Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

Remember when Barack Insane Obuma said: "I don't want to run auto companies, and I don't want to run banks." He changed his mind.

Today, Obuma, speaking in the depressed city of Pueblo, Colorado, heaped praise upon himself for his uncanny ability to use other people's money to nationalize unproductive companies:

"I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back.  Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."

So partial nationalization of the entire manufacturing sector.  Hmmm....sounds like this plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

[srkruzich]

Remember when Barack Insane Obuma said: "I don't want to run auto companies, and I don't want to run banks." He changed his mind.

Today, Obuma, speaking in the depressed city of Pueblo, Colorado, heaped praise upon himself for his uncanny ability to use other people's money to nationalize unproductive companies:

"I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back.  Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."

So partial nationalization of the entire manufacturing sector.  Hmmm....sounds like this plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

Fascism/statism at its finest.  would make hitler proud!

[Warph]

Since the beginning of our current political and cultural environment during the term of Barrack Obama we've heard many references to his political mentor, Saul Alinsky. For years, people have described how profoundly Alinsky has influenced Obama and his team. I finally concluded that it was time to sacrifice myself on behalf of the readers of this column and buy Alinsky's book (Rules for Radicals), and then report back exactly what Alinsky has to say.

Though short, this book can be quite challenging. First, it was written in 1971, an era that evokes images of bad clothing and ill-kempt people (only partially redeemed by some mighty fine music). Second, as are most things leftist, it is relentlessly negative. God, these people are unhappy. Finally, much of the book is written in "leftist-ese," which means it contains rambling statements filled with the type of hollow thoughts that you get from college professors. They use multi-syllabic words to dress up their ignorance. While it may have been written for people taking LSD, it is, unfortunately, a deadly serious book.

If you are seeking to be offended, it won't take long. On the third page of the prologue, Alinsky states his belief in "...the realization that all values and factors are relative, fluid, and changing." Thus, he takes very little time to establish his faith in moral relativism – something you could have no doubt assumed -- but which he quickly confirms.

Alinsky divides the world into the Haves, the Have-nots, and the "Have some but want a lot more." He has very little respect for the Have-nots, a group of people in America that has produced tremendous business and political leaders because we have income mobility. He writes that "The Have-nots have a limited faith in their own judgment. They believe the Haves are more intelligent and more competent." He establishes the philosophy that you can lead the Have-nots wherever you want to take them.

Overall, Rules for Radicals is an effective primer on how to start a revolution. Alinsky defines the keywords you need to understand, and how best to communicate them. He dedicates an entire chapter to community organizers (sound familiar?), in which he emphasizes the key points necessary to effectively organize. Another chapter discusses whether the ends justify the means, and he ultimately rationalizes that accomplishing your objectives by virtually any means is acceptable (since by Alinsky's definition, others have done so in the past).

The heart of the book is the chapter on tactics, in which he enumerates and describes thirteen of them. Let me list the key ones:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. This was very effective in the beginning of Obama's campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2008. She held all the cards, but Obama's team used smoke and mirrors to make it look like he was her equal.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. In his words, you want to create confusion, fear, and retreat. This means that you want your opponent to have to deal with something outside his normal frame of reference. This is the tactic Obama is using to attack Romney's private sector experience – a history that has been universally applauded, but that he now has to defend from scurrilous charges as those made by Joe Soptic about the death of his wife somehow being the responsibility of Romney.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own rules. This is a common leftist tactic. Republicans cannot have a sexual affair because they are proponents of family values, but Democrats can because they are not. If you have no ethical standards, you can't be challenged on them.

8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purposes. If you think that what Obama has tried so far in this Presidential election has been nasty – you ain't seen nothing yet.

11. If you push a negative hard, it will break through into its counterside. This certainly is what the Obama team is trying to do. Axelrod and his henchmen repeatedly create scenarios about Romney; and, whether true or not, push them through their media allies, and then keep pushing until the voters believe it and accept it. An example is the coining of the term Romneyhood accusing Romney of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class and lower them for the more successful earners when Romney has asked for a 20% rate cut across the board.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. This means that if you don't want the opposition to turn the tables on you, concede that you are correct about a problem, and then demand your solution. Thus, Obama will offer no solutions to any problems facing America. He has not and will not. But he will turn this tactic on Romney every chance he gets, and he will hammer any solution that Romney offers. Therefore, if you were wondering why Romney has stayed away from specifics, now you know why. Because of the nature of the opposition, Romney is almost forced into criticizing Obama only on his (manifest) lack of performance.

13. Pick the target it, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. If you've been following this election at all, this is really self-evident. Chicago-style politics were used on Romney even before he became the nominee, and the Chicago gang reached a new low by accusing Romney of committing a felony. Then they went lower by tying him to the death of a woman.

There you go. If any of these rules seem familiar, it's because you're watching them in action. The reason people have cited Alinsky so often when speaking of Obama is that he has lived by this rule book from day one of his political career. Obama and his allies made sure that he was unopposed in his primary for the state senate in 1996 by challenging the signatures of every candidate, including the incumbent. This being Chicago, he had no Republican challenger in the general election.

Despite being unopposed, President Obama now includes anecdotes in his stump speech about how tough that initial election was for him. He states that when he and Mrs. Obama walked precincts, people said "Nobody can pronounce your name. How are you going to win?" If you ever doubted that Obama will say and do virtually anything, you should disabuse yourself of that idea immediately.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

[Warph]

     

Barack Obama -- A Transparent Fraud
By Lurita Doan
8/13/2012
http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2012/08/13/barack_obama__a_transparent_fraud/page/full/

Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that's just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government. You can also learn about some of the senior leadership in the new administration and about the President's policy priorities.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/change_has_come_to_whitehouse-gov

In January of 2009, Barack Obama promised Americans an "unprecedented" level of transparency in his dealings with the American people and throughout his Administration. Almost four years have passed since that promise, during which time, Americans have witnessed an extraordinary level of deception and obfuscation, all designed to divert attention from the Obama Administration's failure to grow the economy, their failure to create jobs, their failure to curb out-of-control government spending, and their failure to maintain American prestige on the international level.

In fact, Team Obama is basing their entire reelection strategy on a single hope, that while it may not be possible to fool all the people all the time, Barack Obama only needs to fool 50% of the people for another 85 days.

Obama is highly skilled at obscuring the truth. Let's look at the record:

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed that he would create 3.5 million jobs by 2012. 2012 is here and the country faces 8.3% unemployment, or so it would seem. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at the request of the Obama Administration has skewed the numbers, artificially lowering the unemployment rate by changing the measurement metrics, re-categorizing some of the applicants for unemployment and dropping others from the jobless rolls if they have been unemployed for too long. Many estimate that the number is far closer to 13% than 8.3% . So, rather than the transparency promised, the Obama Administration has gone to extremes to obfuscate the true unemployment numbers.

The president has not been transparent about taxpayer investments from the Stimulus and other "special interest" programs. For example, the $574 million dollar investment in the failed, solar panel company, Solyndra, is just the tip of the iceberg. The White House has not revealed the true amount of the wasted dollars from failed "green" jobs programs, nor revealed the true extent of its involvement in these failures. This past week, emails revealed that Obama had direct knowledge of the problems with Solyndra, yet continued to tout the success of "green" enterprises and "green" jobs. Hardly the transparency promised.

The Obama Administration's lack of transparency is easily seen in its handling of Fast and Furious. Finding out who knew what and when has been the objective of the questions from Darrell Issa, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. But the Obama Administration, including the Attorney General and the president have stalled and equivocated, refusing to provide congress with the complete documents requested, preferring a contempt of congress charge rather than reveal their role in an ill thought, incompetently executed scheme that provided almost 2,000 guns to drug cartels in Mexico. What does that tell Americans about the Obama Administration's commitment to "transparency"?

Obama has not been transparent about the struggles of the small business community which is being crushed by his anti-business policies. Some might argue that the president is simply clueless when in June he proclaimed the "private sector is doing just fine." But how to explain the president's claim: "You didn't build that?"

As a small business owner for 15 years, who often worked 14 hour days, 6 days a week, I don't remember seeing Obama, or any of his ilk, working next to me at 2 a.m. on a Sunday morning, while I was working to grow my business. Obama's transparent scorn, condescension and ignorance are transparent evidence of his hostile attitude towards the American business community.

The Administration has refused to provide transparency into the true cost of Obamacare, and even now, is hiding behind puffery and falsified statistics regarding the cost of Obamacare and about the enforcement of mandatory birth control and abortion provisions triggered by the legislation.

Nor has there been transparency about the funding provided for Obama's "special" czars. Certainly, senate- confirmed czars have publicized budgets and are appropriated funds by congress. However, Obama has appointed a host of other czars, such as the Green Czar, the Education Czar, the Energy Czar. These czars have staffing and infrastructure costs associated with them that were unaccounted for in the FY10, FY11 and FY12 budgets. Little or no transparency exists regarding the total costs of these czars, nor is it clear that the American taxpayer is getting any value for the dollars spent.

There is also a lack of transparency in Obama's Office of Management and Budget. (OMB). Federal government accounting systems, while supposedly following GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), in reality, have more off-balance sheet items than an ENRON wanna-be. Cleaning up these many and proliferating off-balance sheet budgetary inter-intra agency items is, perhaps, the single most important requirement and the biggest challenge to full transparency and shrinking the size of government. The annual budget reconciliation process, and the "passback" process, offer each federal agency a new chance for transparency, but that too has not been forthcoming.

Now, the president has signed the Sequestration and Transparency Act of 2012 which requires the president, within the next 30 days, to provide transparency into the federal functions that will be cut and the functions that will be exempted from cuts.

Barack Obama has resisted putting pen to paper and making any budgetary decisions over the last four years. No doubt, he will resist the calls and demands from Congress to specify what cuts he will make under the Sequestration Act. Not that it matters much. Anyone paying attention must already know that Obama will continue to expand unsustainable entitlements, and will, instead, push for even deeper cuts in defense.

Even the president's closest allies, such as Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, have expressed alarm with Obama's gambit. Others will be shocked to see just how far Obama will go to push an expansion of the welfare state. So, don't expect Barack Obama to follow the law and outline his sequestration plan; he cannot afford true transparency.

So what can we expect the president to do when he has contradicted, obstructed, or abandoned his promises for transparency at almost every opportunity? Give a speech on Transparency? Obama did just that this past June 2012.

My guess is that in the weeks ahead, instead of being honest and outlining his priorities, the president will continue to willfully mislead Americans by speaking frequently about how committed to "transparency" he is. Such has been the Obama Administration's pattern in the past--to talk about transparency while hiding actions and intentions from the American people.

Ask any successful leader and he or she will tell you that transparency, integrity and accountability are the three pillars of a highly successful, fully-functioning organization. How unfortunate that Barack Obama has none of that DNA.

There is, perhaps, only one area in which the president has been completely transparent. Despite his claims that he would be content to be a "one-term president":

Obama has made it crystal clear that he is willing to do anything:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-working-to-counter-new-voter-id-laws/2012/05/18/gIQAABVeZU_story.html

Promise anything:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/09/remarks-president-campaign-event-pueblo-colorado

Say anything to get elected to a second term:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/07/obama_ad_romney_is_a_murderer

[/font][/size]

[Warph]

U.S. $25 billion in hole on auto bailout by Obama

The Detroit News
by: David Shepardson
Monday, August 13, 2012

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/treasury-u-s-to-lose-25-billion-on-auto-bailout#ixzz23UAD2GU0

The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM's stock price was $22.20 a share.

[Warph]

           

WHEN OBUMA said that nobody does anything on his own, I figured he had me in mind.  I could even hear that annoying voice of his in my ear, saying, "After all, you didn't invent the typewriter, the computer or television; and you sure didn't produce the inkjet or build the Internet highway.  You also didn't produce the food you eat or purify the water you drink.  You didn't even construct your own house."  The reason I could hear him so clearly is because I used to go to college, and those are the sorts of simplistic things that sophomores say when they are trying to be profound; usually after they've had more than a few beers.

Obuma is middle-aged and he hasn't been a college student for nearly 30 years.  But keep in mind that he is a far-left-winger, which is just another way of saying he will be a juvenile until the day he dies.  I would add that the reason he is so convinced that nobody does anything on his own is because he, himself, has done so little.  He is essentially a creature who could have been cobbled together in a cellar, but, unlike Dr. Frankenstein's creation, Igor didn't have to rob a local cemetery in order to supply his master with a brain; in Obama's case, it came vacuum-sealed right from a factory run by the likes of Frank Marshall, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, George Soros, Valerie Jarrett and Karl Marx.

Or, as Rush Limbaugh put it, the choice in November is between Romney's "Bain Capital" and Obuma's "Das Kapital."

When Obuma said in his 7,849th speech that "We rise and fall as one nation," my face turned beet red and I began to cough so hard my wife nearly dialed 911.  When it comes to politicians, I generally cut them some slack because I understand, as they do, that roughly 50% of the voters are so dumb they'll generally believe the last lie they hear before entering the voting booth.  But even I couldn't give a pass to a guy who talks about one nation when he has devoted the past three years to erecting firewalls between blacks and whites; rich and poor; men and women; Democrats and Republicans; and between the federal government and several states, including Arizona, Texas and Indiana.

Obuma keeps accusing Mitt Romney of wishing to raise taxes on the poor, believing, as usual, that a lie repeated often enough will eventually be mistaken for the truth.  The fact is Romney wants taxes cut on everyone.  I'm the one who wants them raised on the poor.  Well, actually "raised" is the wrong verb.  Half the people in the country don't pay anything in income taxes, although that doesn't prevent the federal government from sending them bribes in the form of "refunds."

I know that the rationale is that even though the poor don't pay income taxes, they pay sales taxes and the like.  Whenever I hear liberals make that claim in defense of the status quo, my reaction is that the rest of us also pay all of those, in addition to having to write the IRS a check every April.

Inasmuch as we already have a progressive tax system, meaning that the top-earning five percent pay 65% of all income taxes, I see no reason why people making less than, say, $40,000- a-year can't be expected to pay one percent.  If they think that $400 is too much to pay for all those roads and bridges that Obama is always going on about, let them forego their voting rights.  If they want to have a say in the way things are run and in deciding which people should run them, I say, borrowing my words from Obuma, Pelosi, Biden, Reid and Wasserman-Schultz, they should pay their fair share.

                 

A fascinating sidebar to Obuma's war on Bain Capital is that Bain executives have contributed over $120,000 to his re-election campaign.  To me, that sounds an awful lot like chickens chipping in to buy a birthday present for Colonel Sanders, but, what the hell, it's their money.

Speaking of Bain, when watching Obama's TV ads attacking Romney, it's worth recalling that in 2008, slimey candidate Obuma said, "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

At the time, it sounded like he was insulting John McCain, but we now realize that he was merely thinking out loud, hoping that David Axelrod would jot it down for future reference.

[Patriot]

Obama has not been transparent about the struggles of the small business community which is being crushed by his anti-business policies. Some might argue that the president is simply clueless when in June he proclaimed the "private sector is doing just fine." But how to explain the president's claim: "You didn't build that?"

While there are those who still argue Obama's actions are simply due to ignorance or inexperience, anyone who has been paying close attention, can easily recognize the clear results of a specific ideology in full gear.  Be it a lack of transparency, support for radicals, deceptions in policy making or end runs around Congress, I, for one, can no longer ignore the historical parallels to the USSR from the Worker's Revolution to the present.  

Obama is clearly operating on the side of the decades old Marxist war against the capitalist and is fully engaged in the very tactics employed in the post revolutionary USSR to move from capitalism through socialism marching toward communism in America.  What remains to be seen is into what final form that path to tyranny will morph.  Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao or Castro, or worse.  In any case, it won't be pretty for the masses in America.

If any one is to be labeled 'clueless' it would be the masses of American voters who have put the 'progressive' enemies of this country in positions of power at all levels of government from the late 1800's to the present.  Most of the fools in Washington started locally as commissioners, mayors or dog catchers and were promoted by the voters.  To those uninformed voters:  Wake up & do some study!  It is the electorate who have let this country get to the shape it's in, and there's little time left for the electorate to turn it around.

Remember three things:
1.  Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
2.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
3. All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

There's an old saying in business and it applies to America...
You're either growing or dying and there's no in between.
Which is it America?

[Warph]

     

7 Things to Expect If Obama Is Elected to a Second TermBy John Hawkins
8/14/2012

"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." -- Barack Obama

So far, the message of the Obama campaign essentially seems to be, "I'm unable to effectively govern because Republicans won't do everything I want. Re-elect me so I can deliver more of the same. Oh, also Paul Ryan wants to push old people off a cliff while Mitt Romney will give you cancer." That doesn't tell you much about what Obama would try to do in his second term, but given that he appears to be largely indifferent to the law and the wishes of the American people, there's no reason to be hopeful. Furthermore, given how deferential the Supreme Court has been to Obama and the fact that the GOP would undoubtedly be more willing to go along to get along if it's defeated this year, the damage Obama could do in a second term would be incalculable.

1) America's credit rating slides further: Under Barack Obama's leadership, America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time since 1917. That means our country is now more of a gamble to loan money to than Microsoft. Given that Barack Obama has shown zero inclination to get spending under control or seriously tackle entitlement reform, our rating would be practically guaranteed to drop at least another notch. In other words, this country would soon have the same S&P rating as Qatar and the Czech Republic.

2)The middle class will see massive tax increases: Congress has been at an impasse because Republicans want to cut spending and Democrats want to raise taxes. Despite all the talk you hear about the "Buffet Rule," it would produce a comparatively small amount of actual revenue because the rich are close to tapped out. The real money is in the middle class. If we're not going to cut our escalating spending, then taxes on the middle class will have to soar like an eagle fired out of a cannon.

3)Gas and energy prices will be dramatically higher: Obama once said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." His Energy Secretary Steven Chu added, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Is it any wonder that Obama won't drill ANWR, has blocked the Keystone Pipeline, and has slow-walked offshore drilling? Obama views sky high energy prices as a feature, not a bug and if he doesn't have to face the voters again, expect to see energy prices lift off like the manned space shuttles Obama permanently grounded.

4)Obamacare goes into effect: If the GOP controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, it should be able to gut Obamacare and keep it from ever going into effect. On the other hand if Obama is reelected, there's a better chance of the NAACP endorsing Mitt Romney than there is that health care reform will ever be repealed.

5)The Supreme Court moves to the left: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79, Antonin Scalia is 76, Anthony Kennedy is 75, and Stephen Breyer is 73. Replacing Ginsburg or Breyer with 50 year old liberals would be bad enough, but imagine Obama selecting a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy. If that happens, Obama would have five guaranteed votes on the Supreme Court for anything he wants to do. Once we get to that point, the Constitution might as well not even exist.

6)Get ready for open borders: Barack Obama has already bypassed Congress to implement the DREAM ACT by fiat, he's planning to break the law to hand out work permits to illegal aliens, he's openly proclaimed that ICE won't pick up many of the illegals detained by Arizona, and illegals are now being released by the border patrol sans proof if they claim they went to high school here. We're very close to having an open border policy right now for any illegal alien who hasn't committed a felony here and in an Obama second term, it's fair to assume that the primary qualification for citizenship would be the ability to sneak into the country.

7)Gun control will be a priority: Barack Obama filled out a "questionnaire in which he called for banning 'the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns'" and he let everyone know what he thought about gun owners even before he was elected with his notorious "bitter clingers" quip. His campaign website doesn't even have a section addressing 2nd Amendment issues, perhaps because Obama would have to admit that he's already calling for a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. Without an election to keep him in check, expect Barack Obama to "evolve" on gun control the same way he did on gay marriage.

[Warph]

 
        Hitler Finds Out Paul Ryan is the VP Pick

                     

[Warph]

                          

CNN's Wolf Blitzer Torches Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on Medicare Falsehoods
By Guy Benson
8/13/2012

         

Let me say this right up front: Congratulations to Wolf Blitzer for being a relentless, responsible journalist. If you value the truth, this interview is a pleasure to watch. If you have even an ounce of human compassion for the in-over-her-head target of Blitzer's inquisition, it's positively brutal:

Poor Debbie. She's totally out-gunned and has nowhere to hide. Her talking points are pitifully hollow and cannot withstand even basic questioning. She stubbornly rejects the (correct) premise that the Romney/Ryan Medicare reform plan exempts everyone over the age of 54, and plays fast and loose with numbers -- conflating 55 and 65 on several occasions. When she is brow-beaten into finally acknowledging -- if not admitting -- the truth around the 3:45 mark, she quickly realizes her "mistake" and reverts back into denialism. When Blitzer asks her to specify exactly how current or soon-to-be seniors would be impacted by the GOP plan, she cannot. Because they're not. The Left is intellectually bankrupt on the very subject they claim will allow them to crush Mitt Romney in November. They despise the bipartisan solution Republicans have offered, but they have no alternative of their own.

Dear Democrats, Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2024. You say it's wrong for future seniors to be denied Medicare as it currently exists. Okay, what's your plan, guys? We know that your actions have already cut Medicare by $700 Billion to pay for part of Obamacare. We also know that Obamacare establishes a government panel to ration care for the elderly. And yet the 2024 deadline is still coming. Again, what's your plan, Democrats? Mr. President? Anyone? I confronted Wasserman Schutlz on this very question last summer, and she gave an incoherent and inaccurate response. Also, here's video of Paul Ryan destroying DWS' talking point about seniors (read: future seniors) having to pay $6,000 more per year for healthcare. A debt crisis is on the near horizon. Entitlement programs are going under. Twenty-three million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have given up home. GDP growth is slowing. The president and his allies have no plans, so they're forced to invent smears and argue against positions that their opponents don't hold.

I'll leave you with this clip of my debate with Sally Kohn on Fox News. The topic: Whether comparisons between Paul Ryan and Ronald Reagan are apt. Sally, like many liberals, must pretend that she adores Reagan -- arguing that he was far too liberal to win the GOP nomination these days. (Remember, every Republican is either dumber or more evil than the last). This assertion is laughable, and her characterization of Reagan's record is flat wrong. Kohn also offers some, um, creative "interpretations" of what the Romney/Ryan plan would do:

The Romney/Ryan plan does not raise taxes on anyone, let alone 95 percent of the country.

UPDATE - Just a reminder: I do not pick on DWS because she's an easy target. I hold her to account because she is Barack Obama's hand-picked leader of his party. She's not a fringe player. She's the DNC Chairwoman, installed at the request of the president of the United States. This seems like a good commercial for Mitt Romney: "I picked Paul Ryan. He picked Debbie and Joe. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."