The media and part of the GOP is all aflutter about Rob Portman’s volte face on Gay Marriage they are citing polls

But the real thing they are citing is his son and Dwayne Wickman is giving him a pass:

“At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love,” Portman said recently in an opinion column he wrote for The Columbus Dispatch.

Now the problem with this argument is this. If you actually believe if you think the Gospel is true, then this decision doesn’t wash.

Think about it, he believes that sin will lead to a “happy meaningful life for his son”. Tell me Mr. Portman, what other sins will you as a man of faith support so people can lead “happy meaningful lives?” Adultery? False Witness, Theft? If his son was straight and he was sleeping around would he say it was OK because it helps him lead a “happy meaningful life”?

Portman is conflating doing what many baby boomer parents have done over and over, saying yes instead of being a parent, feeding narcissism instead of giving advice.

Dwayne Wickman again:

Portman’s tough decision probably will have little short-term effect on this nation’s ideological tug of war. But its ripple effects ultimately might help make this nation a better place for people like his son.

Wickman is a regular writer on USA today a paper with a national reach and his opinion and column carries weight with a lot of people. His giving Portman a pass will matter.

Personally I’d go with a different author whose work like Wickman’s is regularly presented in a collection of writing from other authors who quotes a leading authority on the matter of conflicts between faith and family:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.  For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’  “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;  Matt 10:34-37

I feel really bad for the Portmans the younger because it’s hard to fight a an inclination to sin, but it’s harder when the person whose responsibility it is to give sage advice fails in his duty.

All of the cheers and complements the media gives him will be of little use when the question is called, but the good news is he has the rest of his life to re-consider.

Jeb Bush isn’t high on my list of 2016 candidates, I really don’t like the idea of dynasties and I think in the long-term it’s harmful to the country but his latest proposal has done the country a great service.

For years the left talked about how terrible it was that so many people were “in the shadows” that “hard-working immigrants” were living constantly in fear when they simply wanted to make a new life from themselves.

If ONLY they could come out from behind the fear of arrest, if ONLY they could live and work openly and allow their children to brought up here to prosper and grow.

Sure they violated the law but what is that technical violation next to the ability to live freely, safely and without exploitation?

Well Jeb bush has offered a solution, a small penalty for the legal violation in exchange for legality the ability to move forward with a life unafraid of the penalties of the law…

…but with legality comes responsibility so while they would not be subject to arrest and jump ahead of all those people who have legally tried to come to the country. When it comes to citizenship, they would have to return home and apply legally like every other person who has obeyed the law when it comes with citizenship.

It’s a win win, people are able to live without fear legally yet they are not given an advantage over all those people who have not violated our laws and followed the rules. An equitable solution for all. I can support such a compromise.

The result was OUTRAGE. You would have thought Jeb Bush proposed a return to serfdom. The left is upset and to the media suddenly Bush is no longer the golden boy how DARE he not provide a path to citizenship!

Au contraire Jeb Bush IS offering a path to citizenship, unfortunately for the left it’s the old legal path that everyone else who hasn’t broken the law has to take, and that just won’t do.

Why won’t it do for the left & the MSM, because they dirty little secret of the “immigration” issue is it’s never been about “fairness” or “equity” or “compassion” for the left, it’s about votes.

When you abort your voter base, and combine it with fewer children you create a demographic bomb. Go to any Catholic Church where people are devout, you find families with 4, 5, and six children. Look at conservatives when it comes to children vs liberals and you see the difference between the “God is dead” vs “Be Fruitful and multiply”.

You might be able to manage fraud, you might be able to make people dependent on government, you might be able to tweak rules, you might even be able to paint people as evil and oppressive, but what you can’t change is the math of demographics you can only fudge so long before you run out of people.

The left doesn’t see illegal immigrants as a wedge issue, they see it as the source of a voting base to replace the generation that doesn’t exist.

Once you understand that you can see right through the left & the GOP argument on “immigration” becomes EASY to make. Bush may not become president, but he just made the path to the White House for every GOP candidate just a tad easier.

****************************
Olimometer 2.52

CPAC week begins with a quiet Sunday in terms of the weekly paycheck goal but Sunday is usually quiet anyway.

But a new week has begun and if you think the State coverage I provided this week on the Senate Race and the national coverage I’ll be doing in two days is worthwhile, I’d really appreciate it if 15 of you can find $20 to spare this week to make that $300 paycheck. It won’t pay for CPAC but it will pay the mortgage and that’s what it’s all about.





In my earlier post I spoke about the advantage of being not invited to CPAC. In terms of being re-elected in 2014 it’s the best thing to do.

This however doesn’t change the sheer idiocy of the argument of Christie’s strength in a national election and the argument of him as a national model as opposed to say Scott Walker.

A lot of people in the media have pointed out Governor Christie’s popularity in NJ as an example of the way the GOP should go and as a reason to nominate him in 2016

A Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday also indicates that nearly three-quarters of New Jersey registered voters, a record, approve of the job Christie’s doing as the Garden State’s governor, and more than seven in ten say he deserved to be re-elected to a second term this November.

Those are pretty good numbers, it suggests that Chris Christie is certainly on the right track to re-election. It means he has done what he needs to do.

Given that surely that means he would walk away with New Jersey in 2016 right?

Looking ahead to 2016, 49% of Garden State voters questioned in the poll said they would back Clinton in a possible presidential showdown, with 45% supporting Christie.

Say WHAT? You mean to tell me Christie has a 70+ approval rate in his state, has done great things and has been a spectacular ambassador for the GOP in New Jersey and he is not only losing to Clinton but can’t break 45%.

And that’s with the National Media treating him like Royalty, What do you thing is going to happen once they decide to turn on him if he chooses to run?

I’m sorry if he’s running more than 25% behind his popularity level in NJ a state where actual results can counter the Democrat attacks he has absolutely no shot in states where all they will know about him is what the MSM chooses to tell them?

It’s three years down the road and anything could happen but given the current facts, anyone how says Christie is the way to go simply isn’t paying attention.

*************************
Olimometer 2.52

The monthly Thermometer is just $59 away from the February goal with 12 hours to go. Three people with $20 each will meet that goal.

If you think this blog is worthy of your support. It’s just a push of a button away.





Last week I was on a conference call with Americans for Prosperity. they put out their scorecard rating each member of congress. It’s an elegant card of excellent use if you want to see exactly how your congressman or Senator did last session.
You can pull your information based on the categories that mean the most to you:

search issue

You can also search by state, name or even by your individual zip code to see how your members of congress have done.

As nice as the page looks, what matters is the score. As you might guess AFP being a fiscally conservative group a person like Rand Paul does pretty well in their rankings:

Rand Paul

91% Pretty good numbers. It will come in handy when Rand Paul runs in 2016 but what about his most visible potential rival in the Senate Marco Rubio?

rubio

100%. A perfect score. That’s pretty impressive but scoring 10% higher than Rand Paul on Economic Freedom?. One would not think that’s possible.

If you are going to run for president as a fiscal conservative and you are scoring nearly 10 points higher than Rand Paul on the AFP scorecard that’s a walking talking Billboard for campaign contributions.

It will be interesting to see if Rubio can keep that score above the Senator from Kentucky. It’s the type of talking point that will play very well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

and That’s how Politics works.

In my earlier post I touched on Chris Christie’s motivations for his moves on Hurricane Sandy a few weeks ago but I didn’t touch on the argument made in Christopher Bedford’s  piece that Chris Christie is going nowhere in 2016.

I think he’s right.

Let’s note two examples from the recent past.

1. December 21st 2009 Martha Martha Martha

Martha Coakley has just won a 4 way Democrat Primary after pledging to not allow any abortion restriction in the Obamacare almost immediately has an epiphany

In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.

As Newsbusters reported at the time even the Globe called them on it

Coakley is such a self-serving hypocritical flip-flopper than not even the Boston Globe could spin this story to make her look good. In almost any other state, Coakley would have very little chance in the general election but, hey, this is Massachusetts we are talking about here. Democrat candidates for senator aren’t so much elected as automatically coronated.

Well a lot of Dem activists remember this and having little fear of the GOP decided not to get to work, but the perfect storm of Obama care and the appeal of Scott Brown turned the coronation into the first shot of the tea party revolution that eventually gave the GOP the House that they have retained ever since. But if Coakley hadn’t upset the base with a month to go before the election they might have energized their people to the point

2. May 24th 2011 Remember where you came from

Scott Brown rode the perfect storm to a senate seat in Massachusetts. The most important part of that was the army of volunteers from the tea party that who worked tirelessly to take him across the finish line in an election with no other race on the ballot by five points.

Once the democrats were forced to use the previously passed senate version of Obamacare to get the bill passed in the house. Senator Brown worried about his re-election prospects in a strongly blue state decided to take a different tack forgetting this golden rule:

No matter how many votes you give them, no matter many words you say or do. LIBERAL NGO’S AND THE MSM ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT YOU IN 2012.

Once you get this through your head, the rest is easy.

Of these lessons the 3rd is the most important for Senator Brown to learn, will he be wise enough to do so. That is the $64,000 question.

Unfortunately Senator Brown answered the question in spades on the Ryan Budget:

In addition to the first lesson that he hadn’t learned there were two new rules that he missed out on:

1. I don’t know what other people’s expectations but I expect my US Senator’s to use a standard other than “Does Newt Gingrich put his foot in his mouth” on what will be supported or not.

2. If anyone in the GOP thinks that the League of Liberal Women voters or any other liberal group is going to go less all out against Scott Brown they are deluding themselves. Brown could vote a straight Harry Reid line and Massachusetts liberals would spend tens of millions to destroy him.

and that’s the nice way of putting it. Legal Insurrection wasn’t nearly as kind:

I don’t blame you for voting against the Ryan bill; I don’t have litmus tests, and while I think the overall framework is the right direction, I can’t argue with the fact that people may have specific alternatives or amendments.

But you don’t have alternatives. In your op-ed you simply repeat the hackneyed and failed notions of waste, fraud and abuse, with tort reform thrown in. That will not cut it. That is a dodge.

You apparently have no solutions to what you admit to be an unsustainable course, but you took the opportunity to imply that Republicans will abandon seniors. You don’t come right out and say it, but you came pretty close.

A “no” vote wasn’t good enough, you had to do it in a way so as to damage fellow Republicans by playing into the false Democratic narrative. You are a hero for your op-ed, but not to the people who supported you.

Go down the list of those praising your op-ed, and you will see the same people who smeared you as a “birther”, who distributed rape mailers against you, who mocked you as a crazy extremist, who accused you of endorsing sexual violence against your opponent, and who will work to defeat you in 2012.

I can’t speak for all your supporters, and maybe not even for many of them. But I’m done defending you against the people who are cheering your op-ed.

So it’s time to say goodbye and good luck.

I will not work against you, but I also will not work for you. There are many more important battles to fight in 2012.

Just remember Morning Joe praised Scott Brown over and Over again but when the chips were down they were in Warren’s corner. Meanwhile on election day there was nobody to take my mother to vote for Scott Brown except me.

Scott Brown is a nice guy. He made time for voters and he was the spark that lit the republican revolution, but his willingness to toss aside the activists, the same mistake that Martha Coakley is a why a candidate as weak as Elizabeth Warren was able to beat him so convincingly.

And his sudden endorsement of the Assault Weapons Ban isn’t going to get the base dialing the phone for him either.

Part of that storm was the work of hundreds of dedicated conservative activists but without the hard work of tea party activists going all out in a state where they had never had any hope at all, Brown’s election would not have been possible.

And to the amazement of many I’m not even going to touch on Mitt Romney’s problems with conservatives.

No Chris Christie is no Mitt Romney, no Scott Brown and certainly no Martha Coakely. He is a strong, determined and dynamic person who will not make the mistake that Romney did in being shy about attacking so one should never say “never” but you must have the foot soldiers to fight and he can’t win without them.

The real question is this: Is Chris Christie’s Ego so large that he thinks the MSM will still love him when he is the GOP standard-bearer? If he’s foolish enough to buy that he doesn’t have any business running for any higher office

I do not approve, I understand

Spock, Star Trek A Taste of Armageddon 1967

One of the shows of my youth I still have a soft spot for is Daniel Boone staring Fess Parker.

Although wildly A-Historical in some places and with no respect for timelines (back to back episodes take place as far as 30 years  apart with no cast aging) it is a good wholesome show that is not only entertaining but promotes solid messages without sacrificing drama or realism.

The second season closed with a two part “origin” story The High Cumberland that partially re-wrote the 1st season pilot (removing Albert Salmi’s character who departed after season 1) and explain how Boone met his wife Rebecca (played by Patrica Blair one of the least appreciated beauties in television history). They were later re-edited into a feature film shown in Europe.

The plot revolves around Boone’s attempt to get his supply wagons through to the newly founded fort at Boonesborough before winter. After many false starts and harrowing adventures Daniel and his wagons (including indentured servant Rebecca Brian) are approached by a pair of men from the settlement of Ninety Six. Their own wagons had not arrived and they offer a considerable amount of money for Mr. Boone’s supplies. Despite their entreaties and their description of the situation for the settlers at ninety six Boone politely refuses each time.

As the men leave the outspoken Rebecca challenges Daniel on his refusal citing the dire conditions at Ninety Six. He replies that those people are not his responsibility, the setters at Boonesborough are. They put their trust in him and their welfare is his responsibility above all else.

Rebecca continues saying those people at Ninety Six are going to have a hard winter and he replies: Then let the people who are responsible for them take care of their own. His responsibility is to the lives entrusted to his care.

Which brings us to Chris Christie and Chris Bedford’s excellent piece on his chances in 2016 at the Daily Caller.

I’ll be talking about it in more detail later but for now I’d like to focus on a particular bit in the piece:

As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board pointed out, the bill contained “$150 million for Alaskan fisheries; $2 million for roof repair at the Smithsonian in Washington; and about $17 billion for liberal activists under the guise of ‘community development’ funds and so-called social service grants,” among a slew of other waste.

“Far from being must-pass legislation,” the NYC-based Journal continued, “this is a disgrace to the memory of the victims and could taint legitimate efforts to deal with future disasters.”

Yet Christie described those who stopped those who tried to stop this wasteful spending hidden in this bill as having “failed that most basic test of public service.” and is demanding millions of dollars more for his battered state.

Why?

The answer is very simple. Chris Christie sees in the job he is in. Governor of NJ. He knows the rules of Washington, he knows the fiscal situation and has not been shy about speaking to it time and time again.

But all of that doesn’t matter, his responsibility are the people of New Jersey and the people still recovering from Sandy. That’s why, in my opinion what drove him the week before the election and what still drives him now.

You may think it’s not a valid excuse (that’s a fair debate) you might think he’s playing with other people’s money (you’re right) you might think it’s about his re-election (well DUH!)

To the people who still aren’t settled who have for some reason decided that the President has absolutely no responsibility for a natural disaster affecting multiple states he like Boone from the TV show is the person responsible for getting them back again.

And if Christie believes this as well then it’s not going to matter what anybody says, he’s going to just charge forward on the Sandy stuff and all the blogs and comments in the world won’t move him one bit.in the world won’t matter.

Max Bialystock: The two cardinal rules of producing. One: Never put your own money in the show.

Leo Bloom: And two?

Max Bialystock:  Never put your own money in the show!

The Producers 2005

In both versions of The Producers and in the Broadway play. Max Bialystock raises money for his plays by diving into “little old lady land”

This came to mind when I saw this story at Politico:

Amid speculation that Hillary Clinton might make a run for the presidency in 2016, her husband is taking another swing at shrinking her lingering 2008 campaign debt, which totals $73,000 as of Sept. 30.

In an email to supporters Wednesday, Bill Clinton offered a chance to spend a day with him if donors chipped in to drive down his wife’s campaign debt before Dec. 6.

That Hillary might still have campaign debt 4 years after the race was not a big surprise, as the article says it was as high as 25 Million at one point, but what really struck me was the figure that is left after four years.

$73,000

Now for me and you $73,000 is a lot of money.  If I had $73,000 more that I do now it would have a dramatic effect on my life and prospects, but Bill Clinton?

That thought seems to be a general theme in comments at Politico this one is typical:

$73,000??? Honestly, doesn’t Bill earn something like $100,000/speech. Maybe he could sign up for one more gig and pay the bill himself – or possibly Hillary could earn a few shekels now that she’s retiring.

That is the big difference between Bill Clinton and the fictional Max Bialystock.  Max was wearing a cardboard belt and needed to dive into little old lady land to do anything.  Bill Clinton turned his political career into a vast fortune. He could pay this debt off with no effort, his welcoming ladies young and old into presidential kneepad land is likely purely recreational. This fact obscures an overriding truth about the Bill Clinton way.

Yes it’s true Bill Clinton can retire this debt himself if he chooses to, but why would he choose to? As long as there are democrat donors willing to spend their money why would he ever think about paying this himself?

This not only makes him the perfect patron saint for the Democrat party but would make him an excellent Hollywood or Broadway producer.

On Conservatively Speaking and to a lesser degree on DaTechGuy on DaRadio we speak about the one party rule in Massachusetts and all the trouble it causes us.

Massachusetts and California may be one side of the coin but the NYT talks a bit about the other side of the equation:

Come January, more than two-thirds of the states will be under single-party control, raising the prospect that bold partisan agendas — on both ends of the political spectrum — will flourish over the next couple of years.

There are risks in such a political situation:

Some politicians are mindful that one-party control carries with it one-party blame — and a risk that a particularly partisan agenda will eventually irk voters and lead to a reversal in the next election.

But there is also a reward in a particular sense.

I am a conservative because I believe it is not only morally right but it produces the greatest good for the greatest number economically and socially and for the future of my children and grandchildren. Let’s work under the assumption that our friends on the left believe the same (we’ll pause for our conservative readers who might have been drinking to wipe off their keyboards after spitting it out).

Previously we have seen the effects of liberal rule in cities like Detroit but now we will be able to actually compare the results between the blue and red state as a whole.

In 2016 we will have years of data to see what states have made it and what states have not, what states have employment and what states do not, and more importantly with four years of Barack Obama ahead of us, we will see which states become places where people are going to want to live and which states are not.

I’m nearly 50, it’s my intention to live and die right where I am, but by the end of the Obama years both of my sons will be out of college and we will see where they will decide to go to make a future for themselves.

May the best states and ideas win. The only question is, will the media report it?

There has been a lot of back and forth about “Will Barack Obama Throw Hillary under the Bus over Benghazi?” or vice-versa this week .

It was quite a situation, If Obama threw Hillary under the bus would the Clintons work subrosa against him? (I maintain they already have been.)  If Hillary threw Obama under the bus  would the African-American community make her pay in 2016, it’s one thing for them to be pissed off at Obama, it’s quite another for some white lady to beat up on him.

What do you do? Well Hillary has threaded the needle in a way that accomplishes everything she needed to thus.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.

The moment I heard this I had one thought: This is the move of a political master. Consider what this accomplishes:

Seemingly:

It is a statesman like move, going forward and not ducking responsibility in a way nobody has been willing to do.

In Reality:

It covers her, by taking responsibility it heads off all kinds of stories that might come up with a theme of finding fault. Why should congress investigate to pin blame when it’s already been accepted?

Seemingly:

It supports the president, by taking the blame she shields the first Black president both showing herself a good soldier to the party and most importantly to the black community.

In Reality:

It undermines Obama by making her look strong, and him look weak. He is now forced to make some kind of statement second as a response. It’s the 3 AM phone call with her answering while he goes to Vegas.

Seemingly:

It ends press coverage on what the Obama Administration should do next, blame assigned move on.

In Reality:

It doesn’t end coverage it changes it.  What will the president do about this?  It puts Obama in a box.  Blame is assigned so what is the punishment?   If Hillary is responsible does he ask for her resignation, does he fire her? With his electoral prospects already sinking he dare not do either, and God help him if she resigns on her own. It would be another example of her acting while he is paralyzed.  It is the final act of Carterization of the president.

Seemingly:

It makes her vulnerable as every commentator on the right calls for her head in the hope of embarrassing Obama and taking her down a peg.

In Reality:

It gets her in good with the base of her party.  I can see the fundraising e-mails now.  “She’s taken responsibility and those nasty right wingers are piling on”  This will coin money for her.  That doesn’t even take into account how the press will react.

Seemingly:

It hurts  her 2016 election prospects after all she is responsible for an attack on the US on the Anniversary of 9/11 no less.

In Reality:

Not only does this make her look presidential (Expect comparisons to JFK’s Bay of Pigs speech from the MSM)  but it neutralizes her primary opponents on the subject, in fact for the second time in twelve years she will be able to paint herself as the victim of the irresponsibility of a man who should have known better.

Seemingly:

It hands President Romney a ready-made issue in 2016 to use.

In Reality:

It puts Romney in a box.  Every president has foreign policy failures and Mitt will have his share.  Imagine the debate  answer: “President Romney is right.  I was secretary of state during the Benghazi debacle and I took full responsibility for it.  What I would like to know is when the president will take responsibility for (insert relevant issue here)”.  It  will put and keep Mitt on the defensive.

The Bottom line is forgetting all the national security and moral issues involved. Hillary has done the thing that most helps her in the long run while all the time managing to undermine her foes on both the left and the right in one fell swoop.

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do, it IS but as usual the right thing is generally the smart thing and this was the smartest thing anyone in this administration has done in a while.

This story may continue, but in terms of its negative impact there will be little if any on Hillary Clinton from this point on.

Simply amazing.

Update: Stacy Smithy gets it:

Why am I not a Presidential candidate? Because if I was Mitt, I’d be all: “I’d like to congratulate the President on his choice of Secretary of State. After the better part of four years, somebody in the Administration finally took responsibility the way leaders do, on one of those hopefully rare occasions when it involves confessing a shortcoming. In this case, one that involved the butchery of four Americans. Hopefully this President isn’t too old to learn something from all this. Better leaders plan so as to minimize these sorts of tragedies. Lesser men play the Casablanca card and locate a usual suspects for a round-up. How is Nakoula doing these days, Mr. President?”

Update 2: On Morning Joe Hillary Clinton compared to JFK. Think about it, in under 12 hours Hillary goes from: “The person responsible for a disaster” to JFK saying “defeat is an orphan”.

Today is day one of campaign 2016.

Update 3: Captain Ed Morrissey (he will always be Captain Ed to me) NAILS it:

It’s a jaw-dropping display of a leadership vacuum, which Hillary ended up having to fill herself. This is exactly what Hillary warned voters about in 2008. The contrast between her moment of leadership in this crisis and Obama’s lack of leadership since the very beginning of it will not help Obama make the case for another four years of buck-passing at the top, not even when Obama showed leadership on the Nicki Minaj-Mariah Carey feud.

And Stacy McCain spots an oversight on my part:

Corrected and noted.

When I saw this headline:

Clinton’s team throwing him under Obama’s bus?

I just had to react, and my reaction is: In your dreams.

Listen there isn’t a single person in the Democrat party with the possible exception of Carville who is a smarter and slyer pol than Bill Clinton.  Any other Democrat facing the Monica story, the Wag the dog story and the whole ten yards would have been forced to resign and living in John Edwards land after his exploits, but not Bill Clinton.

I think Bill knows exactly where this election is going, I think Bill knows there is no salvaging things, I think Bill understands that being linked to Obama even in 2016 is going to be the kiss of death for any Democrat.

But I also think Bill knows that if he openly comes out and says so the Black community will never forgive him or his wife: “first black president” or no. So how does one achieve such separation? By gaffe, Clinton makes a gaffe and his own staff & the Obama team are forced to clarify his remarks, even if it means distancing themselves from the most popular living Democrat president.

Barack Obama isn’t throwing Bill Clinton under the bus, Bill Clinton is throwing Barack Obama & Co under the bus and is making them think it’s their idea.

Simply Brilliant.