The TSA Nightmare - Government Conspiracy or Just Plain Stupidity?

TSA Agents inspect 2 year old suspected "terrorist" at U.S. airport screening - How bright are these Govenrment Union Employees? Image MyFoxAltanta

A good deal of debate has been taking shape regarding the new regulations for flying in the United States , from the intrusive “pat downs”, to full-blown body x-rays, the premise of some “pundits” is that a “big government conspiracy” is afoot. Seriously, crediting Homeland Security with the wherewithal of “controlling the American Citizen” is a stretch. Crediting them with following orders to control the populace is also a stretch – they have, however, created chaos – media chaos. With a never ending parade of articles on intrusive and ridiculous searches, not one article deals with the union aspect of the TSA who are under the umbrella of National Treasury Employees Union who have been in a contest of sorts for the union dues of potential TSA union members with the SEIU. Therefore, the situation one has is simple – union thugs (previously known as government workers), are attempting to follow guidelines from the TSA for screening, with union “thug” mentality added to the already entrenched “world owes me a living” union credo. In addition, the unions are telling their employees not to worry about lawsuits, as a Federal employee is not liable and the DOJ will step in and save them. Will the average TSA employee even understand the new guidelines? Doubtful, as the criteria established for hires is less stringent that one’s local grocery store.

Therefore, one has the Homeland Security brain trust of Janet Napolitano who is, kindly put, out of her depth, working with barely educated union thugs to secure our airplanes – Conspiracy – no, stupidity yes.

What U.S. Citizens have come to expect from most Union/Government entities in the past two years is a level of unparalled incompetence that, to date, has no equal. Perhaps it was the Progressive aim of “dumbing" down the American Education system that now has average American grandmothers, being sexually molested at airports nationwide – in simple form – the individuals employed by the TSA do not know better – neither does their boss. Janet is too busy being politically correct. The only way to keep the U.S. Flights safe, is not to pat down the nun, the grandmother, the American soldiers returning from Afghanistan (just Google for article after article), it is to “profile” those individuals trying to board a plane that have a propensity and background for blowing up Americans. One can bet the house that these TSA mental giants are not inspecting every piece of cargo placed in the hold, and with that in mind, the entire x-ray, pat-down process is truly moot – they just don’t’ get it. Perhaps it’s not politically correct to search a package that may say be coming from Yemen bound for Detroit, profiling – the dirty words of the politically correct, but a process that works.

Why not profile swarthy men with their heads wrapped in Wal-Mart kitchen toweled, carrying overloaded backpacks - that would imply one would have to single out a specific group, which is a no-no, which is why, U.S. passengers are facing this insanity and subsequent delays, body cavity searches, et al. When a terrorist does attempt to get through security – they will have to go through this very same procedure, costing the U.S. more money, but a better chance at catching the “terrorist” if “everyone has to go through the same procedure. Of course, Muslim groups have already protested, however, so far, with no luck . The obvious solution to this whole intrusive issue is to simply not fly. Take a plane, train, bus – avoid the airlines like the plague. The object of course, is to force the lobbyist employed by the airlines to go to work in a hurry – the industry can hardly survive without its passengers, and, incidentally, there would be layoffs galore at the TSA. It’s a win-win situation. When one must battle stupidity, then one must face some inconveniences.

The True Inconvenient Truth is that our government is run by individuals we would not trust to wash our cars, and as their very salaries, bloated pensions and super benefits are all dependent upon the taxpayer’s largesse, then, deciding to for go’s the nonsense at the airport, would of course, demand a change of heart. There is, after all, “Go To Meeting, and a host of programs which make traveling moot. For those of you who have no desire to skip the flight, have some fun with those who are about to “violate” your body – request a pat-down, turn the tables, and ask the TSA idiot to please put his hands down your pants, as you’ve been planning a trip just to meet him or her, and then tip them a buck.

George Soros - From Robbing the Dead in Nazi Occupied Europe to Liberal Guru – Beck's Colorful Sad Caricature of Dr. Evil

Glenn Beck -making the best of George Soros - image Static Business

There’s a lot of buzz about the aging, super wealthy, George Soros; those on the left find him to be some sort of guru, while those on the right view him as some sort of anti-Christ – so what’s the big deal? For one, George Soros has been making one Glenn Beck a whole lot of money – Beck, shock radio host turned patriotic television personality and book tour star, has most recently suggested that Soros’ followers are installed in the White House and that President Barack Obama may be in some sort of “danger”.


George Soros as Dr. Evil - photo credit spicey street irregulars

When looking at the grander scheme of things, Soros comes across as a perfect Dr. Evil, out to take over the world, sans a mini-me.

Is Soros’s fan base capable of assassinating a sitting president? Possibly - fan bases being what they are in the ever politically passionate reality television mind-set of middle-American. Just this past week, one frustrated fan of “Dancing with the Stars”, shot up his television set because Bristol Palin, daughter to 2012 predicated GOP Presidential Candidate, Sarah Palin, bested another celebrity for a final spot. It’s just a hop, skip and a jump from blowing up a television set, and blowing up a President in the scenario of a Soros-Dr. Evil Beck infested waters of the world of the “Boob Tube”.

Beck, one has to believe, truly loves this country, this nation, and has done due diligence in his research, and yet, there is something so intensely fanatical about Mr. Beck, he could be cast as the nemesis to Dr. Evil (Soros) in a blockbuster yet to be filmed. One has to hand it to Mr. Beck, he is more likable than Soros, more American (if there is such a thing anymore) and face
it, Soros makes a great target.

Is Soros crazy or just plain bored? Both! When reviewing his biography via discoverthenetworks.org Soros’ childhood was nothing to write home about. From Jewish origins in Nazi Occupied Hungary, his grandfather changed the family name in order to blend into the anti-Semitic society. Using tactics that so many did to survive the Holocaust, the family was separated in order to avoid detection. George was further protected by the grandfather, who bribed a Christian to adopt young Soros as a Godson. This man took George along with him on rounds to collect property left behind by those sent to concentration camps and their death.

Under that type of stress and society, Soros who was born in 1930 would have been in his 20’s, and showed little remorse for the literal grave robbing of his youth - comparing the horror of it all to economics. Freud would have had a field day with that one.

So, the young George Soros suffers from his past, psychologically, and then builds a financial empire but what of his political ideology? One also has to understand that the Russians who took Eastern Europe during WWII also installed communism as the governments ideology - Soros would have been a perfect target to indoctrinate. Therefore what we have is an emotionally scarred man, who most likely needs therapy, gladly following the Russian Marxist philosophy, while contrarily making hay with the free market system. The man is conflicted.

If Mr. Soros truly believes he can buy politicians, well there is good reason. One just needs to look at the bribery and other crimes that takes place in say, the Massachusetts State Legislature, which has seen more felony prone Speakers than any other United States. Soros just needed to find like minded – progressive socialist Marxist politicians in order to “effect change” – With the U.S. University Professors heavily enamored of a Russia (that failed) under Marxism, how difficult is the recruitment task?

Therefore, Soros has a core of true believers and the money to buy politicians and ad space in the New York Time, further speaking to the choir. The problem is that the choir is not huge, perhaps 20% of the populace of the U.S. might identify with Soros. Therefore, should Dr. Evil decide to remove Obama, and having the billions in wherewithal to do so, logic follows that as Obama has not met George’s expectations, Soros will fund a candidate to run against Obama in 2012.

It would be this carnival of reality political television (Obama versus the left of left) that not even Maureen Dowd would be able to spin with a straight face. The average American would run to the nearest available candidate that appeared to be even somewhat more sane than the aforementioned. This opens an opportunity for an ultra conservative, a Santorum for example, to waltz into the White House virtually unchallenged. (The drama of the political left, already disgusts the middle electorate, who would be pushed to the breaking in this scenario and elect Barry Goldwater’s Ghost in a heartbeat.) If one thought that the Tea Party had an impact on the last election, imagine 2012 under this hypothesis – a rout would not be a strong enough word to describe the results.

The only State either Barack Obama and/or Soros lite, would be able to count on would be Massachusetts, even if David Axelrod follows the Deval Patrick model for Barack and invites a third candidate (Democrat conveniently turned Independent) to run and try and split the vote, they would, with enough “Dream Act” participants (explains what happened in 2010 MA mid-terms), at least have that one blue State on an election map colored Scarlet red. This of course assumes that Obama even makes it through the Democrat primary should Soros really have the power to push a candidate more left of center than Obama to the top slot.

Therefore, Soros, who is pushing the limits of age and sanity, would become even less relevant than he is now, given the fact that the next President is likely to have two full terms (the historical odds). The Good news: surely, there would be another Soros or Soros-like crackpot to fill his shoes, ensuring that Beck’s books and appearances would continue to profit.

To get a glimpse into the mind of Dr. Evil Soros, a video clip is provided below, in which he explains in a variety of arenas on several different occasions, his “worldview” so to speak. In the meantime, if Beck were publicly traded, it would be suggested that one buy stocks in the man. Of the two, Beck is by far the savvier, and the least comedically dangerous.

Neal(D-MA2) Wrangles for Rangel’s Chair of Ways & Means – Rangel Faces Stern Reprimand for Ethics Violations - Down Not Out.

Pelosi with Rangel and Neal - Decisions, Decisions - image Washington Post

Charles Rangel, the New York 15th District’s Newly Reelected Congressional Representative will most likely face a body of his peers publicly expressing (within the Halls of Congress), their displeasure over Congressman Rangel’s behavior. The Boston Globe reporting on Rangel’s “punishment”, suggests that Congress may “vote to censure Rangel for fundraising and financial misdeeds that violated congressional rules. Other possibilities are less serious. They include a reprimand, a fine or a report deploring his conduct.” There is no suggestion that the crimes committed by Rangel would end in his expulsion from Congress as outlined in the rules governing House Ethics for the 11th Congress (http://ethics.house.gov). In other words, Rangel is facing a slap on the wrist for breaking 11 of 13 Ethics rules.

Rangel, who chaired the House Ways and Means Committee (which writes our tax policy), stepped down when gently pushed by then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and replaced by senior member Sander Levin of Michigan. Levin, for all appearances was keeping the seat warm for Rangel, however, as time went by, Congressional egos came into play and other members began to eye the Top Job.

Enter Richard Neal - the Massachusetts 2nd District Congressional Representative, who faced a rather tough reelection in 2010 (having gone unchallenged for decades), defended his seat against newcomer Tom Wesley (Republican), and spent millions to hold onto the district seat. Neal who has been vying for the Top Spot on the Committee for years, still managed to support other Democrat members of Congress during the 2010 midterms to a paltry tune of of $70,000 (Politico). Apparently, when one wants a Chair on a Committee one literally “buys” the votes of a peer by donating to his or her campaign. Unfortunately, due the challenge Neal faced in his district (Wesley received 40 plus% of the vote); he had little opportunity to spread the wealth – even though he has a considerable war chest.

Although Neal won the election, the Chair of the Committee will go to a Republican as that party has the majority in the House. Therefore, Neal is seeking to become the Highest Ranking Democrat on the committee – a vantage point from which, others have had a great impact on U.S. policy including one Barney Frank, (MA4). Frank, who while a ranking Committee member for the Democrats managed to make decisions affecting Mortgage giants Freddie and Fannie.

Neal, not deterred, has announced he will challenge Rangel’s replacement, Sander Levin, for the top spot. An article in Business Weekconfirmed his intentions yesterday. Neal, who’s backing comes from big business, is a frequent guest of the non-partisan Tax Counsel Policy Institute whose board members include representatives from major insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

Neal may be in the best jockeying position for the seat in question, due to his straight party line votes with Nancy Pelosi in the 111th Congress, including support of the Health Care Reform Act. Neal even went a step further to please Pelosi and also supported including illegal immigrants in entitlement programs. Therefore, Neal may be the new House Minority Leaders’ (Nancy Pelosi) choice to move into what would have been Rangel’s spot on the Committee, a step down for Rangel, a step up for Neal somewhat.

However, all that lobbying on Neal’s part may come to naught, as Rangel is, in all likelihood, not facing an expulsion from Congress, rather a “stiff reprimand” via censure. Another member of the Massachusetts Democrat Congressional Congress also faced a similar “fate” and managed to parlay that misfortune into the Chair of the House Finance Committee – one Barney Frank. Granted in Frank’s case, there was some time that passed between his “trial by peers”, (which resulted in a Congressional “shame on you”, and then a pat on the back) eventually leading (when Democrats regained control of the House) to the top spot. Therefore, unless Rangel himself relinquishes the power he perceives he has, and maintains Nancy's blessing with by a mere reprimanded, should the Democrats gain the House in 2014 or 2016 (historically appropriate) he may find himself in the Top Job again. This of course, hinges on all three - Rangel, Neal and Levin – still holding seats by that time (retirement by either the electors or a personal decision).

In any regard, the final decision will rest with the Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi – whose charges against Rangel in the first place were based on politics at that time - now that Progressives believe that they will regain the House in 2012, she may decide to bump Neal for Rangel. Of course, Pelosi, Neal, Frank, Rangel and Levin are all up for reelection in 2012, and Neal will again face opposition, as Republican’s and Independents are now in the process of vying for position to take on Neal after this particular election confirmed he was vulnerable. (An election return which, one can be sure, the new Minority Whip is well aware.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick Pushes In-State Tuition and Drivers Licenses for “Immigrants” – The Recall Process

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has worked long and hard for the rights of immigrants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, making Massachusetts a “destination” for those seeking a “helping hand” towards taking advantage of everything the United States has to offer. Thanks to Patrick’s’ efforts, Massachusetts ranks 7th in the U.S., (with the cost of illegal immigrants estimated at $992 Million, - statistics from 2007). According to Boston.com the Governor wants to now up the ante, making in-state tuition available, as well as drivers licenses.

How long can the Commonwealth support these types of “give-away programs”, with an ever decreasing tax base? Population shifts (to other states) have already caused the Commonwealth to lose one Congressional Seat and tax revenue to the State back in 2009 (no figures for current disastrous fiscal year). The Govenor has propped up the current programs with Federal monies, and increases in State fees and taxes. Massachusetts also currently has one of the higher U.S. corporate tax rates ranking32 overall (which is an improvement from 2010’s 34th place ranking) (Tax Foundation) - further pushing jobs and population over the borders.


The answer to how to pay for funding on all programs is simple, raise taxes – a promise the Governor made prior to his reelection. However, it is not difficult to understand that the Governors reelection was aided by certain immigrant groups who did an “outstanding” job at “getting out the vote”, specifically in high population areas. Specifically Acorn type Community organizations such as the Alliance for Power” got out the vote to the tune of 10’s of thousands across the State. In Springfield the final 13 hour push through low income and immigrant sections of the City, resulted in a boon of votes to Patrick, and his election success. A miraculous comeback for a man who’s job approval had been in the 30’s for the majority of his first term. Go figure.

A recent article from the Blog “Muckrock” shows the States Food Stamp program and its disbursements by retail outlets. The Commonwealth did attempt to stop the publication of documents legally obtained under the Freedom of Information act. As anticipated, those who support immigrant “integration” are calling for this blogger to be Jailed! On a serious note, however, one must understand that in these tough economic times, people do need aid, however, when viewing where the money is being spent, specifically in urban areas, one starts to get the idea that the billions of dollars in retail reimbursements should be going to established grocers, rather than the local 7-11. To find out what other services are available courtesy of the administration visit Office for Refugees and Immigrannts.

Those unhappy with the results might want to attempt to find information on the Massachusetts Recall Process, should the situation continue to get out of hand. It is difficult but not impossible to recall the Governor.

Note on this opinion: Although one might find this particular post to be somewhat mean-spirited towards those who enter the country illegally, it should be noted, that the author is a first generation American of Spanish descent, whose family came to this country by legal means, and immediately went to work, not to the nearest government office for a handout. If there are persons here who are seeking asylum from egregious governments, those should receive all and any support, up to and including a fast track to citizenship – with the stipulation that they renounce their citizenship from their country of origin.

Obama Off Again – Heads To Europe – Will Europe View Him As Carter Light?

Obama Heads To Europe - image Huffington Post

As Obama is set to visit Europe this coming weekReuters is asking if Obama will maintain his appeal in the “Old World”, or will European’s give him the same treatment of disdain that he received in Asia. The analysis opens with sarcasm:
“If President Barack Obama is not yet convinced that his international star power has faded, his next round of transatlantic summitry should clear up any lingering doubts.”


According to Reuters, Europeans will be leery of the U.S. President over economic policy difference and the fact that U.S. allies feel “neglected”. Cited as one of the major issues he must overcome is the perception of weakness over the 2010 mid-term elections. Of course, that is followed by his problematic trip to Asia, where his economic policies, specifically as to world trade, were called into question by the Chinese.

How a U.S. President is perceived around the globe matters – to the President. If a President is seen as being weak, both at home and abroad, political opportunities as to reelection are greatly diminished. Unfortunately, no matter what political ideology and or temperament a sitting U.S. President may have, the Europeans (i.e. global community) appears to find fault. The more a U.S. President is perceived in the States as being more interested in his/her popularity globally, the chances for a second term are greatly diminished.

The Europeans had little love for Ronald Regan, less for George W. Bush and even Bill Clinton had some issues – but it was the perception of how the aforementioned were received in the U.S. and how they viewed the U.S. as being in a position of power, which brought respect. (Note: Clinton was and remains the most popular abroad.)

Obama’s approach is more akin to that of former President Jimmy Carter, who, barely 15 months into his Presidency, was already seen as weak in the eyes of the Europeans . (See Google News and excerpt image below.)


Jimmy Carter Perceived as Weak by Europeans 15 months into Presidency - Google News Archives

Simply put, when a U.S. President appears to care more for how they are perceived outside the U.S., then their stock both in the U.S. and globally appears to decline. It may not be seem fair, to some, to make comparisons between Obama and Carter, however, their approach to world views, economics, and domestic policies are so similar it is as if one is blindly following the path of the other. From bailouts, and increased entitlement programs, to the world’s perception of a weakened U.S. Commander in Chief, the historical significance of the two Progressive Leaders cannot be dismissed. It is the President that views the United States as having a position of strength, and makes no apologies, regardless of the “world view”, who is most successful. No U.S. President will ever be viewed as anything other than an upstart from a country which was once merely a colony of hooligans who rebuked their European “betters”. It is an historical fact that seems to elude the Progressive mindset – those who would prefer the U.S. was, for better or worse, the paradise they see as Europe through their rose colored elitist glasses, fare far less well, when it comes to the ballot box and the court of U.S. public opinion. Therefore, the die may already be cast, and Obama-Carter may come away from Europe, with little gain in popularity abroad, and less at home.

The Hysteria escalates – Palin Brings out the Left’s Anxiety

Sarah Palin’s new TLC series – “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is causing a bit of angst for those from the left of the political spectrum. An article in the UK’s Guardian would be laughable, if it did not make one stop and think about how sadly in need of medical attention those on the left would be if she does decide to run in 2012. The article speaks about Sarah Palin as having endangered a few bears, during the filming of the show. The Guardian managed to dig up an environmentalist, who suggested that the Palin’s broke some rules during the filming, however, later in the article, it is clear that the “guidelines” were in order. Perhaps their panties are in a bunch because Palin's Alaska keeps the woman who would draw larger crowds at any given time that say, Obama, in the limelight.

Over at the Boston Herald, a snippy piece by one Lauren Falcone apparent Reality Television Show/entertainment critic, goes on the “rampage” over Bristol Palin’s appeal on the U.S. Realty Show, “Dancing with the Stars”. Clearly, Falcone is not a fan of young Bristol, and suggests the only reason she is in the program to begin with is that her mother “made her do it” for political reasons. Additionally, it is her mother’s followers who have brought Bristol back, week after week. The apparent bias towards the Palin’s in general oozes from the article, making this woman appear to be more bitter and jealous, fitted more for the op-ed section than any actual reporting (including entertainment). The show, Dancing with the Stars, has had controversial political personalities and or their spouses (relatives) since the get go . It brings in ratings, and Ms. Bristol Palin, would certainly fulfill that need for the show and the network.

Blaming the Tea Party and Hillbuzz.org for Bristol’s success, while at the same time suggesting it is some type of “plot” by Sarah Palin, to propel her family into the limelight, suggest more about the character (or lack thereof) of Ms. Falcone. However, when one begins to look at the millions of Ms. Falcones and hysterical environmentalist, a theme that never abated, is begun anew. With the increase in failures of President Obama and the likelihood of a Palin run in 2012, on the horizon, these individuals now sound a bit desperate, there bite, more bluff and bluster, and their sanity in question. Bush Derangement Syndrome was nothing compared to what may happen should Palin actually decide to run, let alone is she is elected to the Presidency. The better tactic is always to take the high road, journalism having dissolved into editorial drivel, regardless of placement in the daily paper or evening news, otherwise, the risk of sounding ridicules will continue and will aid in enhancing the populist persona that is Sarah Palin.

Washington Post Op-Ed – Obama Should Not Seek Reelection in 2012 – Who’s To Blame for Obama’s Woes

John Kerry, one of the first to endorse Barack Obama, also was instrumental in the making of Obama's Presidency - image Washington Post

An editorial written by Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen suggests that President Barack Obama should not seek reelection in 2012, instead using the time to focus on cutting the deficit and eliminating entitlements “without constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and unions.” The criticism has been coming from the two aforementioned for some time, with piece in the Wall Street Journal this past July entitled “Our Divisive President”. Both men, long-time Democrat pollsters, are understandably frustrated after the historic gains made by Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms, and begin the op-ed piece by citing Obamaisms over the past month; from his calling Republicans “enemies” during an interview with an Hispanic radio personality, to his remark about making “mid-term corrections” to the possibility of “working with Republicans”, the two pundits bring home the nature of the President who would prefer to campaign than govern. In addition, while calling on Obama to Step aside, they do so insinuating that he would have a chance to become, historically, a well-respected, President. With all due respect to these august pundits, that ploy is as transparent as dangling a carrot on a stick in front of a rabbit.

Is it fair, to ask the President to step aside for the good of his party? The fact that Barack Obama was propelled to the Office of the Presidency with little experience outside of campaigning should have been worrisome to these pollsters and pundits who now are heavily criticizing the man. The fact that overwhelmingly a group of top Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi during the Democrat Convention in 2008 propped up Obama over Clinton with the use of Super Delegate votes should have been an issue. Although to be sure, the media has played its part in propping up the community organizer, turned three term Illinois State Senator (after the loss of a Congressional Race), turned part-term Senator, turned President with lighting speed, who else is to blame but those who put him in the limelight in the first place?

John Kerry, (D-MA) brought the young Illinois State Senator, to the 2004 Democrat convention the year Kerry ran against George W. Bush, Obama took the convention by storm. It could have been the comparison between the candidate for President, Kerry, and the young, energetic, Barack Obama, that got those in a position and desperate to take back the White House at any cost, begin to think that Obama would fit the mold. The problem with American politics and the notion of a President being more popular than capable has been the bane of the Democrats, with a few glaring exceptions, since the 1930’s, with Republican candidates that win or lose, being the exact opposite of the “almost “rock star” status that those who run on the Democrat ticket (or are brought to the ticket)
exude.

It takes a national crisis, or the economy in tatters, for a Republican to gain the White House and that is regardless of how well-spoken or photogenic the individual may be. Veteran Democrat pollsters and politicos’ surely see 2012 as being yet another nightmare for the Democrats, with more Senate Seats to Defend in 2012, as well as the potential for further losses in the Congress - there appears to be only one solution – take out the figurehead, the President who is also the Head of the Democrat Party (in title only). That still leaves the woman American’s love to dismiss, Nancy Pelosi (a boon to Republicans if she maintains her power, and it appears she will), while, making room for another, more experience, less divisive individual to run on the Democrat Presidential Ticket. Should Obama step down, the floor opens to a cast of hopefuls, like to run, and that would, in all likelihood be one Hillary Clinton (the one who actually won the popular vote in 2008, but was cast aside by Super Delights). Certainly there would be the usual cast of characters to fill in the debates, however, it makes the transition to the candidacy and the Whet House a lot easier, than it would to challenge a sitting President. It can, however be done.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama, not unlike Jimmy Carter, came up through the ranks with little experience and a great deal of public relations smoke and mirrors, which made them appear to be the most attractive candidate to a public that seeks “star power” from its leaders. Is it no wonder Obama is all over the map, and that the certain pollsters and others on the left are now trying to figure out how to get out of this gracefully (or not, see rumors coming from the left about the Presidents meltdown and possible removal under the 25th amendment.) in order to maintain control of the Executive Branch?

Should the powers that be, those donors and others who pull the strings for the DNC, decide that Obama is Carter redux, then it opens the door for safe, less telegenic, less controversial moderates to take the field, and then possibly the White House. What this tells us, is that political parties, and those whose allegiance to a party, are rather mercenary when it comes to maintaining power at all cost, using individual’s that may or may not have the capacity to run a Grinder Shop, on the one hand to gain the White House, only to push them aside for a less divisive figure, one who is capable, perhaps. It remains to be seen who will be the candidates that these pollsters decide would be the one to a) stop the hemorrhaging of remaining House and Senate seats currently in the Democrat column, while having the ability to take on the GOP with an option of winning the Whet House in 2012. One can certainly not rule out one Hillary Clinton, who, as previously mentioned, should have been sitting at Pennsylvania Avenue since 2008, which leaves many moderates certain that the House and the Senate would not be in play, and the Democrats would never have suffered such an inglorious defeat in the mid-terms.