The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Prediction Update: Your Next Six Weeks

Posted on | October 2, 2011 | 46 Comments

by Smitty

Back in July, before Solyndra, I ‘boldly’ predicted that BHO wouldn’t complete the term, or run for re-election, for that matter. Now, watch the near-term future unfold. As the USS Obama capsizes and works on its submarine impression, the Left, casting about for someone, anyone, who is both

  • reliable, in the sense that they can be counted upon to maintain the Progressive status quo, and
  • has enough name recognition to run for President, and
  • is a big enough megalomaniac for the task.

I know, you think I’m going to say ‘Dennis Kucinich’, but really: we mean Hillary here, don’t we? The question is when?

Peering into my crystal bollocks, I don’t see how the administration survives the mounting tsunami of crap past the end of this month. So, I’m saying that, by 01 November, Silent Hillary shall have been identified as the Great White Democrat Hope. Literary allusion hyperlink provided in advance to deflect accusations of raaaaacism and anti-fat chick bias with that might come from a snarky sharky reference.

At that point, Sarah Palin’s hesitation to declare a run comes into focus. Once BHO is out of the picture, she cannot be used as an Alinsky focus to distract from BHO’s implosion. In 2008, the “If you do not vote for X, you are Y” argument featured X=BHO, and Y=raaaaacist. For 2012, X=Hillary, Y=misogynist. The Democrat party, itself, threw Hillary under the bus in 2008, knows that crowds never remember. Alas, the internet never forgets. The old Democrat playbook, never founded upon liberty, looks to be given about one last try next year.

Once Hillary and surprise running mate Morgan Freeman deploy to combat the Tea Party insurgency, Sarah becomes the obvious response. On 13 November, 32 years to the day after Ronald Reagan’s announcement, Sarah announces her candidacy, and let the various election laws fall where they may. Thus, American politics achieves the perverse result of whoever having the lesser negatives winning the election.

Let the Palinistas not take the previous sentence as some subtle swipe. I admire Sarah fully; she has weathered an unrelenting hail of ugliness from the Left. So, too, has Hillary for that matter. One cannot fail to give credit where due: Hillary is a sharp, determined lady who also endured a lot of cheap shots (including mine), and has successfully avoided punching Bill’s ticket for a saintly length of time.

The point I’m getting at is that our entire system of self-governance is in jeopardy if any election can be reduced to “If you do not vote for X, you are Y” arguments. Self-governance is a tax on your time. You have to invest a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, not so much in fretting every detail, but in ensuring that the leaders to whom you’re delegating your political power are supporting liberty. Otherwise, the EPA is going to take your breath away, like the KKK took your baby. Aside: the Presidential Seal behind the drummer is not ironic. The Ramones were conservatives!

And, if neither lady actually steps up to the plate, I can’t say I blame them. While proudly a pro-Constitutional American, I am so thoroughly anti-Progressive that dealing with the pile of hooey our government has become seems an exercise in futility. Many in politics may be driven by megalomania; I myself would need a mile-wide martyr complex even to try. Better still to stand in the peanut gallery and offer full-spectrum support to somebody else more suitable to task.

That is my prediction. Should it come to pass, I will extract the price of a cup of coffee from Stacy McCain. If it does not, I’ll post a picture of some edible crow. Stacy McCain is a serious journalist frequently masquerading as kibitzer here on the blog. As a serious journalist, he despises prediction pieces like this one. Something about a lack of facts, I suppose. I, on the other hand, am a kibitzer with few pretensions of serious journalism. I’d say ‘no pretensions’, but I’m anxious not to mislead.

At any rate, off to church to thank the Almighty for a safe return, a healthy son, and the certainty that we shall recover the country from this sad pack of jackwagons.

Update: linked by both Don Surber and Daily Pundit.

Update II: picked up by Fishersville Mike.

Update III: follow on thoughts at Common Sense Political Thought, who takes an internal view of BHO vis-a-vis LBJ and figures that BHO will not go gently into that political night.

The thesis of this post is that this administration has crossed the red line, between Solyndra and Operation Gunrunner. BHO’s monumental ego will be of academic interest as the sane remainder of the Democrat party tries to figure out how to preserve something past next years’ election.


46 Responses to “Prediction Update: Your Next Six Weeks”

  1. Dan Collins
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 2:08 pm

    Good to have you back.

  2. McGehee
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 2:41 pm

    I don’t think the Democrats would go for Hillary — at this point she’s about as likely to be the next president as Jon Huntsman is.

    Which is funny because Huntsman would be the perfect non-Obama Democrat for 2012.

  3. smitty
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

    Who else do the Dems have? Harry Reid? Biden? Pelosi? Oh, Anthony Weiner?

  4. Anonymous
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

    Herman Cain, Herman Cain, Herman Cain.  That’s the Cain Train chugging along.

  5. Joe
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

    Don’t give them any ideas Smitty!  Hillary is their best shot for keeping the WH and she (would prove) to be just an inept as Da One (and would keep that Obomination called Obamacare (the Supremes will not save us from that).   

  6. Thomas Knapp
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

    I just don’t see Obama not running for re-election.

    LBJ faced the real prospect of not being re-nominated or re-elected, which explains why he decided to step aside. 

    At this point in time, Obama looks pretty well set for at least a Clinton 1996 level of re-election margin, and possibly closer to Reagan 1984.

    Why would he quit when he’s virtually guaranteed four more years?

  7. Daily Pundit » Let’s Hillary and Barry Fight
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 11:43 am

    […] Prediction Update: Your Next Six Weeks : The Other McCain Peering into my crystal bollocks, I don’t see how the administration survives the mounting tsunami of crap past the end of this month. So, I’m saying that, by 01 November, Silent Hillary shall have been identified as the Great White Democrat Hope. […]

  8. Steve in TN
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

    A name very close to your home that just happened to become available…  Senator Jim Webb.  Is it any coincidence that Webb announced his loss of interest for politics just as BHO really started tanking?  Moderates will love him as a former GOP admin member.  He can toss the “conservative Democrat” moniker around and is a VN war vet with the right decorations. 

    USNA grad, Marine officer… He’s Jack Ryan come to life.

  9. Joe
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

    I suspect Smitty is making a joke.  Obama’s ego will not allow him to step down. 

    But, I expect nonsense like this from the libtards, not from you Thomas:  “At this point in time, Obama looks pretty well set for at least a Clinton 1996 level of re-election margin, and possibly closer to Reagan 1984.”  Even self delusional nuts like Olbermann and Shrum do not believe that.   I hope that was a joke. 

    John McCain ran a pretty pathetic campaign and it was relatively close with what was perceived as a GOP caused financial crisis and a relatively unknown but attractive Democrat candidate.  Obama’s approval numbers are going down now and he is losing his base.  Granted that base will not vote GOP, but many may not show up.  Independents are fleeing. 

    The election will be close and Obama (as incumbnant) is likely to win.  If there is a weak GOP candidate (and I mean a weak general election performance), expect a Bush-Kerry 2004 race (with Obama as Bush).  But a fairly decent GOP candidate performance in the general will flip that. 

  10. Thomas Knapp
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 4:48 pm


    No, not a joke.

    I’m seeing no signs of a strong run against Obama from the left. He looks pretty safe there.

    The center tends to stick with incumbents unless the opposition produces a really strong candidate … and the GOP doesn’t seem set to do so.

    Cain might be competitive in a general election, but I’m skeptical that he can get there.

    Perry is trying to run a somewhat Reaganesque campaign, and if he pulled it off he’d be strong in a general election, but Republicans seem to pretty much hate everything about Reagan except invoking his name over policies 180 degrees opposite his actual policies these days.

    Christie has the same problem as Perry.

    Paul has a stronger base of support in the GOP than in 2008, but not enough to get over the nomination hurdle, and I suspect he’s topped out.

    If Palin jumped in the race (unlikely) and got the nomination (even more unlikely), she might be able to carry Alaska. But I wouldn’t bet money on it.

    So, it’s looking like Romney, who can probably carry Utah, Nevada, Idaho and not much else in a general election vs. Obama. When offered Obama versus Obama Lite, the center is more likely to go for the full-flavor version, especially when that’s also the incumbent.

  11. Joe
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

    I agree Cain would be likely best in the general of the current GOP bunch, espeically if he picks a strong defense savy Veep (which means picking Marco Rubio is probably out, but he may not want it anyway). 

    But if it were Romney, I do not see him losing to Obama in a rout.  Romney would probably do better than Perry in debating Obama.  Romney is not my first choice, but to suggest he would be Bob Dole is just not likely.  Obama has 40% of the vote locked up (unless he completely implodes).  The question is whether those who will absolutely vote against him reach 50.001%.   Obama will do okay in blue states, but the red ones are going to remain red.  The purple ones are sure looking redder. 

    There is a lot that could happen between now and November 2012, but this will be a close race. 

    I am pushing for Cain. 

  12. Anonymous
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

    There is also at least the possibility that LBJ genuinely thought that taking the politics out of the presidency was good for the country. There is no chance that CCiC gives a rat’s ass about this country. Even if Obama thought not running was the only way to save the country from utter destruction he wouldn’t consider stepping aside. Nor will any “council of wise men” approach him, asking him to step aside. More the pity as that would surely destroy the Social Democrats as a party.

    I don’t see what basis there is for your certainty about zero’s reelection, while it is possible that we are that stupid I don’t believe even the cowardly “centrists” are suicidal.

  13. DaveO
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 6:38 pm

    Hillary going for POTUS is a given. Her problem is finding a governor of a midwestern state that is willing to lend her some credibility.

    At her first debate, give Hillary a gift of a ‘reset’ button, but with chinese lettering that says ‘Bill past due.’

  14. Thomas Knapp
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 6:46 pm


    I have the fortune — or misfortune, depending on how you want to classify it — of having lived for long enough to clearly remember the 1996 election cycle, and the three-year build-up of “most left-wing administration EVAH!” / “doesn’t give a damn about the country,” etc. bullshit that worked so well in bringing the US from the Republican revolution of 1994 to Dole/Kemp 96’s performance.

    So, I don’t buy it.

    Obama is a hair to the left of Reagan and a smidgen to the right of Nixon, and almost certainly cares about America more than the latter and close to as much as the former.

  15. Anonymous
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 7:44 pm

    Obama may care about the America he wants to create but he cares not a fig for the America that most who comment here would like to restore as I suspect neither do you. The crucial difference between 96 or 84 for that matter and 2012 is an economy that is a disaster by any measure that is obviously not getting better. Obama’s plan is to convince voters that electing a Republican will make things worse and that given enough time he will make things better. He may succeed in convincing enough of the first but simply can’t make a case that he will succeed in the latter.

  16. Thomas Knapp
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 8:18 pm


    You’re correct in that I don’t care to restore the America that most commenters here would prefer. Personally, I’d prefer to abolish the state, but at the very least I’d like to get closer to the Constitution rather than moving further away from it in either the Republican or Democrat direction (which, let’s be honest, is pretty much the same direction, only at varying velocities on particular issues).

    If you want an election parallel on the economic sphere alone, the one I’d suggest is 1936, with Obama not quite as unassailable as FDR, but with Romney fairly analogous to Alf Landon in terms of being just a little too much like the incumbent to get much traction.

  17. Adjoran
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 8:36 pm

    LBJ’s renomination was a certainty:  he controlled the party bosses, who controlled most of the delegates.  The nearly-all-primary and quotas-for-delegates systems were “reforms” introduced by the McGovern Commission AFTER the 1968 Convention debacle.

    LBJ knew he had little chance of winning reelection, though, since Wallace was going to at least take enough Southern and blue collar Democratic votes to throw a lot of states to Nixon.  He also had some idea he might get the North Vietnamese to agree to a peace treaty if he wasn’t a candidate.  That’s why he withdrew.

  18. Anonymous
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

    Obama made Hillary S0S so she’d spend most of her time out of country and out of domestic politics.  She took one for the team and went along.  Now she’s had more than enough of carrying OZero’s rancid foreign policy water.  I think she’ll come roaring back with revenge on her mind.

    Man, would that make for some prime entertainment!

  19. Adjoran
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

    Hillary is far too smart to step in now.  Even if he dropped out voluntarily, there would be a huge rift in the Democratic Party.  His core supporters would be angry, and given their irrationality would probably accuse Hillary of some conspiracy to oust their Messiah.

    Besides, he’s made enough of a mess it will probably be tough for the next President to get things straightened out and showing positive growth in four years.  There’s a lot of pain to come – the only way to solve the fiscal crisis is a heavy downsizing of the federal workforce, so unemployment will continue to be high for several years.  How fast growth can possibly ignite also depends a lot of factors beyond our control, like the EU’s own fiscal problems which will hurt demand for our exports.

    So Hillary can bide her time, bask in the ridiculous but seemingly widespread belief she has done a good job as SecState, wait four years and only then decide to run.

    And if by chance she should win in 2016, the austerity measures of the Republican Administration might bring prosperity by the middle of her term, perpetuating the “Clinton economic performance” myth.

    I submit my version is far more likely to occur than Smitty’s.

    Oh, and Palin isn’t running this cycle, either.  You heard it here first.

  20. ThePaganTemple
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

    I’m more worried about Obama dumping Biden and picking Hillary to be his VP. I’d almost bet on and have been predicting that since Obama’s 2008 victory. In fact, I think that was the secret, non-binding tentative deal they made. Hillary gets foreign affairs credentials, then replaces Biden on the ticket in 2012. That makes her the presumptive nominee in 2016, regardless of the 2012 outcome.

    I know she’s denied any such plan, but why should we believe her?

    One good possible person to run against Obama from the left would be Gavin Newsome. He would probably lose, as would anybody else, but it would serve the purpose of splitting the party. He might even have a damn good chance of winning the California delegates, which would be a mighty big embarrassment to Obama.

    I think Nader could probably talk him into it. He’s looking for people to primary Obama.

  21. Daily scoreboard « Don Surber
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

    […] From Smitty: “Back in July, before Solyndra, I ‘boldly’ predicted that BHO wouldn’t complete the […]

  22. ThePaganTemple
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

    Smitty, Hillary cares way too much about her overall position in the party to play Ted Kennedy to Obama’s Carter. The only way that happens is if something happens that’s so profound that significant numbers of Obama’s own base openly desert him. Then she might consider it, but at this stage, she’s not going to be the person that splits her own party down the middle. She hasn’t been married to Bill Clinton for a third of a century without learning anything.

  23. Bob Belvedere
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

    I agree with everything you wrote, but for the last sentence.

  24. ThePaganTemple
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

    I’m afraid he’s right. I hate to say it, but I’m starting to come to grips with the likelihood that she’s not running, probably for personal, family reasons. There could also be certain party officials pressuring her not to run. Whatever it is, its starting to look like a no-go to me.

  25. Jack Woodward
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

    A few points:
    1.  This is not 1996.  The economy and general lawlessness of the Obummer administration make this a truly historic election.

    2. Cain, Perry and even Romney are not Dole.

    3.  I think Palin had been likely to run, but with Florida p*ssing in the soup she is now more likely to endorse Cain. 

  26. Anonymous
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 10:46 pm

    FDR was able to convince Americans that things were getting better in 36 (just before they started getting worse in 37) Obama simply can’t make that case. People can see that things are not getting better in part due to more and better sources of information. Another problem Obama has is FDR was a much more capable and inspirational liar.

  27. Anonymous
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 10:50 pm

    Hillary would be a fool to accept.

  28. Dana
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 11:55 pm

    But, but, but, it’s raaacist to suggest that President Obama will have to step down, and it would be just as racist for the Democrats to run someone other than Teh Won!

  29. McGehee
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 12:21 am

    More to the point, Obama would be a fool to offer. At least with Hillary HQ’d at Foggy Bottom he doesn’t need to have eyes in the back of his head — and Al Haig notwithstanding SecState is a long way from being “in charge” if anything happens to Teleprompter Jesus.

  30. Smitty and his prediction that President Obama will drop out « Common Sense Political Thought
    October 2nd, 2011 @ 8:48 pm

    […] Smitty and his prediction that President Obama will drop out Posted by Dana Pico on 2 October 2011, 8:48 pm TweetFrom Smitty on “The Other McCain:” Prediction Update: Your Next Six Weeks […]

  31. Anonymous
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 12:56 am

    There is a case to be made that Biden is better life insurance than Hillary.

  32. Thomas Knapp
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:23 am

    “1.  This is not 1996.  The economy and general lawlessness of the Obummer administration make this a truly historic election.”

    In every election, the opposition party screeches that this one is historic, because the current guy is sooooooooooo bad.

    Obama is about as lawless as his predecessor in office. The ways in which both of them are lawless are disturbing, but the extent to which they are lawless is arguably not  nearly as great as that of LBJ or Nixon.

    “2. Cain, Perry and even Romney are not Dole.”

    That’s true. Dole was a wounded, decorated World War II veteran who’d been a respected national political figure since God was in short pants, with much better name recognition and who had a former NFL star and one of the architects of Reaganomics as his running mate. There’s no pair of equal quality in the existing GOP primary field or likely to enter it.

    “3.  I think Palin had been likely to run, but with Florida p*ssing in the soup she is now more likely to endorse Cain.”

    I think she’s been waiting to see if the the numbers might start to trend her way based on the movie, the bus tour, etc., and since they haven’t, she won’t. As Dick Morris once mentioned, if you have approval negatives of more than 30%, you’re about as likely to be elected president as you are to sprout wings and fly. Palin’s negatives are at about 67%.

  33. CoolChange
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:35 am

    Cain is NOT post-racial. Cain did to Perry what Morgan Freeman did to the Tea Party.  Further the branding of the racist chage. Shame on.

  34. CoolChange
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:36 am

    The fact that Cain was willing further the branding of Perry as racist is proof that he is a fraud. Cain is not post-racial.

  35. CoolChange
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:40 am

    Herman Cain sounded more like the Congressional Black Caucus than a fellow Conservative when he slimed Perry as “Insensitive”

  36. CoolChange
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:41 am

    Palin is more electable than the ignorant Cain.

  37. CoolChange
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:42 am

    We need a proven conservative with a conservative record of governing and Sarah Palin is that conservative.

  38. ThePaganTemple
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:12 am

    I think that’s just the media trying to get shit started, so they asked him about it. What was he supposed to say? I think its making a mountain out of a molehill myself, but in politics that kind of crap unfortunately goes with the territory. Cain didn’t make a big deal out of it, he answered the question and then tried to move on to something else. 

  39. ThePaganTemple
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:14 am

    There’s no such thing as post-racial, and never will be. Recognition of race and racial sensitivities as pertains to certain matters does not automatically equal racism or race-baiting either one. Sometimes its just a recognition of current realities.

  40. ThePaganTemple
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:17 am

    Palin might be more electable than Cain, but of course, the caveat to that is she has to actually run. And Cain is far from ignorant. He more than any other single person is responsible for HillaryCare being rejected. He didn’t accomplish that by acting like some rube that just fell off the turnip truck.

  41. Adjoran
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 5:24 am

    RE:  #1, “lawless” can be in the eye of the beholder.  No matter how much you may disapprove of a policy or action, that doesn’t make it illegal.  In fact, that is why we have the judicial branch of government, to sort that stuff out – as provided in the Constitution itself.

    Until a court of competent jurisdiction declares an action illegal, though, it isn’t necessarily, and government officials enjoy a presumption of good faith in official duties.

    It is perfectly fair to question the wisdom of that policy, and I do – at least in its blanket application.  It is quite another thing to declare it lawless unilaterally.  Without due process, that’s what totalitarians do.

  42. Thomas Knapp
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 5:58 am

    Palin’s been playing a conservative on and off for the last three years as a presidential prospect.

    As far as her “record of governing” is concerned, she ran for mayor of Wasilla as a “progressive” and proved herself to be one both as mayor and as governor — white elephant public works projects, corporate welfare, and even full-blown gasoline socialism.

    She’s about as “conservative” as Tom Hayden.

  43. Adjoran
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 6:01 am

    When I need information from an obsessed cyber-stalker of Herman Cain, I will think of you first.  Your Twitter feed is  . . . interesting.

    That need has not yet arisen, alas.

    I note you are also a Palin supporter, which illustrates Palin’s biggest weakness:  among her many fans (including me) are a number of insane fools (including you) whose psychotic behavior reflects very poorly upon her.

  44. CoolChange
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 6:49 am
  45. Bob Belvedere
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

    As a strong supporter of Mrs. Palin, I hope you go away.  You don’t do her or her cause any favors by being the Founder and President of Ignoramuses For Palin.

  46. Bob Belvedere
    October 3rd, 2011 @ 12:21 pm

    I hope you’re wrong, Pagan, because none of the other candidates will take it to Barry and, more importantly, once in office, govern with a balls-to-the-wall attitude, like she would.

    We’ve got to crush the Left in the next couple of years or it’s break-up time.