democrats find Koch’s hard to swallow

Loading

Charles_David_Koch

The NY Times, flagship publication of the democrat party, recently ran a story whining about how Democrats who supported the Obama regime’s takeover of health care were being “staggered” by ads pounding them for their actions.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are increasingly anxious about an onslaught of television ads hitting vulnerable Senate and House candidates for their support of the new health law, since many lack the resources to fight back in the early stages of the midterm campaign.

Poor things. And right on cue, the evil people behind these ads were clearly identified:

Since September, Americans for Prosperity, a group financed in part by the billionaire Koch brothers, has spent an estimated $20 million on television advertising that calls out House and Senate Democrats by name for their support of the Affordable Care Act.

These ads are characterized as “unusually aggressive.”

The unusually aggressive early run of television ads, which has been supplemented by other conservative initiatives, has gone largely unanswered, and strategists in both parties agree it is taking a toll on its targets.

This is unusually aggressive? Let’s see, you mean like calling Mitt Romney a murderer?

Let’s have a look at how it’s portrayed in the left wing media when uber-left wing billionaire George Soros pours money into a campaign:

The news was greeted with a major sigh of relief in Democratic circles: philanthropist George Soros had decided to open his checkbook — to the tune of $2 million — to several liberal outside groups, the leading edge of what is expected to be $100 million in spending by the Democracy Alliance, a group of major Democratic donors.

Soros cut a $1 million check to America Votes, a group formed during the 2004 election that focuses on grassroots organizing and advocacy, and another $1 million to American Bridge, a research operation run by David Brock.

“As he has in the past, George is focusing his political giving in 2012 on grassroots organizing and holding conservatives accountable for the flawed policies they promote,” wrote Soros political adviser Michael Vachon in an email to donors on Monday night. “Both groups are part of a progressive infrastructure, or center left establishment, that plays an increasingly important role in elections.”

A major sigh of relief. How nice. The ads run by Americans for Prosperity are effective:

Campaign experts said they believe that the early advertising blitz has driven down the support for Senate incumbents in highly competitive states such as Louisiana and North Carolina that are critical to the Democratic Party’s push to hold its majority.

The ads are so effective that democrats need once again to identify the bogeymen:

“Democrats need money at this early stage in order to fight back against the limitless spending from the Kochs,” said Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “As we get closer to the election, we will have the resources to introduce their Tea Party candidates before they have an opportunity to define themselves for voters, but right now the limitless spending from the Kochs means we need Democratic donors to step up in a bigger way immediately.”

Kochs, Kochs, Kochs. democrats are obsessed with Kochs.

The IRS is writing new rules specifically aimed at conservative groups and it meant to impair their right to free speech and it seems very probable that the Koch brothers will see an audit before the next election. As Glen reminds us, Obama “joked” about using the IRS to audit his “enemies.” It’s not funny and it’s not a joke any more. It has become a reality.

obama irss shirt b

After Barack Obama outspent John McCain 3:1 on TV ads democrats can just shut up. democrats speak of the evil of the Koch money but had nothing to say when Obama took countless millions in untraceable donations.

So I think shoving the Koch’s down the throats of democrats until they learn to swallow is highly appropriate. democrats should be punished for their actions in enslaving us with this Obamacare albatross.

Post-script:

It’s frustrating to learn how biased even search engines have become. You search “how much did soros spend on 2012 election” and the very first thing that comes up?

Charts: How Much Have the Kochs Spent on the 2012 Election

Pathetic.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dems seem to be really pissed about this one group, Americans for Prosperity.
For instance, in August 2010, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed a complaint against Americans for Prosperity for running political advertisements that allegedly constituted intervention in political campaigns.
On May 6, 2011, the Federal Election Commission dismissed the complaint as it should have since it was frivolous. http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/20110506_digest.shtml
Lots of other people give to Americans for Prosperity, not only the Koch brothers.
Why do so many Americans give to Americans for Prosperity?
Partly because Obama brought it to people’s attention by falsely claiming it took money from foreign entities.

Heh.

I wonder if the Kochs are so wealthy because they live rent-free in liberals heads……

I find it amusing folks here refuse to admit that the Koch Bros are the main funders of the tea bag party rather than the tea bag party being a grassroots movement.

And yes, I understand the tea baggers are not really a political party at all but then again, there is no “Democrat Party” either.

@Ronald J. Ward: You “understand” ….hahahaha….that’s hubristic considering how you characterize the TeaParty Movement.

@Ronald J. Ward:

I find it amusing folks here refuse to admit that the Koch Bros are the main funders of the tea bag party rather than the tea bag party being a grassroots movement.

Ummm, as a former member of the executive board of our local Tea Party, I seemed to have missed that check from the Koch brothers. Perhaps it got lost in the mail.

And yes, I understand the tea baggers are not really a political party at all but then again, there is no “Democrat Party” either.

You’re right. There is no “Democrat” Party. Nor is there any Democratic Party. It died and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery with an eternal flame marking the spot.

@Ronald J. Ward: So moron, what is that money being used for?

@Ronald J. Ward: Democrats are the party of the tea baggers, Ron.
A tea bagger is a homosexual who likes to use his balls to cut off the air to the man who is satisfying him orally.
Democrats are really into legalizing men who do such things as if it is ”holy matrimony.”
LOL!

The TEA Party is the …..
Taxed
Enough
Already
Party.
Naturally the Americans for Prosperity are aligned with the TEA Party.

@Nanny G:

Bam! Boom!! POW!!

Nanny G lands a solid right hook right between RJWs eyes.

I notice in the 8 states where they spent $1,ooo,ooo or more–they lost 7. Why are they smiling?

@Ronald J. Ward:

Don’t have a clue who is a viable Libertarian candidate. Can you give me a viable Repub.

I find it funny that a liberal gay supporter is hung up on Teabagging. Don’t your gay friends object to you trying to make ‘tea bagging’ a derogatory term. Must be one helluva fraternal order you’re in.

@Richard Wheeler:

I notice in the 8 states where they spent $1,ooo,ooo or more–they lost 7.

It’s not clear who you’re referring to here, but if they only spent 1 million in 8 states or less, would it surprise you they lost?

@retire05:

Nanny G lands a solid right hook right between RJWs eyes.

While he was gasping for air……

@Nanny G:

@Ronald J. Ward: Democrats are the party of the tea baggers, Ron.
A tea bagger is a homosexual who likes to use his balls to cut off the air to the man who is satisfying him orally.

Wow, Nan. Vātsyāyana has nothing on the steamy tales you seductively purr from your boudoir.

@Ronald J. Ward:

there is no “Democrat Party” either

Where did it go. did someone saddle the ass and ride away?

The Koch Bros, Wal-Mart, ALEC etc… These are the boogey men that liberals look for every night in their closet before they go to bed, like most 5 years old kids do…

Here in Wisconsin we constantly hear the whining from progressives how all of the people listed above are the cause of all their problems. Somehow lack of initiative or ambition on their part is never mentioned….

@Tom:

Wow, Nan. Vātsyāyana has nothing on the steamy tales you seductively purr from your boudoir.

You missed something there Tommy, it’s RJW that is hung up on Teabagging. He can’t write a post without several references to his favorite activity. Ask him about his fraternal order.

The Koch Bros are such an important part of my life that I can’t tell you what either one of the brothers names are, where they live, not even what part of the country. I can’t tell you who they support politically. I have absolutely no clue what business they are in or how they made their money, or even if they have any money. Why are the Dimocrats so obsessed with them when this conservative doesn’t even know they’re alive, except for the Dims harping about them all the time. But then, I do know about George Soros.

@Redteam: What?? You had a hard day?
OK The Koch Bros. lost 7 of the 8 states where they spent one million or more of their dollars–ouch
Seems the more they spent the worse they did.
Who they got in The Super Bowl?

@Richard Wheeler:

OK The Koch Bros. lost 7 of the 8 states where they spent one million or more of their dollars–ouch
Seems the more they spent the worse they did.

I still don’t understand. If I understand it correctly, they are very politically oriented, have billions of dollars and only spent 8 million in the last election? Who is kidding whom? If I were a multibillionaire and really cared about politics, I would certainly have put at least a hundred million in. I think someone must have the facts wrong, but since the Koch brothers have not been an integral part of my day, I suspect it’s not going to start happening. Maybe someone is ‘trying to make this more important than it really is’.

Who they got in The Super Bowl?

Seems as if it wouldn’t matter as they’d only have a buck on the team to win.
I’m not taking the issue of Koch Bros seriously because I don’t really know anything about them.

@Ronald J. Ward: Your Right there is no democrat party, it’s real name is the demoncRap communist’s party.

@Redteam: Re S.B. Whether they bet a buck or 2 million+ like they did in Pa. and Ohio I’m taking the other side. Wouldn’t you?
Btw If you believe the charts they may well have spent well over 50 million on a losing effort.
I’m with you– don’t really care. It’s their money–Same thing with Soros. Don’t care for any of them.

@Richard Wheeler:

Re S.B. Whether they bet a buck or 2 million+ like they did in Pa. and Ohio I’m taking the other side. Wouldn’t you?

assume you mean K.B. How do you know they spent 2 million in Pa and Ohio? How did you even know they were in those 2 states? Do you know how much they spent in Louisiana yesterday, or last month? Who’s keeping up with all those numbers? Hell, I don’t even know how much I spent in Louisiana last month. Do you get personal financial political spending reports from everyone or just certain ones? Do you know how much Sidney Jones from Alachua, Fl spent on politics last year? What’s this hang up with what ‘everyone else is doing’? Is money all that’s important in an election? Should the person that is able to spend the most, win? If I believe a person would make a good elected official, better than his opponent, I will vote for him ‘without asking him if he spent more than his opponent’. Are you saying that you think the person that spends the most should win? Is politics only money?

they may well have spent well over 50 million on a losing effort.

Think about that. Maybe they spent that 50 million on what they thought was right, not who they thought would win. Maybe the principle was more important than the victory? Wouldn’t that be great if that were the case?

@Redteam: How do I know if they were in those states?–There is a map ref. and I took geography in elementary school.
It is too bad that money plays such a large role in American elections. Unfortunately that boat has left the dock and it ain’t turning around.
I’d personally like to see caps. Feel the same way about the money spent on advertising,sports contracts–don’t get me started.
Your last paragraph in #22– If your hope was true, charts would show lower percentage spent in the competitive states. No,they were spending to win. I wouldn’t expect otherwise.
Per your suggestion I’ll refrain from name calling when referencing the brothers Koch or Mr. Soros.

@Richard Wheeler: LOL, good message RW. Let me re-phrase. If you vote for a politician and he loses, do you feel as if you were wrong to do what you did? I don’t think so. Do you think KB thinks supporting freedom, legitimacy in government, the constitution, is a bad thing if their candidate doesn’t win? I don’t think so. Spending to win: If I invest in a political cause, I want it to be the correct cause. I would invest in it even if I thought it might lose. I don’t think much of a person donating to a political cause only because he might benefit if they win. As I said at the beginning, I know absolutely nothing about the KB except what you’ve told me, but I’m more impressed that they may have invested their money on the right side, even if they lost. The right side doesn’t always win. Maybe supporting their position is more important to them than ‘winning’. Maybe being right is more important that winning. I voted right in 12, but didn’t win, but I voted for the right side. I will vote for the right side next time, even if my side doesn’t win. Nobody has won with Obama, nobody. The ‘winning’ side lost and the losing side lost. The country lost.

@Redteam: Your moniker indicates your politics. I’m sure you always think you’re right–far right.
I try to keep an open mind to politics. I don’t believe I am always right.I am always learning,always listening. That is why I engage here.
I’ve learned from Mata, Word, Aye and Aqua.I greatly appreciate Tom’s ability to express views from the left.
I think you have become more accessible to honest debate.
In the end it’s all good.

@Richard Wheeler: @Richard Wheeler:

Your moniker indicates your politics.

Interesting, my Grandson signed me up and that’s the moniker he came up with, I had never thought of it. I’m not all “red”.

I try to keep an open mind to politics. I don’t believe I am always right.I am always learning,always listening. That is why I engage here.

after more recourse with you, I believe that is true. The more you say, the more I realize you are not ALL left, just a lot.

.I greatly appreciate Tom’s ability to express views from the left.

Tom is not from the left, he’s from the far out left, way, way, far out.

I think you have bexome more accessible to honest debate.
In the end it’s all good.

As I said to you in the first exchange I had with you. I think I would really enjoy having a beer and talking with you. I have not changed my mind. You’re out on some issues, but I am too…. No one is always right, no one is always left.

@Dr. John “It’s frustrating to learn how biased even search engines have become.”

Indeed, I have seen this. When I want to go back and find an article to cite in support of some argument, I find it difficult to search with the terms I know are in the article. The one that tipped me off was an article showing how much improvement was made environmentally under the Bush administration as to the reduction of harmful components in the air. If I search with “dangerous gasses in air reduced under Bush” I got nothing but criticisms of his environmental record. It took forever to find the actual article (after some serious suspicions as to the powers of my own imagination). I have seen the same with some other searches.

So, I remedy this by cutting and pasting all links I think I might use later onto word documents and have organized those into a file accessible by hyperlinks from an excel document that is a table of contents. When some smartass liberal asks for a link to proof of a point, I can usually deploy 5 or 6 almost instantaneously.

Bring a nuke to a knife fight.

@Ronald J. Ward: Well, there is certainly no “Democratic” party. There is nothing democratic about them.

@Redteam:

I’m not all “red”.

Aren’t you worried your moniker makes you sound like a Commie?

Tom is not from the left, he’s from the far out left, way, way, far out.

Not really. I reckon you need to hitch the team and take a ride into town periodically and you’ll find my views aren’t very radical. While I’m comfortable with self-identifying as liberal, I know plenty of people well to the left of me on many issues. Reality doesn’t typically jibe with simplistic labeling. Do you consider President Obama to the be “far out left” on national security?

As I said to you in the first exchange I had with you. I think I would really enjoy having a beer and talking with you. I have not changed my mind. You’re out on some issues, but I am too…. No one is always right, no one is always left.

That is a commendable attitude. I’m not so sure you’ve always afforded Rich the respect he’s extended to you, but he’s a classy guy beyond reproach, a model for you to emulate. i blame some of your antics on whom you’ve chosen to be influenced by at FA. The past is the past though. Keep up the good work and you’ll earn everyone’s respect in no time. I am rooting for you.

@Bobachek: Because “all their problems” always have to be someone else’s fault.

@Redteam: “But then, I do know about George Soros.” How he helped lead his own people into Nazi gas chambers and made his money destroying currencies? Yeah, he’s a real sweetheart (nothing like those demonic, capitalistic, job-creating Koch’s) and no wonder such a personality would make it his goal to further the Democrat/liberal/progressive/left wing agenda.

@Richard Wheeler: “How do you feel about spending money to support a third party candidate, running against Democrat candidate to weaken the opposition Republican candidate? If the Democrats were standing for the best candidate, they would let that candidate stand against the opposition, not skew the election by supporting a third party which weakens the opposition, not strengthens the value of their own message.

@Bill Burris: If a 3rd Party candidate runs against a Dem. how is he hurting a Repub?
Nevermind. I’m looking for new ideas and new candidates. Dems and Repubs. are to blame for the grid lock that is Congress. They beat each other up for their own selfish reasons. I’m tired–the American people are tired
Term limits—absolute power corrupts—3rd Party potential–purge the extremists from the left and the right.
Compromise for the common good is to be commended not vilified.
This is not and never should be a “my way or the highway.” society.

Don’t leave our wounded on the battlefield—–Semper Fi

@Bill Burris: Yes Bill, there is a Democratic Party, the largest and oldest recognized political party in the country.

You may not like the Democratic Party but that doesn’t change the reality that there is one, just as the silly games and rubber/glue tactics of the rodeo clown sockpuppets of this site doesn’t change that fact either or the political hack writers who demonstrate a consistent ignorance of spelling.

There is indeed a Democratic Party and there is no Democrat Party. As with most of the gibberish spewed on this site, you guys are once again wrong.

Pour yourself another tall glass of stupid.

@Tom:

Aren’t you worried your moniker makes you sound like a Commie?

There are Red states and Blue states, I don’t know of any commie states, in the US.

and you’ll find my views aren’t very radical.

Can only judge you by what you write on here.

Do you consider President Obama to the be “far out left” on national security?

Not really, I think he is much further left than “far out left”, I realize there is no one word that properly describes being as UnAmerican as he is.

That is a commendable attitude. I’m not so sure you’ve always afforded Rich the respect he’s extended to you,

in general, I think my comments to RW have been in line with his comments to me.

i blame some of your antics on whom you’ve chosen to be influenced by at FA.

As in, ‘This one, Tom, Greg, Joe, RJW” I probably would agree with that. I see Joe is not around any longer, I suspect we won’t hear from him anymore.

@Ronald J. Ward:

There is indeed a Democratic Party and there is no Democrat Party. A with most of the gibberish spewed on this site, you guys are once again wrong.

read that quote, and realize it is written by:

the political hack writers who demonstrate a consistent ignorance of spelling.

I only post that to make a point that all misspelling on this post is not a lack of spelling ability. Much of it is from the lack of typing and/or proof-reading. I’m the best speller I know and I occasionally misspell something accidentally. The word Dimocrat is not misspelled, it’s a new word that I invented and it more accurately portrays the intent.

I guess

rubber/glue tactics of the rodeo clown sockpuppets

has some special meaning to the far lefties, but I have no clue what it is supposed to mean. So if you intend it as an insult, you should tell us all what it means so we can share your joke. Somehow it seems as if you’re referring to the person occupying the White house, is that it?

@Richard Wheeler:

Term limits—absolute power corrupts

True, president 1- 6 year term. Senators 1- 6 year term, Representatives 3- 2 year terms. Salary while serving, no pension benefits. The members of the government were not intended to have permanent jobs, only to ‘serve’ their country. Now they tend to only serve themselves.

@Ronald J. Ward: Well, Ronald, we’ve all had us a big old pitcher of stupid poured for us for the past 5 1/2 years, served up with a side of incompetence and followed up with a platter of Constitutional violations. This is why the Democrats have lost the “democratic” aspect to their identity.

When the Republicans under Nixon played their games, they were accused of obstructing justice and violating the Constitution. Nixon was impeached and abandoned by his party. Obama, however, utilizes the IRS to attack political opponents, passes bad laws which would cause him political damage, so he just changes the bad parts to not take affect until after the next closest election, uses surveillance programs he once attacked to spy on his own citizens, recommends that citizens that do not agree with him should be punished and, after getting himself into one pickle after anther, stone-walls Congress to keep from being held accountable. And you leftists love it and defend it.

Not what one would regard as an example of democracy or being democratic, is it?

@Richard Wheeler: We were discussing the bad effect of too much money in the political selection process. So, the question was, if the Democrats have so much money that they can afford to support a third party candidate (which almost always detracts from the Republican), is that a bad thing?

I asked the other questions for, if no Republicans can be accused of NOT being pro-so-and-so, what is wrong with them? True, there are way too many “politicians”, but we have to play the hand we are dealt and, beyond any shadow of a doubt, any of the current Republicans would be far better than Hillary and her brand of incompetency and corruption. Romney would have been far and away better for the nation than Obama. Carrying his dog in a carrier on top of a car notwithstanding (as opposed to eating one) does not, for example, make him a violator of animal’s “rights”, whatever those may be.

@Bill Burris:

Carrying his dog in a carrier on top of a car notwithstanding (as opposed to eating one)

Bill, I don’t think the manufacturer of car top dog carriers would be allowed to sell a product that was considered inhumane. I guess it would all depend on how protected from the elements the animals are.

RW, as the Master Scheduler of football games, you didn’t do well enough, there are no games scheduled for today. A complete waste of a Saturday.

@Redteam: Oh, I don’t mean for a moment to imply I think that was in any way inhumane, depending on the disposition of the animal.

@Bill Burris: I realize that. I don’t think it is either. Much more inhumane to eat one, in my opinion.

@Bill Burris:

Well, Ronald, we’ve all had us a big old pitcher of stupid poured for us for the past 5 1/2 years, served up with a side of incompetence and followed up with a platter of Constitutional violations. This is why the Democrats have lost the “democratic” aspect to their identity.

The amnesia of the stupidity, incompetence, and Constitutional violations of the 8 yrs prior to Obama continues to amaze me. From 2000 until 2008, people didn’t have to invent or hype up nothingburger scandals because the Bush admin pretty much had one on a daily bases. I mean, this is the guy that actually referred to the Constitution as “a goddamn piece of paper”. But I’ll digress.

More to the point of your rebuttal, comparing Obama to Nixon is quite a stretch. If today’s GOP had an iota of a glimmer to impeach Obama, they’d be on it like fleas on a dog. Their problem is they don’t have anything of substance which coincidentally, is much like your argument.

Part of the very foundation of your constitutional violation claim implies he ” passes bad laws” which you obviously direct towards PPACA. It’s beyond me that the TP faction who claims to be adamant of adhering to the Constitution still insist PPACA is unconstitutional. Obama and Dems ran their campaign on reforming health care and were elected as a result of that campaign. PPACA passed the lower chamber, passed the upper chamber, signed by the Executive Branch, and was upheld by the Judicial Branch. Worn out “lefty talking points”? Well, maybe but what part of that argument is so difficult to understand? PPACA, or the “bad law” you claim, couldn’t possibly be more Constitutional.

Redteam @ # 36,

@Ronald J. Ward:

There is indeed a Democratic Party and

That’s as far as I read because, well, why would one assume you’d do a 360 turnaround and respond with an intelligent rebuttal? That’s just not your style, and obviously not your function.

@Ronald J. Ward:

That’s as far as I read because,

The words got too big for you? Well, of course, we all know you read the whole comment, you just didn’t want to admit to it because I pointed out where you made a comment about people that couldn’t spell and in that very same comment, you misspelled a word. And I also pointed out that it likely wasn’t because you didn’t know how to spell the word, it was likely just an oversight or typing mistake.

and obviously not your function.

My function, as pertains to you, is to demonstrate you. I do very well at that function.

@Ronald J. Ward: “Nothingburger” like Benghazi, IRS, NSA, Obamacare lies-aplenty? Those “nothingburgers”? What was it, exactly, that compared from 2000-2008?

I’m not arguing that Obamacare is unconstitutional; I’m saying it is unconstitutional to keep key parts (that will cause him great embarrassment and pain) from being enacted, waiving the requirements to his political friends and allies, delaying the effects it would have on business and industry (and, thus, employment) until after key elections, and so forth. My personal preference would be for the entire mess to go into effect, as programmed, and let us just see what a benefit for the nation it is and how well the American people receive the “help”.

Yes, it is a stretch to compare Obama to Nixon because Nixon had a media that investigated and reported on him. Obama has a media that will make themselves look however foolish and dishonest it takes to keep Obama clean and pure and a blanket over all his failure. But, guess what? It leaked out anyway.

@Redteam: perhaps these critics don’t understand that sometimes, you have to stand on principle, so that people will know who they can trust to lead them out of the ruins of the critics’ Utopia, once it collapses under its own weight.

@Bill Burris: Yes Bill, nothingbugers. Or better yet, grasps of scandals because the GOP couldn’t come up with anything of substance so they had to pounce on anything that glimmered to hype it as a “scandal”.

You say you’re not arguing PPACA as unconstitutional yet you specifically used “passed bad laws” in comparison to “When the Republicans under Nixon played their games, they were accused of obstructing justice and violating the Constitution”. So it seems you chose to use non sequitur “fillers” to enhance your argument.

You play ignorant to the Bush years scandals in comparison to Obama’s so I challenge you to explain precisely how the attacks on 13 U.S. Embassies and consulates differ from that of Benghazi. I’m wondering what’s acceptable about Bush authorizing warrantless NSA wiretapping in October 2001.

Interested in a list of 400 Bush Scandals?

Once again, if the GOP had the tiniest hope of impeachment (and you use Nixon in your argument), we’d hear a much louder drumbeat. They ain’t got it.

Redteam @ 45,

That’s as far as I got.

@Ronald J. Ward: I don’t regard campaigning and ignoring the duties of the POTUS while a consulate gets sacked and an ambassador and three other Americans killed nothing. I don’t consider using the IRS to harass political opponents nothing. I don’t consider lying about bad unemployment figures nothing, especially right before an election. I don’t consider, especially in light of how dishonest, disreputable and despicable this administration has shown itself to be, expanding the reach of the NSA into public life as Obama has done (though he once professed to despise it) nothing. It is not “nothing” just because you leftists find it too embarrassing and shameful to rationalize away so you simply want to define it as “nothing”.

As to your list, I looked at the first three and lost all interest. Walter Reed? Who signed the orders to build the new hospital (shall we, at this time, discuss how veterans are being treated under Obama, both by the VA and his using their monuments for political pay-back?)? Plame? The Bush administration neither outed her nor was she a clandestine operative. Firing the attorneys? He had every right to do so. Perhaps they get better and juicier the closer you get to # 400, but somehow I doubt it. More like “Mission Accomplished-gate” or something.

The “warrantless wire taps” were on calls that had one end outside the US. Now, Mr. Obama, who once opposed all this, defines a call with one end overseas as ANY call they think might qualify; or, to simplify, ANY call. I don’t oppose the surveillance; what I wonder is why you leftists, who once DID oppose it, don’t now oppose it after it has grown exponentially? Kind of hypocritical; it’s getting where you just can’t trust a liberal.

Tell us, how many attacks were successfully carried out on an anniversary of 9/11? How many were carried out where there had been specific warnings of attacks or threats? And, how many ambassadors were killed? Or, is it just “what difference, at this point, does it make?”? Benghazi was a success because Obama would rather campaign than do his job. And Hillary has no clue as to what she was supposed to actually be doing.

Obamacare IS a bad law; bad in that it was poorly considered, poorly constructed and enacted for all the wrong reasons. The unconstitutional part is where, as Obama and his cronies realize the harm they are doing to themselves (never mind how so many Americans are being harmed) the waive, block, ignore and delay the bad parts of the bad law. A law supported with lies, passed with lies and defended with lies.

And all this is why someone like the Koch’s scare the hell out of Democrats. It will only take one of the denounced warnings to be proven true to make some (not all) begin to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Obama’s “you can keep your insurance. Period.” lie being exposed was the beginning. The collapse of the NYT lame attempt to revise the “video” as the reason for Benghazi is a continuance. The ongoing lies about Obamacare enrollment is another nail in the coffin. Pretty soon, we just may see the complete collapse of this “bad law” and some (but not all) will begin to see how the “racists that hate it that a black man is in the White House” were not racist but were actually right all along.

All along.

@Ronald J. Ward:

So let me see if I understand your argument; you are saying that you believe George W. Bush acted unconstitutionally, which you obviously disapproved of, but the unconstitutional acts of Obama, such as ignoring parts of immigration law, cancelling parts of the Affordable Care Act without Congressional approval, et al, are “nothingburgers” because Bush did the same thing?

Explain something to me; why was the maker of an obscure internet movie jailed (after being falsely accused of causing the Benghazi attack) but Nidal Hassan is still alive?