I can’t imagine Obama’s legacy will be too kind to him from his apocalyptic foreign policy, to his destruction of the health care industry, to his mishandling of the economy, and to his divisive nature, there will be many issues facing the next POTUS. Ironically, Obama was quick to blame Bush for everything he inherited and considering the massive number of problems that will confront the next President, I can only imagine the field day the next President could have in blaming Obama. Personally, though I hope the next GOP President will quietly take on the issues in a workman like manner and put Obama in the rear view mirror as I am sure this country is eager to do.
Of all the destruction Obama will leave in his wake however, the destruction of his own party could possibly be the most damaging legacy and could leave the Democrats in a political wasteland for years. Consider this, in 2009 the Democrats had full control 27 State legislatures yet today they control the legislatures in just 11 States, the lowest number since 1978. On the other hand, in 2009 Republicans controlled just 11 State legislatures yet today that number is 30. In addition, the Republicans control the majority of Governorships with 31 including the very blue states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Maryland. The GOP’s State game plan has been far superior then the DNC’s and the 2010 and 2014 election results are proof that the conservative message is resonating at the State level. Part of the GOP plan was to recruit women with their GROW (Growing Republican Opportunities for Women), a successful effort that resulted in many new women being elected including the youngest ever elected Congresswoman in Rep. Elise Stefanik.
At the Federal level, the GOP occupies more seats now in the House than they ever have, and in 2014 took over the Senate thanks in large part to Harry Reid and his tyrannical grip on power. The 2016 POTUS candidate field is a good example of what has transpired over the last several years. On the DNC side we see aging, career bureaucratic politicians campaigning on the same old stale and failed socialist economic ideas and still trying to advance a social agenda that has resulted in riots, rancor and discord throughout the country. On the GOP side, we see a diverse cross section of America from young to old, from politicos to outsiders, and all inclusive of men, women, Hispanic, Black and White, offering ideas that cross the spectrum. Once the next GOP President is elected, they will begin to work with a GOP led Congress and a majority of GOP led States to restore America’s capitalist economy and leadership in the world while the Democrats start to pick up the pieces of a broken party and a failed ideology.
Blogs For Victory 
I hope we can recover – I think we can, but we’ve got a mess. People should keep in mind that only our rapidly aging nuclear force and shrinking Navy are all that keeps the world at bay…
Cluster, what do you want to bet that historians, at least in the short term, don’t record it the same way you have? I can see the headlines a couple years from now — “Republican President destroys everything Obama achieved.”
“Republican President destroys everything Obama achieved.”
From your lips to God’s ears……………
Spook, I share your cynicism about how reality has been, is and no doubt will be distorted by Leftist ideologues and/or fools. The Left has had a game plan that has included incursions on all fronts, with focus on education and the media, and it will take pushback on those same fronts to make it possible for facts to become history and not the legend the Left will try to create.
To this day, there is little pushback to the fantasy that FDR controlled and finally ended the Great Depression, and only a book or two detailing how his Leftist ideology actually took a recession into a depression, and kept it there, while using the ginned-up “crisis” to implement socialist schemes like Social Security, which has become so embedded in American life and culture that most Americans see it as an absolute RIGHT and not an expansion of federal authority that has made generations dependent on the government after retirement. That one program, that one allegedly temporary program, changed the very philosophy of life in this country, away from one of planning for the future to one of passively sitting back and waiting for the government to take care of the future for us.
It will take years, generations, of concentrated and focused education of Americans to start to whittle away at the lies that constitute so much of what we “know” and at the same time we will have to be vigilant to keep those lies from extending into the future. Oh, they will be there, but it is up to us to see what can happen if we don’t balance them with the truth.
Lack of transparency will be another unflattering Obama legacy:
The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.
Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research
But…but….but…but…. cluster, science is on their side!
So “…the integrity of the scientific process..” depends on not letting decision-makers know what this “scientific process” has discovered?
Sorry, NOAA, but if you can’t stand behind your research your funding should be cut off, and if your research runs so contrary to your political agendas that it has to be hidden then your funding should be cut off. I would love to see the House take this stand, and defund NOAA because it is evidently wasting our money.
They (Big Government, Big Environmentalism & Big Grant Seekers) don’t want their “science” scrutinized. If their “science” was sound and ironclad as they believe, they should welcome the scrutiny and debate. They don’t. Like pRegressives, they run from scrutiny, accountability and debate. If they can’t control the “science” and the debate, they demonize with terms like “science deniers” and other such nonsense.
Now they are resorting to changing the historical data to make the “pause” disappear. Cherry picked and massaged data, faulty models, invalid predictions, self-peer review (or no peer review) are the tools, the “science” of man-made global warming or climate disruption or climate change or whatever name they are calling it today.
Pathetic.
Watching the debate, and finding it really funny in places. I love the attacks on the MSM, or what I call the Complicit Agenda Media, and of course the sniping by Babs Boxer and Shrillary, and in Shrillary’s case simply lying. (Gasp!) She whines, re: immigration, that we should not have second class citizens. You got, Hill—illegals should never be citizens at all! There are some whines and bleats from the Left, scrolling across the screen, and it is interesting that they are put up when they are not really relevant to what is being said.
I find the mediators to be shameless in their efforts to steer answers and cut off answers they don’t like. Best line of the night? “Even in New Jersey that is considered rude”. I don’t want Christie to be president, but tonight for the first time ever I kind of like him.
Actually, tonight I like all of them. What I am seeing tonight is so many smart people with so many good ideas, I am getting a little more optimistic. I have always been happy about the depth on the Republican bench—Rubio just commented on 11 quality candidates, where the Dems have none. Great coincidence, as it came on just as I commented on the depth on the bench.
Other great comment, on a crawler comment: Constitution might not allow Trump to be president two times on Sundays.
Question: Who was the ARCHITECT of….? When does a comment move from the restating something to make sure it sinks in, and just getting goofy? ARCHITECTARCHITECTARCHITECT
I didn’t bother watching because I knew that CNBC wouldn’t do other than try to trip up the GOP candidates. But I did see the clip of Cruz ripping into them over it…and that was good. There’s no better advice a GOPer can get than to just attack the MSM, all the time.
Actually, the moderators got called on a lot of their hijinks. One asked Carson if he thought Trump had the moral authority to lead the country, and Carson answered that Trump could lead the nation every day and twice on Sunday with more moral authority than Hillary has, and Trump pointed out it was a nasty question. When one moderator tried to cut off Christie he said even in New Jersey that is rude. I forget who asked about the eeeeeeevil impact of PACS and Rubio said the Dems have the biggest PAC in the country, the MSM.
I was actually pretty impressed. The moderators were so blatantly biased, it came right through the screen, actually telling some candidates that their positions were wrong. They went after Rubio for staying in the Senate while running, and Rubio came right back with the stats on how often Obama was there to vote when HE was running, how often Kerry was there to vote while HE was running—and tied this in to blatant media bias. Bush attacked Rubio on this and it did not come across well for him—well for Bush, that is. Kasich was the “get off my lawn!!” guy and while he did himself no good as a candidate, he did bring up a lot of stuff that needs to be addressed.
I thought Kasich and Huckabee made some very strong points, while not getting closer to the presidency, Fiorina was good as much as she was allowed to talk but didn’t have much of a chance, Bush was OK but will never make it, Trump was a little more coherent and a lot less combative and still hitching his presidential wagon to the fact that he is just so damned wonderful, Carson was OK but didn’t light any fires, Rubio was the pop star but Cruz had the meaty comments. I liked that Huckabee was tougher and less folksy, I have had it with the “I was the ARCHITECT” meme and think if Kasich has not made his point yet he needs to find different phrasing to make it, and Fiorina has a legitimate gripe as she was not only given very little chance to talk, she was cut off by moderators when she tried. She had one tiny moment that many might not have noticed, or thought much of—-someone, I think it was Trump, queried about who got to decide who could talk and for how long and Carly said in a clearly sarcastic voice “that’s up to the MODERATORS.”
We DVR’d it, but, after reading various accounts on both conservative and liberals sites and listening to numerous sound bites this morning, I’m inclined not to waste my time. That’s 2 hours I’ll never get back.
It was a good debate once the candidates put the moderators in their place and started talking about issues. One of the moderators brought up the “single woman” issue and I thought a few of the candidates did a very good job defining how bad off single women are under the progressive policies of Obama and Clinton. Not surprisingly that subject was not brought up again. The moderators were also attacking the candidates on their economic proposals calling most of then inadequate. I was hoping one of the candidates would have mentioned the fact that their analysis was assuming the static economic environment of current growth and that the government needs a $3.6 trillion dollar budget. I also liked when many of the candidates pointed out how a zero interest rate policy favors the rich, and how the rich benefit from a large complex government. It is worth watching.
Rush just reminded me of one other great Rubio moment when he stated how bizarre it was that Hillary was said to have done so well in the Benghazi hearing when in fact she was exposed as a liar.
I think that unless we do something really stupid – like nominating Jeb – then we’ll beat Hillary simply because she is nauseatingly corrupt.
Spook, I watched nearly all of this one and didn’t think it was a waste of my time. True, I was cleaning my kitchen at the same time during most of it, but all in all I thought it was a good showing. As I said in my post last night, it showed a whole stage of people who are smart, energetic, and capable—depth on the bench. While I certainly have my favorites, one thing stood out—ANY of these potential candidates could do a better job for the nation than Obama or Hillary or Bernie or whoever else might be lurking in the wings waiting for Hillary to finally self-destruct. (And yes, I do realize that for Hillary to fully self-destruct it would have to be the equivalent of a wooden stake through the heart AND a silver bullet AND cutting off her head AND burying her in a sanctified churchyard AFTER burning the body, given the bizarrely passionate following she has that will overlook or, if faced to actually SEE something, excuse it in her name. No normal self-destruct will do.)
I liked the tone of mutual respect, violated as I remember only by Bush and Kasich, and I loved the willingness to take on CNBC head-on, and the rest of the Complicit Agenda Media along with them. I thought it was brilliant to point out that the Dems have the biggest PAC in the country, the MSM. There was no respect shown to the moderators or the Complicit Agenda Media they represent.
“…..we’ll beat Hillary simply because she is nauseatingly corrupt.”
I think she is beatable, but not just because she is, as you say, nauseatingly corrupt. Even losing, she will have millions of votes, from people who simply do not care that she is nauseatingly corrupt and from people whose ideological blinders keep them from seeing her corruption.
You know how so many virulent racists try to excuse their racism by claiming that black people can’t be racist? This is the kind of distorted mindset we see in people like the moronic women with their whiteboard messages referenced in an earlier post, claiming that the Benghazi investigation is really “domestic terrorism” or a partisan waste of time. They believe that Democrats can’t be corrupt. It just can’t be. To them, corruption is solely the territory of their imagined/invented Right.
Take campaign contributions from China? The mainstream Dem response will fall into one of two categories. One is “No matter how much proof you have I just don’t believe it” and the other is “There is nothing wrong with this if a Liberal does it”. One of these two is the response from millions of people, no matter what is said about a Lib, from foreign campaign contributions to letting people die in Benghazi and then lying about it to selling influence from the position of Secretary of State to lying under oath to Congress, and so on.
Having said that, I do see a shift away from Hillary-love. My uber-Leftist brother said the other day he hopes the Dems will nominate anyone but Hillary. He is not redeemed—–he thinks the only one who makes sense is Sanders—–but if HE will finally turn away from her, a lot of others are doing so, as well.
I just want enough Koolaid Dems to nominate her, and let her own history and personality do the rest. The squishies, who call themselves Independents because they just can’t think things out enough to have a position on anything, will be turned off by her, as they are already showing, and even some of the hard-core will not vote for her even if they refuse to vote for someone else. I think one aspect of having such a polarizing, despised candidate with such an ugly history is that even if YOU like her, there is the realization that she will be a negative for the party and won’t be able to govern well.
I think this will be a low-turnout year for the Dems, and a high one for the Right. I just don’t see any energy or enthusiasm on the Left. “We’re not as bad as you think we are” is not a winning campaign slogan.
They believe that Democrats can’t be corrupt. It just can’t be. To them, corruption is solely the territory of their imagined/invented Right.
That’s an excellent observation. The other night Rubio was on with Charlie Rose and Charlie actually seemed incredulous that Rubio would accuse Hillary of lying and while the facts clearly prove that she was, Charlie just couldn’t wrap his head around it.
I know a pretty liberal guy here in the area who has been all about Obama but confided in the me the other day that he was going to really start watching the GOP debates and candidates so that he can pick out someone to vote for. He refuses to vote for Hillary.
My caveat is still, of course, Jeb – we nominate him, we lose. But taking one thing with another, all the other credible GOP candidates are vastly superior to Hillary (even Trump is). I don’t think that Hillary will be able to get the Obama Coalition – oh, she’ll win the female vote, the youth vote and the minority vote, but not by near the margins that Obama did…as long as the GOP candidate is credible, I think the GOP wins.
It is that lack of energy on the left – signaled by the enthusiasm for Sanders. Not that Sanders is all that great (even on a lefty scale of things), but that he simply isn’t Hillary. Hillary will bull her way to the nomination – her people are pretty much in charge of the entire Democrat political apparatus and that will ensure that no matter how lousy she does, the nomination is hers. But she doesn’t control the country…and the country, I think, will reject her.
Good debate last night, and thanks to Rubio and Cruz, the MSM was exposed for their blatant bias. My top three are still Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina and I think all three of them clearly demonstrated last night that they are the three most conservative, most formidable candidates.
Interesting side topic (new post for moderator?)
Brazil is stripping out all existing gun ownership restrictions, specifically to combat their rampant crime and murder rates.
Quite literally, this is the laboratory to prove society is safer when citizens can freely arm themselves. It will take years/decades for statistically meaningful results, but this is fantastic news, imho.
Bob, this is fascinating, on a couple of levels. The first is the acknowledgement that people need to be able to protect themselves, and the other is the “laboratory” you mention, a great opportunity to see what gun ownership does to civilize a nation.
OT but worth a think—-from an article on Carly Fiorina: (emphasis mine)
“I think the media and the public are focusing very heavily on flash right now and flash simply isn’t what Fiorina is about. She’s talking policy and picking apart Hillary Clinton like a surgeon, but there’s nothing that grabs headlines. She’s working like a President has to work rather than a candidate, and those are two very different things. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but calm efficiency and competence in accomplishing all of your tasks isn’t what stampedes the voters in your direction. Being a winning candidate requires being a bit of show pony rather than the reliable draft horse. And you only get so many show pony moments on stage with the other candidates every six weeks or so.
I’m not sure what Fiorina could have done differently but she clearly has to find a new strategy to break out of her doldrums or this campaign will wind up as yet another also ran. And one more debate isn’t going to do it.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/26/carly-fiorina-demonstrates-how-debates-neither-make-nor-break-campaigns
Found this over at PJ Media:
But for lack of any pushback, the “progressive” mindset (cultivated at the university level and reinforced by the old-school ties that operate to a degree among top journalists that would amaze you), the Big Seven — the three nets, Time and Newsweek, plus the New York Times and the Washington Post — that set the agenda for the rest of the country was pretty much the epicenter of the famous “bubble” we hear so much about. It’s also worth noting that, even today, most of the senior figures and marquee writers in the media establishment not only know each other, they socialize, live in many of the same neighborhoods, work within blocks of each other, have summer houses in the same place, sleep together, and occasionally even marry each other. It’s as incestuous as you feared.
But not a conspiracy. Rather think of the MSM as a small Scandinavian village, so far untouched by “diversity.” Since everybody knows each other, and follows the same rules, life is calm and good. It’s only the outsiders — those conservatives — who disrupt the natural harmony. Like foreign bodies, they must be mobilized against and expelled by the progressive immune system. To quote a famous Leftist, Benito Mussolini, the founding father of Fascism, “everything within the State, nothing outside the State.”