Time for Obama to read the tea leaves — by guest blogger Sadie

After being dismissed and diminished by the media and administration as [fill in your condescending or derogatory epithet here], the Tea Party, which was a response to the Democratic tidal wave in 2008, has changed the face of politics into the foreseeable future. Sarah Palin is no small part of the grassroots movement. I think she was the catalyst. Palin was unmercifully berated in the press and still stood her ground, never capitulating.  Add to the mix the internet, the fact that Fox News stayed on message, and Glenn Beck’s growing list of supporters.

There’s a green theme here:  Obama started in the land of grass skirts, moved to a world of smoking grass, and is now feeling the power of the grassroots. If the president had been on the show Dancing with the Stars, he would have been booted in round one for stepping on his partner’s toes. The adage that black people have rhythm is certainly a myth — not only is his timing awful, he is also tone deaf, since he hasn’t heard a word we’ve been saying.

I wonder if he can read the tea leaves., If not, he might get help from a new book they’re in a new book arguing — with facts! — that the grassroots surge is here to stay.

Bottom line:  Populist uprisings go hand in hand with economic hardship in America, and this one has been brewing for years, according to political pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Mike Devx

    I think this comment might be on-topic.

    From a Wash Post article about the Supreme Court:
    The most obvious will be the presence of three women. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had hoped for such a day when she was confirmed 17 years ago, said it will send a powerful signal about the nation’s governance when she and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan take their places.
    “The major difference is going to be the public perception of where women are in the justice system,” the 77-year-old Ginsburg said in a recent interview in her chambers. “The three of us, we are here to stay.
    “When the schoolchildren file in and out of the court and they look up and they see three women, then that will seem natural and proper – just how it is.”

    Ginsberg may have a point – women should certainly be present on the Supreme Court, should there in fact be qualified candidates.

    But I am more certain of a different point: Ginsberg would not be making such smug social commentary if even one of those three women were conservative.  The fact is, all three women are arch-liberals, wildly leftist in their outlooks.  And ***THAT*** is what is prompting her smugness, I truly think.

    Put her in league with two very conservative other female court Justices, and she would certainly not be singing her “I am woman, R-E-S-P-E-C-T ” homages.  She would be moaning and groaning and bemoaning the travesty that the other two women on the Court are throwbacks, and destructive to the advancement of “the cause of women everywhere”.  Just as Sarah Palin’s prominence is no cause for celebration among women such as Ginsberg, strong conservative female Justices would also be under attack.  Even from those within their own institution, such as Ginsberg.


    Mike, you must have been reading my mind. Tomorrow is the first Monday in October. There are 39 cases to be heard this year and Kagan is recused in 21 of them – almost half.
    …during her confirmation this summer, Kagan said she would in 11 cases. So why the extra 10? Apparently she’s decided that her participation at earlier phases, even in cases in which her office did not formally offer up an opinion, mandate her recusal.
    The looming question is what happens in a 4/4 tie. SCOTUS is not ice hockey, but we well might be skating on thin ice.
    Leahy is considering legislation that would allow a retired member of the Supreme Court to replace a justice who has recused himself — or herself — in a particular case.
    What could possibly go wrong with this scenario [in my most snarky tone]?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Obama needs a teleprompter to be able to read. Otherwise he’s deficient.

  • Danny Lemieux

    During the 2008 election, it was clear to me that many of my Liberal/Lefty acquaintances were enamored with Obama more because of the color of his skin rather than the content of his character. There was tremendous pride by black people because he was “black like me” and by white people because “now that I am voting for a black person for president, I can’t possibly be a racist”. My question then was, “yes, but what will happen to perceptions of black leadership when Obama inevitably fails?”.
    Unfortunately, the sword wielded to define Obama has two blades, which (I fear) will tarnish the chances of truly qualified black people to lead this country in the future: too many people will reference the historical disaster of Obama (who, I maintain after considering Dinesh D’Souza’s psycho profile of Obama , isn’t really “black” but expat African-Socialist in his outlook and views of the U.S. and its governance). I hope not, because I think there are any number of highly qualified black conservatives that could make excellent U.S. Presidents (my vote today would be for Herman Caine, whom I had the opportunity to meet when he was an executive at Pillsbury and entrepreneur at Godfather’s Pizza).
    So I fear it will be with these three Liberal/Lefty women appointed to the Supreme Court, anointed to the Supreme Court not for their legal abilities but for their gender and ideology. Sandra Day O’Connor left a weak legacy at best. Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomeyer, I suspect, will leave disasters in their wake.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I believe it is precisely because they look down on African Americans that they are more generous in judging them than others. After all, they aren’t the Left’s “equals”. They are the ones the Left pays. The Left is the boss and they decided they wanted a boy of darker shade since it served their purposes.
    They set them up to fail, then pat themselves on the back for their noblesse oblige.

  • suek

    Hey…an opportunity to stuff the court!!!  Never let a good crisis go to waste, after all…!
    Y…yes.  The whole underlying principle of affirmative action as it is put into place, not as it was intended (well, by conservatives, at least).  What do they call it…the soft bias of “under expectation”…

  • suek

    I’ve asked multiple times in multiple places and have never gotten an answer…if you assume that for whatever reason, he was _not_ eligible, what can be done?  How can you impeach if he was never eligible?  If he was not eligible, was he sworn in and that alone makes him president in fact?  If you can’t impeach because he was not eligible, then we have had no president for the past two years – what happens to all the acts, laws and orders he’s been responsible for signing?
    How would you establish – meaning by what process – that he was ineligible, and then what would you do?  The questions are fascinating to consider regardless of what the facts are.  The truth is that we have no process for addressing the issue – we have never anticipated the possibility that people elected to represent the people would deliberately lie cheat and steal to get their guy in office – even if he wasn’t eligible.


    The questions are fascinating to consider regardless of what the facts are.
    I agree and add this one to your list: I’d like to know on what passport did he travel to Pakistan. I have yet to hear of one friend from high school or college be interviewed – nay, nary a word – zip nothing including the friend he traveled with. He disappeared from the reporters’ pages. Stanley Dunham’s records prior to 1965 have disappeared as well with regards to passports and applications.
    I think you have your answer with your own words “we have never anticipated the possibility that people elected to represent the people would deliberately lie cheat and steal to get their guy in office – even if he wasn’t eligible”. Quite  a scenario to ponder, the ‘what if factor’. Would  it mean a revolution and total undoing of the union? Who would risk it?  Who would prevent it? Who/what could/would stop it?

    Way back in 1963 when JFK was shot and then Oswald and then Ruby (dead within a year from cancer?) we were buzzing like crazy. Too many statistical oddities. I never read the Warren Commission Report (I think it was a precursor to the health care reform bill in volume).  I do remember that the conclusions were challenged. Following the report, there was an official announcement of ‘certain files’ that would be sealed for 75 years – a statistical lifetime. 

    The questions are fascinating to consider regardless of what the facts are.