lose against Hillary in the General Election.

        However, the national republicans can and should take steps to head this off. The first one that comes to mind is closing all Republican Primaries off to registered Republicans only. How many states are open right now? How many blue states are open right now? Why is the national party allowing it’s supposed political enemies to help choose it’s candidates?

        The Party needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up and until the rebuilding starts, the national party is complicit in it’s own problems.

      • Amazona February 7, 2014 / 10:40 am

        GMB, you are so right. The idea of letting the other side decide who they want to run against is absolutely crazy.

    • M. Noonan February 7, 2014 / 2:35 am

      All of the above – and lets not forget that just as literal millions voted for Obama simply because he’s black (and this is not at all limited to black people), literal millions will be willing to vote for Hillary simply because she’s a woman and its “time” for a female President. There is the Dunderhead Vote to be contended with, especially these days.

      I do think we can beat her – stories of her inevitable election to the White House are greatly exaggerated – but she’ll have an endless supply of money to campaign on, a media entirely on her side (even Fox, I think, will go easy on her), all of the elite backing her (wouldn’t surprise me if McCain endorsed her – especially if, as expected, he decides not to seek re-election in 2016). I do think that the only GOPer who would be sure to lose to her is Christie – all others can make the case that they are the superior alternative, especially the crop of excellent governors we have (Perry, Jindal, Walker, Haley, Martinez, etc). A Walker/Martinez ticket, by the by, would be devastating to her – both in terms of clear competence and the fact that Martinez is female and latina (and younger, and better looking, and not just a worn out, has-been from the past who has been sticking to American politics like old gum under a chair). Walker is flying under the radar right now (and he does have to get re-elected this November for it to become possible – but I think he will be), but when push comes to shove, he is the only GOPer who could be in the field who can say he fought the left (especially the unions), crushed them and made a better state of affairs after he did so.

      Of course, we could blow it – we could nominate Christie (or Jeb Bush…or have another go with Romney). We’ll see.

      • Amazona February 7, 2014 / 11:02 am

        Ever since seeing him speak at CPAC in 2009 I have been a big Mike Pence fan, and at that time I turned to the woman next to me and said “We might be watching a future president” and she said “I know”.

        He’s now governor of Indiana, and Spook says the Left hateshatesHATES him. Sounds pretty good to me!

        As far as I know, his conservative credentials are good. And, as you say, we have Walker and Haley and Martinez. I am still writing off Cruz and Jindal and Rubio, because until the Natural Born Citizen thing is settled, legally, any of them will be a serious liability to the party because ignoring the issue we brought up will brand us, quite accurately, as hypocrites.

        The other thing is to stop letting the Left write the rule book. As GMB points out, above, we already let them pick our candidates, and we also let them decide how to run our campaigns. Let THEM be the nasty, angry, party, intent on regressing to the failed policies of every old Lefty regime in history, while we are the upbeat leaders with a true vision for the future.

      • M. Noonan February 7, 2014 / 1:15 pm

        Well, I guess people who got in to the NBC thing would care – but I wouldn’t as Obama’s nativity never meant anything to me. To me, it was always sufficient that his mother was clearly an American citizen and that made him a born American in my eyes, even if someone could actually prove he wriggled in to the world outside of American territory

      • Amazona February 8, 2014 / 10:57 am

        Mark, read what I wrote. “…. ignoring the issue we brought up will brand us, quite accurately, as hypocrites.”

        Also, Barack Obama could have been born in the very center of the United States, with an actual, real, birth certificate, to a mother who was a citizen, and that would have absolutely ZERO impact on the definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

        It is a legitimate issue because:

        1. The term has never been legally defined.
        3. While the evidence that it means a person whose parents (plural) or at the very least the father was a citizen at the time of his or her birth is very compelling, it is not absolutely conclusive, and this leaves a question that has already caused divisiveness in a nation that can’t afford any more divisiveness.

        There is no reason to object to pursuing a final, legal, ruling on the matter. I am fine with stipulating that Barack Obama is legally the President of the United States by virtue of being duly sworn in, and I think it would be foolish to try to use an effort to get a ruling to retroactively disqualify him.

        But the fact is, like it or not, the many many unanswered questions swirling around his birthplace, his citizenship status, his prior passports, and so on have cast a shadow over his presidency and created a lot of uncertainty about its legitimacy. I just don’t see how anyone can look at this and then blithely say there is no reason to take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

        I would be fine with either ruling. While the evidence does push me toward thinking the term means someone born to citizens, or to a father who was already a citizen, I would accept a ruling that Natural Born Citizen means the same thing as Native Born Citizen. I might disagree in my mind, but I would accept it as a matter of law. And this would not be my personal preference, because it would eliminate some of the best and brightest in this country right now.

        But we have to live with the fact that the issue has been brought up, and argued with great energy and passion, and to pretend that it is now not of any interest because now it would sting someone we like would not only be the height of hypocrisy, I think it would severely damage the effort to get a conservative into the White House.

  2. GMB February 7, 2014 / 12:02 pm

    The rats have taken many groups, often with conflicting goals, and turned them into one large voting block. Add in the appeal they have to the low information and this presents a grand problem.

    The biggest problem to work on, in my opinion, is how to get social and economic conservatives to work together. I believe the gop is at an end or very close to that end with Social Conservatives such as myself.

    First the gop must decide on what direction they wish to travel. If they are going to follow the economic route primarily, this does not automatically mean an end to support from Social Conservatives.

    However, if the gop says it wants to focus on economic issues only and then refuses to defund organizations such as pp at the Federal Level? Money is nice, at the end of the day it still belongs to Caesar.

    If the gop wants the time, money, and votes of Social Conservatives, what should the gop do to earn them?

    • M. Noonan February 7, 2014 / 1:12 pm


      I agree that the Establishment GOP and a goodly portion of the GOP base wants to stay away from social issues. I think the best way to keep us social conservatives on board is to make it about freedom…right now, Christians are being oppressed simply for disagreeing with liberalism (the baker who is being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, eg). If we can turn it about and put the left on the defensive (“why are you trying to force people to participate?”), then we can keep it together as far as social and economic conservatives. Ultimately, we who are social conservatives must recognize that we lost the war over morality – and we won’t win it by trying to prevent things any longer. Our first step, now, is to ensure that we can participate fully in the public square and trust that over time morality will win out (and it will – God will ultimately see to it).

      • Retired Spook February 7, 2014 / 1:24 pm

        over time morality will win out (and it will – God will ultimately see to it).

        I think you’re right, Mark, and I believe a lot of Conservatives are coming to the same conclusion. And if it’s true, it bodes well for the election in November.

        My opinion of John Boehner was elevated a couple notches yesterday when he declared :

        that his caucus is unlikely to move forward [on immigration reform] until President Obama gains their trust.


        “There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws,” Boehner (R-Ohio) said during a midday news conference at the Capitol. “And it’s going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes.”

      • GMB February 7, 2014 / 2:05 pm

        Are you saying that you would have no problem voting for gop members who vote to keep funneling tax money to orginizations like pp?

      • Amazona February 7, 2014 / 8:50 pm

        I am not Establishment and I am not part of the GOP base and I think we need to avoid “social issues” like the plague because “issues” are the playground of the Left.

        Issues are emotion-based, and therefore subject to great emotional manipulation, which leads to divisiveness, and pretty soon you have people thinking they are voting for a pet “issue” such as gay marriage, without even considering that they are voting for a political system.

        I am a hard-core social conservative, and I still think “social issues” are the kiss of death to Constitutional Conservatism. Not only that, I am beginning to think that we have contributed to the decline in morality by participating in dragging it into politics, where people come to believe they can vote on what is moral and what isn’t.

        The Constitution, when followed, provides an umbrella of liberty under which people can make their own choices, and I think most people will tend to make better choices when those choices are private and not linked to a political identity. So if we explain and promote Constitutional government, I think the resulting freedoms of the people will eventually lead to better choices.

        Example: All the basically good, moral, people who have been suckered into the idea that it is more moral to have a policy that a woman has “the right to choose what is best for her and her body” because this has been such a public discussion, with such political overtones, while believing on a personal level that abortion is awful. But if we separate abortion from federal policies and discourse, we don’t ask people to make political choices in the public square based on the politicalization of a moral issue. Properly applied, the Constitution would not address the issue at all, it would remain in the states where it belongs, the Supreme Court would not be involved, the matter would not have formal approval from what is supposed to be the last and highest Constitutional opinion, and I believe it would be more subject to the increased moral pressures of communities and local government.

        At the federal level there IS no moral pressure. At that level everything is too big, too distant, too abstract, and morality becomes nothing but a vague and indistinct concept subject to emotional manipulation. So keep moral issues away from the federal level, and where they belong, in communities where people know what you do and how you think and where there is some accountability.

    • Amazona February 7, 2014 / 8:31 pm

      “If the gop wants the time, money, and votes of Social Conservatives, what should the gop do to earn them?”

      Well, at the federal level they should admit that social issues do not fall into the purview of the federal government, it being restricted to the 17 enumerated duties laid out in the Constitution and further restrained by the 10th Amendment.

      You can’t be a conservative if you want the feds to do things outside the Constitution, just because those things are identified as Socially Conservative. Once you want the feds to exceed their boundaries, you are a Leftist, just with a different agenda.

      On the state level, identify what belongs in government and what doesn’t, and keep the two separate.

      • GMB February 8, 2014 / 3:55 am

        Again the accusation of being a leftist? Please explain why I am a leftist because I don’t want the Federal Government to shovel tax dollars to organizations like pp.

        “Well, at the federal level they should admit that social issues do not fall into the purview of the federal government, it being restricted to the 17 enumerated duties laid out in the Constitution and further restrained by the 10th Amendment.”

        That is exactly my point. We have the “establishment republican party” that keeps voting to send money to people that has nothing to do with their Constitutional duty.

        They keep spending money we don’t have on programs that have no Constitutional basis and we are supposed to keep sending them back D.C.?


      • Amazona February 8, 2014 / 10:31 am

        Well, if that is your point then I did not call you a “leftist”.

        There. Feel better?

        Now go back and read what I wrote: Once you want the feds to exceed their boundaries, you are a Leftist, just with a different agenda.”

        As for this: “They keep spending money we don’t have on programs that have no Constitutional basis and we are supposed to keep sending them back D.C.?” the answer is not only a resounding NO!! but curiosity about why you would ask me that, as I have never said or implied any such thing.

  3. Retired Spook February 7, 2014 / 12:18 pm

    Slightly OT, but an excellent article this morning by Brandon Smith at Oathkeepers.

    • neocon01 February 7, 2014 / 2:16 pm

      social issues and government are connected at the hip, the donks figured this out in the 60’s we are still discussing it, and losing the battle on all fronts.

      open GOP primaries are insanity and suicide, NO voter ID is insanity and suicide, putting IDIOT LOSERS like mcLame, mittens, michelin man, is insanity and suicide.

  4. neocon01 February 7, 2014 / 2:20 pm

    it would be much better if the boehner said LOUDLY
    3. NO ILLEGAL FELONS allowed to stay PERIOD!
    4. Road to citizenship after 10 years PERIOD!
    5. ASSIMILATE (test given including mastery of English) PERIOD!

    MAYBE we could support him….good luk wit dat!!

    • neocon01 February 7, 2014 / 2:26 pm

      This article NAILS it…..

      Memo to Conservatives: Republicans Aren’t Your Friends
      By Matthew Vadum

      One of the reasons the national Republican Party is such a mess is because Republicans are far too reluctant to criticize their own.

      Republicans are nice people. Too many Republicans think it’s wrong to criticize other Republicans.

      This failure to be forthright has had consequences. It has allowed the Republican Party to take up political space it has no business occupying as it embraces left-wing statist tyranny. Much of the time, the GOP is merely Democrat-lite.

      House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are so dangerously out of touch and out of control nowadays in part because other Republicans have allowed them to get that way. Boehner and McConnell regard conservatives as a nuisance to be overcome, co-opted, subverted, and if necessary, eliminated.”

      A new way of thinking is required

      Read more:

    • Amazona February 7, 2014 / 8:26 pm

      neo, I have to disagree with you on a couple of your points.




      Yes to amnesty, as all it really means is no penalty for a crime, and the penalty is so puny anyway we can write off the measly little fine and lay claim to ownership of the WORD “amnesty”—and we ought to have learned how important it is to own a word.

      3. NO ILLEGAL FELONS allowed to stay PERIOD!

      With you here, with the comment that it should just read “felons”

      4. Road to citizenship after 10 years PERIOD!

      WTF ??????? You say “no amnesty” so you want to impose the horrible fine of what? $2000? and then REWARD the scofflaws by handing out citizenship like Halloween candy?


      5. ASSIMILATE (test given including mastery of English) PERIOD!”

      How about a slightly more comprehensive approach?

      1. Pass laws with teeth, regarding illegal entry and illegal presence in the country.
      2. Give all illegals already here 90 days to register. After than, if you have not registered you fall under the new, tough, law, and you ARE a felon. Go home, never to return. If you can’t pass the investigation, you go home.
      3. Amnesty, or forgiveness of the token penalty for breaking a weak and toothless law. No biggie.
      4. Long-term work permit for those passing investigation after registration: no arrests, employment, stability
      5. No bringing in extended families.
      6. Implement a seasonal worker program
      7. Work permit conditional upon passing an English test after a year, and taking acculturation classes, to learn how to function in this country
      8..After long term work permit expires, either apply for permanent residency or go home. No citizenship. If you cared about citizenship you would have gone through the process.
      9. Secure the border before any of the above is allowed.

Comments are closed.