he is not particularly skilled in the art of persuasion. As you said, Clinton had skills, everyone who tried to break him broke themselves instead.

Obama was put where he does not belong, he was forced in to early and they made it too easy. He is faltering because he has never been told no before, he doesn’t know what to do.

What are their likely COAs?

They are retiring in droves, their far left base is turning on them, Independents are abandoning them faster than their own elected leaders. Their capabilities are becoming more and more limited as they lose support.

Where do we hit them to cause a total party meltdown?

It’s clear to me that Obama is evil.

It’s also clear to a lot of folks he’s just a front man. Someone deep the shadows is pulling his strings.

There is no doubt that Obama can use Executive Orders to drive certain agendas but while bad the impact is quite limited for two reasons. First, executive orders can be immediately reversed with a new president. Second, orders cannot spend significant amounts of money since the spending of money requires legislation. He can do stupid stuff like try to move EPA to push the global warming agenda but he can then be hammered for the consequences of such, attacked for the undemocratic nature of the action, and since the Executive Order is solely his doing, he has no teflon on the issue. There is no doubt that Obama’s policies are a curse on the nation driving us towards continuing stagnation followed by stagflation but the real danger is from the legislature not from his Executive leeway. We should use his executive actions against him but keep the eye on the ball of defeating the Democrats in the legislature.

Clinton did much to trash this country.

I argued in 1992 with some of my liberal friends — including physicians and lawyers — that Clinton was a fraud. This was at an October 31 Halloween party, about a week before the election.

Oh no, they told me, he is the real deal.

Goes to show you can lose the battle but win the war.

if Viet71 tells you too much, he will have to eliminate you. LOL

It’s in the recommended diaries list and far more people will read it than will comment on it.

On the subject of “Know your enemy” I would like to recommend 2 books. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to see the tactics that the left is using and C.S. Lewis’s “The Screwtape Letters” to see the similarities with another group’s tactics…..

they can’t help themselves with their disdain for “middle America”, they can’t hide it. They also can’t hide their disdain for those in the military. They say they support the troops when they are on defense, but they can’t help but revel in every negative story, true or false.

Both parties, just like all combatants, get in trouble when they start believing their own headlines. Anyone with blinders on will always be the loser in the end. To know your enemy and why he has followers can only help you to defeat him.

with a “conservative” position on social issues; as someone who is pro-life, but otherwise not socially conservative, I can attest to the fact that when evaluated as single issues, there’s more support for conservatives than liberals on any issue, esp. when you take that issue to an extreme (i.e, the most extreme pro-abortion position vs. the strictest pro-life issue). It’s more the case that 1) such issues aren’t issues that voters will generally give priority to, 2) focusing on those issues as opposed to fiscal/natl. security issues makes a candidate look unserious, and 3) high-profile supporters of such issues (James Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc.) are seen very negatively. All of this is actually very rational, as social issues aren’t as determinable as fiscal and national security issues. Ideally, candidates would deal with such issues by emphatically stating their positions on social issues when asked, but not by campaigning on said issues in general.

n/t

McDonnell never denied his pro-choice and family value beliefs when asked, but, he changed the subject as quickly as possible, and, started focusing back on the winning issues that he promoted, jobs, drilling off our coast and education. He was also pleasant and likable. With Brown, he was also likable, pleasant, positive, and he stayed focused on the dangers of Obamacare and Cap and Trade. Neither one made the social issues a focus of their campaigns.

some big money players.

Guys like David Rockefeller.

Deep in the shadows but powerful.

quite a bit and I keep coming back to George Soros.

She is the ultimate insider and sellout.

She is the classic Leftist. Do anything to get ahead, so you can advance your agenda.

I laugh that she bent over for Obama. That’s Hillary.

What’s good is that her political career will be coming to an end with the end of Obama’s first and only term.

Hillary would have served the big-money power players just fine. Problem was that by 2008, a lot of Lefties were sick of the Clintons. These Lefties flocked to Obama because he promised CHANGE. Many of those folks now loathe Obama. Just go lurk on a Lefty blog. You’ll see what I’m saying.

As for Obama’s being a front man, I submit this: Much of the Left now hates him — he’s not Left enough. So, Obama is not serving his base, in the eyes of the base. The question arises, therefore, who is he serving? That’s not entirely clear.

If he goes the Executive Order route on the debt commission, I’ll be inclined to think one of his string pullers is Pete Peterson.

http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/20122_5_.jpg
it’s on real clear politics under political video’s, about the eighth one down.

This is definately a demographic that needs to be considered.

It’s hard to say you will shrink the size of government without these folks feeling threatened.

Republican candidates can and should do more to reach out to this constituency.

One of my sisters is a retired California school teacher.

The degree to which union leadership brainwashed her into hating Republicans is just breathtaking.