(Newsmax) – In anticipation of Democrats losing control of the Senate, White House officials are implying that candidates should have tied themselves more closely to President Barack Obama, but according to the National Journal, “this is pure delusion.”
“Obama is the main reason Republicans are well-positioned to win control of the upper chamber next Tuesday. And Democrats’ biggest strategic mistake in this election is that most candidates didn’t run away far and fast enough,” wrote Josh Kraushaar, political editor of the National Journal.
“Given the president’s rock-bottom approval numbers in the many Republican-friendly Senate states that Democrats needed to win — as well as the reality of a worsening political environment for the party as early as last winter — that distance was a downright necessity. But a host of Senate candidates failed to create it, and the party is likely to pay the price in Senate seats.”
SEND CONGRESS A PINK SLIP: Gun grabs, Martial Law, amnesty, executive orders, unconstitutional laws, bypassing Congress and the Constitution— Obama has committed a string high crimes and misdemeanors. YOU can send a PINK SLIP to every member of Congress putting them on notice: “IMPEACH OBAMA NOW OR WE’RE KICKING YOU OUT!”
The Journal named Sens. Mark Udall of Colorado and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire as two examples of vulnerable Democrats in swing states who didn’t do enough to distance themselves from Obama.
And in red states held by Democrats, the magazine said, the limited criticisms of the administration’s policies on Obamacare and the Keystone XL pipeline were not sufficient to convince voters of a true distinction from Obama.
There have also been deficiencies in the way the Democratic candidates in Kentucky and Arkansas have conducted their campaigns. In the first instance, Alison Lundergan Grimes found herself in difficult territory by trying to appease both liberals and conservatives. In Sen. Mark Pryor’s race, he relied too much on attacks against his opponent’s conservatism and a misguided assumption about the strength of his own personal brand.
“To be sure, in a nationalized election, even those who break from an unpopular president often fall victim to his political problems. The biggest victims in the 2010 wave election were House Democrats in conservative districts, most of whom voted against the president’s healthcare law. Their opposition did little to help them. But in Senate races, where candidates’ personal brands play a bigger role, there’s more opportunity to create space,” the Journal said.
“This year’s midterms are shaping up to be a referendum on President Obama’s management, giving anxious voters an opportunity to express their frustration about everything from the president’s handling of healthcare, growing terrorism threats, an Ebola scare, and a broken immigration system, among others.”
The Journal concluded by saying “Democrats should have recognized that the president was falling out of favor with the public and inoculated themselves a long time ago. Instead, many bought the White House’s spin, and are at risk of going down with a sinking ship.”
CNN) — With President Barack Obama’s approval rating hovering in the low to mid-40s — it was 45% in CNN/ORC International’s recent poll –Democrats in tough contests are largely keeping their distance from the president’s tarnished reputation.
And as Election Day has drawn closer, those differences have become more pronounced. Republican opponents are trying harder than ever to link their rivals to the president, forcing Democrats to visibly distinguish themselves from the White House.
Obama admits Democrats have a problem
Here are seven Democratic candidates who’ve kept Obama on the sidelines:
1. Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky. As the Democrat challenging the Senate’s top Republican in a state that voted for Mitt Romney two years ago, Grimes has been perhaps the most high-profile candidate to keep her distance from Obama.
Most notably, she refuses to say whether she voted for the president, citing a matter of principle of privacy at the ballot box as her reason for not answering the question.
She’s been pressed about her support for the president because she’s made a blatant attempt to paint herself as the Democratic antithesis to the commander in chief.
“I’m not Barack Obama,” she said in a campaign ad. “I disagree with him on guns, coal and the EPA.”
2. Sen. Mark Begich, Alaska. Only 41% of Alaska voters sided with Obama in 2012, so Begich knows all too well that it’s not a smart strategy to be a champion for the president. In fact, he likes to think of himself more as a “thorn.”
“I’ll be a thorn in his [posterior],” Begich told the Washington Post. “There’s times when I’m a total thorn, you know, and he doesn’t appreciate it.”
Last week he admitted he voted for Obama but argued that his voting record was irrelevant because “the president’s not relevant” and will be “gone in two years.”
A limited role for Obama in his final campaign
And earlier this year he told CNN that he doesn’t need Obama to campaign for him in Alaska. “I need him to change some of his policies.”
Regardless of how big of a thorn he is, Begich has a tough hill to climb to win a second term.
He barely squeaked out a win in 2008 over then-longtime Sen. Ted Stevens, who at the time was buried in an ethics scandal. And a CNN/ORC poll from early October had Sullivan leading Begich, 50% to 44%.
3. Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado. Udall was expected to have a smooth ride to re-election until Republican Rep. Cory Gardner entered the race in March.
Obama attended a Democratic fundraiser in Denver this summer, with half of the money raised going to Udall’s campaign.
But the senator wasn’t there.
His staff chalked up the absence to last-minute votes and legislative activity. The episode was foreshadowed somewhat when Udall refused to answer questions from CNN’s Dana Bash earlier this year over whether he’d want to campaign with Obama.
In another example, Udall tried to take a stake out a firm line on airstrikes against ISIS, saying in September he won’t give “this president — or any other president — a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq.”
4. Sen. Kay Hagan, North Carolina. Hagan is running for a second term in a state that voted for Obama in 2008 but not in 2012. As a result, she’s had to strike a balance between appealing to the pro-Obama factions in her state — mostly concentrated in the college hubs and big cities — and the more rural parts of North Carolina.
Senate math seems impossible to some Democrats
She exhibited this fine line in August, when she publicly criticized the president over the Veterans Affairs scandal in remarks released ahead of her speech at the American Legion. But when he showed up to also speak at the event, she warmly greeted him at the airport.
Last week she reluctantly admitted that the president hasn’t shown strong leadership. And when he visited North Carolina in January, she avoided him entirely.
5. Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana. Landrieu has tried to paint herself as someone willing to go toe-to-toe with the Obama administration, especially when it comes to energy policy.
She uses her position as chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as a major selling point in her campaign, and has sided with Republicans in pushing for the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
In an ad, she’s seen saying “the administration’s policies are simply wrong when it comes to oil and gas production in this nation.”
Last year Landrieu declined to attend a visit by Obama to her state, though she still hitched a ride aboard Air Force One with the President on his way to Louisiana.
6. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire. Shaheen’s Republican challenger, Scott Brown, can’t say one sentence without highlighting that Shaheen with Obama voted 99% of the time.
Shaheen says she’s proud of her record, but she’s still not angling for a visit by the president. Asked whether she would want him to campaign for her, Shaheen said “we have a lot going on.”
“I don’t think it makes sense for the president to come to New Hampshire,” she continued, while answering the question at the CNN/NH1 debate last week. But she’s happily welcomed former President Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton is set to visit this weekend.
7. Mark Pryor, Arkansas. Fighting to keep his seat against GOP challenger Rep. Tom Cotton, Pryor has also sought to strike a balance between the politics of his state and on the national level.
On GPS: Bill Clinton on midterm elections Democrats search for a ‘Plan B’
For example, he backs a minimum wage hike that’s on the ballot in Arkansas, but he opposes Obama’s proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10.
Like other vulnerable Senate candidates — such as Shaheen, Udall and Hagan — Pryor has also called for travel restrictions to help prevent Ebola from spreading to the United States, a policy the Obama administration has not pushed.
Pryor made headlines earlier this month when he sounded unsure of how to answer a question about Obama’s handling of the Ebola situation.
Written by Donald Joy on October 30, 2014
Unbelievable. Our military has to hide that they’re in the military on our own soil? Isn’t that giving terrorists the upper hand? Howzabout we put these Muslim stooges in internment camps instead? Check this out…
Through our confidential contacts in U.S. Military Special Operations, ClashDaily.com has been provided a copy of an unclassified Department of Defense directive, USNORTHCOM Force Directive 1-295, which essentially orders our troops into hiding here in their own sovereign territory and in Canada, whenever they leave their duty stations.
The directive, issued a week ago in close coordination with our Canadian allies, describes in detail the recent deadly sequence of Islamic jihad attacks on Canadian military members in Ottawa and near Montreal. It also describes the ongoing threats announced by ISIS, commanding their jihadi sleepers and “lone wolves” to murder any and all Americans possible (especially military members and their dependents) here at home. The directive orders that all U.S. military personnel in North America who are in “public venues” or using commercial transportation are to refrain from wearing uniforms, insignias, or any other kind of identifying clothing or items which indicate their military affiliation, “unless complying with official travel instructions or other orders.”
While it is understood that the specific targeting of U.S. and Canadian military personnel by ISIS is very serious, very real, and has already proven disastrously deadly, one cannot help but consider the fact that we are basically, timidly, allowing the enemy to dictate the terms and rules of engagement here, on our turf.
It’s extremely unfortunate, and even more so because it doesn’t have to be this way.
How is it avoidable? As with other maddeningly timid rules of engagement during this long war — in areas of operation overseas and in anti-terrorism policies and operations everywhere — the present situation is the result of the craven politically-correct ideology that says when dealing with those who resemble the enemy and share the enemy’s nationalities, culture, and stated religion, we must err on the side of non-aggression and exert ourselves to avoid giving offense.
In the aftermath of the 1941 attack by the Imperial Japanese on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, our country’s leadership ordered the rounding up all of those here on our soil who had at least some surface liability to sympathize or otherwise be aligned with our mortal enemies. We didn’t screw around and unnecessarily put more American lives at risk. The threat was real.
While World War II escalated, we didn’t excessively wring our hands and worry more about whether we were violating the rights of people whose loyalties were legitimately in question than we did about preventing further attacks — we were at war, and our leaders made the clear decision to protect the homeland, and to win.
At that time, rounding up the Nisei, and certain others related to the Axis powers, was the right thing to do given the circumstances. In her phenomenal and exhaustively researched book titled In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, author Michelle Malkin details the specifics of our government’s systematic evacuation of the Nisei and others away from critical areas and into comfortable, secured communities (“internment camps” replete with recreation facilities and movie theaters, etc.) until the threat was eliminated and the war was over.
Those who go around apologizing for all of that today are in the same league of dhimmis, derelicts, doofuses, and outright traitors who squashed the Phoenix Memo prior to Sept. 11th, 2001, and who prevented FBI counter-terrorism agents from ever communicating with each other at all out of excessive concern for “sensitivities” and “appearances” (recall Clinton deputy Jamie Gorelick’s increased “wall of separation” between law enforcement and intelligence units). They are the same “progressives” who still refuse to secure our borders against illegal and dangerous foreign invasions and crime networks, and who continually release the worst of the worst of our enemy’s warriors and top commanders from Guantanamo Bay. They are the same worthless enablers of terror attacks who ignored numerous red flags to let the underwear bomber get on the plane in Africa, bound for Detroit, and who poo-pooed the Russians’ warnings about the Tsarnaev brothers prior to the Boston Marathon bombings.
They are the same people among the liberal vanguard of multiculturalist Canadian political bureaus who made sure that the murderous jihadis of last week, already known to security personnel as posing some degree of threat, were left free to plot and carry out their attacks. They are the psychotically stubborn people in the media and in office who do everything they can to not call last week’s jihad hatchet murder rampage against New York City cops exactly what it was, lest that assessment “contribute to negative stereotypes” of Muslims/minorities — until they have completely exhausted the fetid reservoir of diversity-correctness and are forced to acknowledge the facts.
They do everything they can to marginalize and vilify voices like mine and ours, when we call for more aggressive measures to contain and eliminate the broader threat posed by followers of Mohammed in this modern era.
They are the alleged “authorities” who say that instead of aggressively rounding up and/or otherwise profiling young Muslim men who pose at least some degree of threat of being aligned with jihad extremism, we must order our military personnel to go incognito in the very land our security forces and citizens could, instead, readily secure, if those so-called authorities would simply let us do it.
Here’s the meat of the text copied from USNORTHCOM Force Directive 1-295 itself:
3.(U/FOUO) SITUATION. THIS WEEK CANADA EXPERIENCED, AS DESCRIBED BY OFFICIALS, TERRORIST
ATTACKS TARGETING MILITARY PERSONNEL NEAR MONTREAL AND A SMALL ARMS ATTACK IN OTTAWA.
THE ATTACK NEAR MONTREAL WAS THE FIRST SUCCESSFUL SUNNI EXTREMIST ATTACK IN CANADA AND
RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF ONE CANADIAN SERVICE MEMBER WHEN A HOMEGROWN VIOLENT
EXTREMIST HIT THE SERVICE MEMBER AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH HIS VEHICLE IN AN OFF BASE
PARKING LOT. TWO DAYS LATER, AT LEAST ONE GUNMAN SHOT AND KILLED A SOLDIER AT THE
NATIONAL WAR MEMORIAL. THE GUNMAN THEN RAN TO THE PARLIAMENT BUILDING WHERE HE
ENGAGED SECURITY GUARDS AND WAS KILLED. WE DO NOT YET KNOW IF THESE ATTACKS WERE
RELATED OR DIRECTED BY AN OVERSEAS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. REGARDLESS, THE ATTACKS
UNDERSCORE THE INCREASED TERRORIST THREAT TO WESTERN MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT
PERSONNEL, PARTICULARLY OUTSIDE SECURE FACILITIES. THESE ATTACKS FOLLOW THE 21 SEPTEMBER
GUIDANCE FROM AN ISIL AUDIO MESSAGE CALLING FOR THE KILLING OF MILITARY OR CIVILIANS IN THE
WEST BY ANY MEANS AVAILABLE. THE MESSAGE INCLUDED DIRECTION TO KILL AMERICANS, FRENCH
CITIZENS OR THEIR ALLIES. WE EXPECT THESE ATTACKS TO RESONATE AMONG EXTREMISTS IN NORTH
AMERICA AND THIS THREAT IS LIKELY TO PERSIST IN THE NEAR TERM.
4.(U) USNORTHCOM DIRECTIVE EFFECTIVE WITH MESSAGE ISSUANCE:
4.A.(U/FOUO) DOD ELEMENTS AND PERSONNEL UNDER THE SECURITY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHIEF OF
MISSION (COM), AMERICAN EMBASSY, OTTAWA WILL COMPLY WITH COM SECURITY GUIDANCE,
AND TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, COMPLY WITH CANADIAN FORCES (CF) UNIFORM POLICY FOR OFF-DUTY,
OFF-INSTALLATION WEAR AS APPROPRIATE. REFER TO REF C FOR AMPLIFICATION OF COM SECURITY
4.B.(U/FOUO) DOD ELEMENTS AND U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL UNDER THE SECURITY AND FORCE
PROTECTION RESPONSIBILITY OF THE USNORTHCOM AND NORAD COMMANDER IN CANADA WILL
COMPLY WITH USNORTHCOM TRAVELER FPCON MEASURE TC10 PER REF B; ELIMINATE THE VISIBLE
WEAR OF MILITARY UNIFORMS OR OTHER IDENTIFYING CLOTHING IN PUBLIC VENUES UNLESS
COMPLYING WITH OFFICIAL TRAVEL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER ORDERS. ADDITIONALLY, DOD
PERSONNEL WILL NOT WEAR VISIBLE UNIFORMS WHEN UTILIZING COMMERCIAL TRAVEL MEANS TO
AND FROM CANADA. REFER TO REF C FOR AMPLIFICATION OF COMBATANT COMMANDER
4.C.(U) THIS DIRECTIVE REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL RESCINDED OR SUPERSEDED.
5.(U) U.S. MILITARY AND OUR ALLIES IN UNIFORM HAVE BEEN TARGETED IN REAL-WORLD INCIDENTS
AND VIRTUALLY VIA SOCIAL MEDIA. TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS HAVE OPENLY ENCOURAGED
SYMPATHIZERS TO ATTACK DOD PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. FOR YOUR SAFETY AND THE
SAFETY OF YOUR UNIT AND OTHERS AFFILIATED WITH THE MILITARY SERVICES I URGE YOU TO
MAINTAIN AWARENESS OF YOUR PUBLIC SURROUNDINGS, REFRAIN FROM POSTING TO PUBLIC MEDIA
OR SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES INFORMATION THAT MAY PLACE YOURSELF, YOUR FAMILIES, OR OTHER
DOD PERSONNEL IN JEOPARDY, AND REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY PROMPTLY TO MILITARY
POLICE OR OTHER APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY. BOTH UNITS AND INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE,
EXERCISE, AND IMPLEMENT EMERGENCY ACTION PLANS SHOULD THREATS MATERIALIZE. I EXPECT
COMMANDERS TO CONTINUOUSLY EVALUATE EXISTING AT/FP MEASURES AND WORK-PLACE
EMERGENCY ACTIONS PLANS FOR EFFECTIVENESS, IN PARTICULAR THOSE FOR OFF-INSTALLATION
FACILITIES SUCH AS MILITARY RECRUITING STATIONS. COMMANDERS MUST ENSURE THEIR PERSONNEL
ARE EDUCATED ON THE POTENTIAL THREATS AND KNOW THE ACTIONS THEY CAN TAKE TO REMAIN
Unfortunately, all of that makes perfect sense, given the circumstances — circumstances which have resulted from the ongoing failure of leadership and deliberate policy decisions guided by the groveling, apologetic, anti-American ideology which says it’s more important to protect the feelings and the military academies (mosques) of the enemy than it is to protect innocent lives like little 8-year-old Martin Richard, murdered by a Tsarnaev brothers’ bomb at the Boston Marathon.
If we ever have sound leadership in this country again while the threat of Islamic jihad exists, any Muslims on our soil will cautiously hide their religious garb/affiliation while our troops proudly wear their uniform of our nation on their way home off-base or on their lunch break at the McDonald’s outside the post gate.
Practice situational awareness at all times.