Tag Archives: Doug Schoen

Doug Schoen puts his support for Hillary on hold

694940094001_4924400766001_837f2e90-c864-49ce-b3d9-9f003cd636abOriginally posted at American Thinker

The evening the FBI reopened its criminal investigation into Hillary’s email server, Democrat political analyst, pollster, author, and Fox News commentator Doug Schoen, together with Justice host Judge Jeanine Pirro and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), appeared on a segment of Hannity.

After discussing how during the FBI’s investigation into Anthony Weiner sexting a 15-year-old girl, new emails were discovered, Jeanine and Sean agreed that the findings had to be big for the FBI to open an investigation just 11 days prior to an election.

Critical of the FBI’s modus operandi, Jay Sekulow asked the panel how it was that “the FBI [did] not [initially] ask for and demand Huma Abedin’s personal e-mail accounts[.]”  Hannity cut in: “How did they agree to destroy evidence of other people?  Who destroys evidence in a case?”

Sekulow expounded upon Sean’s question, telling the panel members:

That is called obstruction of justice if anybody else did it[.] … Tonight, a grand jury needs to be impaneled, number one. Number two; a special prosecutor needs to be appointed immediately. Number three, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, and deputy director of the FBI McCabe need to not be involved in this process. A lot of people are praising James Comey because he opened it up. Let’s cut the nonsense. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Sekulow stressed that what the FBI did:

… [g]oes to the heart of our constitutional republic. And you don’t do this in the United States of America. So if they reopened it, whether it’s Wikileaks, whether it’s Huma Abedin, it has to be really significant. And I think 11 days out, even though these FBI directors are saying we’re just looking at it, for them to do this, it has to be big.


That’s when Hannity turned to Hillary promoter Schoen and asked for his opinion.  Sean queried: “Doug?”

Slightly adversarial, Schoen bristled in response to all the criticism by confidently stating, “Hillary is going to be elected!”  Then Schoen said, “She’s been under criminal investigation by the FBI for the bulk of the campaign, and, you know, she’s had a steady lead.  It’s 11 days out.”

In other words, Doug was sure that at this late date – 11 days out – Hillary Clinton would still be elected president.

Hannity shot back:

She may get elected. But if crimes are committed, maybe before she gets into office she’s going to be indicted. Maybe while she’s in office she’s going to be indicted. What, does Barack Hussein Obama give her a pardon as he leaves office? He could. Does she give herself a pardon?

Schoen said, “All of that could happen,” to which Hannity replied, “Really?  Is that what you want for your country?”

Schoen responded, “I want her elected!”

Sekulow interrupted the duo and said, “I think we’re on the precipice of a constitutional crisis if a grand jury is not empaneled and this is not handled correctly within our judicial system. “

After more banter and discussion among Pirro, Hannity, and Sekulow, a bold Doug Schoen closed out the discussion when he recommended, “A special prosecutor needs to look at the FBI.  It’s outrageous.”

For those who caught Schoen’s call for a special prosecutor to investigate the FBI, the suggestion seemed outrageous.

Then, much to everyone’s amazement, less than 72 hours later, on Fox Report Weekend, hosted by Harris Faulkner, the guy who wanted to see Hillary elected, and who called for a special prosecutor to investigate the FBI, made another unexpected statement.

On a panel made up of Fox political insiders former Republican congressman John LeBoutillier and Democrat public opinion pollster Pat Caddell, Schoen, the die-hard Hillary supporter shocked everyone with a public confession.

A sheepish Schoen spoke directly to Faulkner, saying:

As you know, I have been a supporter of Secretary Clinton … but … and the but is a big deal, at least to me, given that this investigation is going to go on for many months after the election, no matter who wins. But if the secretary of state wins, we will have a president under criminal investigation with Huma Abedin under investigation – the secretary of state – the president-elect, if she should win, under investigation.

Dumbfounded, Faulkner cut in, asking, “Whoa, whoa, whoa…wait a minute.  You’re not going to vote for Hillary Clinton?”

More concerned for country than party, a patriotic Schoen replied back:

Harris, under these circumstances I am actively reassessing my support…I’m deeply concerned that we will have a Constitutional crisis if she’s elected. I want to learn more this week see what we see, but as of today, I am not a supporter of the Secretary of State for the nation’s highest office.

So, two days after the FBI reopened the investigation into the Hillary email server debacle, Democrat faithful Doug Schoen, who has supported the Clintons for 22 years, publicly denounced his support for the former secretary of state’s bid for president.

Pink Tutus and Political Pollsters

Originally posted at American Thinker

By trading authenticity for inexperience, hypnotized voters accepted Barack Obama’s glitzy platitudes and fell hard for his rhetoric hook, line, and sinker — emphasis on sinker. However, “hope and change” prevail, because after electing a guy who showed up out of nowhere dragging his trusty teleprompter, Democrats are awakening from their dreamlike state of pure political intoxication.

Democrats guzzled Kool-aid, willingly donned balloon hats, and did the Obama wave in unison at the inauguration on the National Mall. Now, two years later, the high has worn off, and like a group of shocked Milli Vanilli fans, Democrats are finding out that Barry can’t keep time with the music, let alone lip-sync the words to “Blame it on the Rain.”

Experience tells us that nothing remediates an ignorant choice faster than admitting stupidity and joining the ranks of those who told you so. Thus, some of Obama’s biggest defenders are now morphing into his harshest critics. The same Democrats who wept uncontrollably on Election Day are now attempting to salvage sullied reputations with revelatory admissions embedded in helpful counsel.

In fact, in anticipation of a bloodbath, many from the president’s own party opted to disembark from the Obama Express prior to Election Day. Immediately afterward, Obama left a referendum-wreck at the side of the road and shoved off for Asia, hoping to distract the world from the casualties strewn all over the American political landscape. It didn’t work. In fact, Obama’s Asian adventure shed further light on the man with the teleprompter’s ineptitude, inexperience, and growing inability to be taken seriously both at home and abroad.

As a result, voices from both the left and the right of the Democratic Party have stepped forward to offer unsolicited guidance. Coming from two extreme sources are admissions that while Barack Obama may talk a good game, when it comes to delivering on promises made on the back of soaring discourse, the embodiment of “Yes We Can” hasn’t and, in all probability, can’t.
Three of the more diametrically opposed pundits offering suggestions are the thoughtful and rational Doug Schoen and the always intellectually honest Pat Cadell. The other is Michael Moore, the bloated socialist/millionaire Cuban-health-clinic-enthusiast in a baseball cap.

Recently, on the smarmy and infuriating “Real Time with Bill Maher” show, Michael Moore expressed his view that “being able to vote for Barack Obama” was “certainly one of the best days [he] had in the last decade.” Moore did not explain why pulling the lever for Barack was the highlight of a decade, or what prompted him to do so. Evidently, Michael lives a very dull life because, except for partisanship or first-black-president guilt, there’s no logical explanation of why any rational person would choose to vote for Barack Obama.

However, a glimmer of prudence did emerge on “Real Time” when Moore, after expressing gratitude to Obama for providing one good day out of 3,650, offered him a suggestion: “With all due respect…please take off your pink tutu because it’s time to put on the boxing gloves and go fighting for the people.”

Contrary to the rest of the idiocy verbalized on the liberal panel — including comments from Maher about estate tax incentives to “kill grandma” and liberal director Nora Ephron, whose political opinions are in worse shape than her aging neck, lamenting conservative opposition to millionaires paying higher taxes — Moore’s comment was quite telling.

Couched in a suggestion, Moore unintentionally admitted that liberals voted for a guy in a pink tutu. Moore’s statement indicated that up until that point, Obama voters hadn’t noticed the tulle ballet skirt obscured by the podium. Such an admission is more a reflection on liberal voters than on the president. Did no one, including Michael Moore, bother to investigate anything other than the image Obama projected from the neck up? If it were physically possible, could it be that even the corpulent Michael Moore was buoyed by something other than common sense?

Moore’s observation indicated that although the president is expert at verbal pirouettes, the hero of the people is proving ill equipped to deliver on the left’s dream of a “piece of the pie” in the sky of Shangri-La. No wonder liberals are peeved. It must be humiliating for a leftist über-intellectual/University of Michigan-Flint dropout like Michael Moore to realize that on his most memorable day to date, he was handily duped by a guy in pink tights.

While Michael Moore suggests putting on “boxing gloves” and entering the ring for “hand-to-hand” combat-based solutions, Cadell and Schoen suggest the opposite. The two trusted Democrats pollsters nowconfess, “Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by [Obama’s] rhetoric and purpose.” However, Pat and Doug now present Obama with quite a different solution: Retain the tutu, skip the boxing gloves, and forget about running again in 2012.

In a Washington Post op-ed piece entitled “One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012,” Cadell and Schoen suggest that Obama act out of character, “[s]eize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and … galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made … putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones. To that end, [Cadell and Schoen] believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.”

Michael Moore is predictable. However, the measured, sane, and patriotic Doug’s and Pat’s emphatic proposition raises the question: How were two rational, clear-thinking men hoodwinked into voting for a charlatan like Obama in the first place?
Schoen’s and Cadell’s article suggests that Obama has neither taken the “high ground” nor — beyond smoke machines and Styrofoam ionic columns — succeeded in retaining the imagination of the nation. Moreover, the strategists insinuate that by running for president in the first place, the only thing neophyte Obama managed to accomplish was the detrimental placement of “personal and political interest” ahead of national welfare.

Schoen and Cadell cite Obama’s disingenuous statement to Diane Sawyer: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” From the looks of things, neither is likely. Nonetheless, Pat and Doug honestly believe that Obama “now has a chance to deliver on that idea,” which poses yet another question, this time for the pollsters: Why would Obama, who failed to deliver anything thus far, suddenly exhibit the ability, let alone the wherewithal, to begin now?

Moore beckons to the more radical Obama to come forth, and Schoen and Cadell plead with the president to agree to step off the stage, tutu and all. A ditzy Michael Moore viewing the president as a flitty ballerina while respected Democrat pollsters recommend that the former messiah’s answer to the nation’s woes would be to throw in the teleprompter and return to Chicago provides Obama with little political sanctuary.

Advice offered a failed liberal president from two ends of the Democratic spectrum indicates that an admission disguised as a suggestion, in due time, possesses the power to persuade even the mulish Barack Obama to either willingly step aside or be ousted by a 2012 successor supported by his own party.

The Last Word

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

President Obama yields to no one, bows his knee to nothing and when criticized, typically rebounds by sending detractors an undeniable communiqué. In fact, Obama oftentimes reacts to public disapproval by wresting control back from what cannot be controlled through defiant words or actions.

According to Democrat pollster Doug Schoen, the upcoming midterm election is an obvious referendum on President Obama’s abysmal job performance. The poll Schoen cites indicates “56 percent say [Obama] does not deserve to be re-elected.” If accurate, Barack is about to receive a major pummeling at the ballot box, but plans to reestablish his supremacy by indulging in a pricey trip to India.

Instead of humbly acquiescing to voter abhorrence of liberal policies, elitist lifestyle exhibitions, and retaliatory politics, Obama scheduled an extravagant post-election Asian trip, which can only be interpreted as a defiant middle finger intended for the mutineers, compliments of the Commander in Chief.

While Republicans bask in the glow of post-election victory, the President plans to haughtily dismiss the rebuke. One day after the start of Diwali, India’s five-day celebratory festival of lights, Obama’s American contingency will arrive in India amidst fireworks.  The entourage will shut down the city and “restrict traffic movement …[on] arterial roads in south Mumbai” and, without speaking a word, Barack will simultaneously dispatch an insolent message to America.

Although criticized in the past for frivolous, insensitive exhibitions of indulgence, Obama feels no shame in taking the Presidential posse on an extravagant Indian adventure to poverty-stricken Mumbai. While Americans suffer the effects of double-digit unemployment, Obama’s visit is being touted as a business venture hoping to “spur trade between the United States and this potentially lucrative market of 1.2 billion people.”

“In terms of protocol and logistics,” Obama’s opulent stopover is purported to be the largest ever taken by a U.S. President. Diplomacy will be exercised in true Michelle Obama Costa Del Sol fashion as travel accommodations include booking “800 rooms” in Mumbai’s most lavish hotels. According to New Delhi media, Obama’s visit will cost approximately 15 lakhs an hour, which converts into $33,677.55 in USD,and will end up costing $1,616,522.40 for two days.

Regardless, with 60% disapproving of the President’s performance on the economy and one election cycle shy of being sent back to Chicago, the Obama India trip “tonnage” includes:  “40 aircraft…Air Force One…six armored cars, the Barack Mobile Cadillac…two Marine One choppers and 30 sniffer dogs.” In addition to employing a personal chef to “ensure [Obama’s] food is not spiked,” outside the Taj Mahal Hotel U.S. Navy ships and Indian vessels will patrol the waters on 24-hour missile surveillance.

Along with naval deployment, multitudinous aircraft, and a convoy of 45 motor vehicles, the President’s protective visual aid will be carefully packed into the cargo bin. At the Indian Parliament the pompous one is scheduled to deliver a typical Obama script recitation, which will likely include inflammatory innuendos aimed like arrows straight at the heart of a rebellious American electorate.

As an aside, even India noticed the peculiarity of Barry’s inordinate teleprompter dependence. In anticipation of the American President’s visit, the Indian media remarked: “Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual – not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.” Acting the part of a potent world leader while clinging to an electronic cue card for reassurance does pose somewhat of a dichotomy.

Even so, as Harry Reid packs to move back to Searchlight and Nancy’s hands are pried from an oversized gavel, while vacationing in India Barack and family will juggle being feted like monarchs at “the National Centre for Performing Arts (NCRA)” with commemorating the brutal Mumbai attacks at the Police Gymkhana 26/11 Memorial.

President Obama will also tour Mani Bhawan, the nexus of Mahatma Ghandi’s political activities, while back at home Marco Rubio adjusts to the idea of representing Florida. As an added benefit, much like Clinton’s infamous Normandy crosses-in-the-sand photo op, having an opportunity to reverently place a wreath on Mahatma’s grave at Mani Bhawan could divert the world’s attention from the political shiner Obama is sure to be sporting.

Then again, the trip to Hindustan will not be all parliamentary addresses, memorials, or afternoons taking in the Symphony Orchestra of India.  In fact, possibly shod in the high-priced sneakers similar to those she wore to a DC food pantry, the First Lady plans to venture into Kamathipura’s red light district at the special request of an NGO human rights/social justice organization.  While there, Michelle will spend quality time with streetwalkers.

Pundits agree that “The scale and cost of the visit is certain to provoke criticism from Mr. Obama’s Republican foes in the U.S. at a time when the country is mired in economic difficulties, with unemployment standing at nearly 10 percent.” Barack could care less. Given the fact that a Democrat rout is predicted, this in your face, multimillion-dollar trip can only be interpreted as Obama administering a retaliatory counter punch

Nevertheless, while bestowing on America the single digit salute, Obama likely will reiterate his core conviction that “America has its roots in the India of Mahatma Ghandi,” and how important it is “to reflect on his message of non-violence, which continues to inspire people and political movements across the globe.”

Thus, it could be that President Obama believes “block-booking” the sumptuous Taj Mahal Hotel is the best way to reestablish Ghandi-inspired global standing.  On the other hand, it could be that after enduring a crushing electoral reproof three days prior, an exorbitant post-election digitus impudicus may be Barack Obama’s way of having the last word.

%d bloggers like this: