Democratic Pollsters: Obama Should Abandon Run for Second Term

By Michael Catalini
November 20, 2011 | 7:58 p.m.

President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.

“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.

“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.

Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign.

This is not the first time Caddell and Schoen have made this argument. They wrote in November 2010 in The Washington Post that they “do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.”

One comment

  • Rattler Rider

    LMAO, “But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.”

    When did the governed ever have the right to consent to anything?

    Government vs. governmente:
    The issue of seeing ment/mente as a suffix is a bit of a slap in the face because the only use of government is to control the mind. The mente is Latin for mind, like “meant”. Some try to confuse the ‘mente’ with the suffix ment, but, in the political sense, there is no application for governing (steering/controlling) others outside the human mind.

    Many words have a suffix ment. However, in middle and old English government was “govern-mente”. See this Google book search:

    The Oxford English dictionary (OED) defines government as: 1) The action of governing (see senses of the vb.). a.1.a The action of ruling; continuous exercise of authority over the action of subjects or inferiors; authoritative direction or regulation; control, rule.

    2) The manner in which one’s action is governed. a.2.a In physical sense: Management of the limbs or body; movements, demeanour; also, habits of life, regimen. b.2.b In moral sense: Conduct, behaviour; becoming conduct, discretion.

    Main Forms of the Latin word “mind”: Mens, Mentis Gender: Feminine Declension: Third Singular Plural Nominative Mens Mentes Genitive Mentis Mentum Dative Menti Mentibus Accusative Mentem Mentes Ablative Mente Mentibus Vocative Mens Mentes To control “the mind” is ablative singular, therefore, mente.

    OED: [Com. WGer.: OE. mǽnan = OFris. mêna to signify, OS. mênian to intend, signify, make known (MLG., MDu. mênen, mod.Du. meenen), OHG. meinen to have in mind (hence also, to love), to intend, signify, make known, mention (MHG. and mod.G. meinen, now chiefly, to have in one’s mind, to hold or express an opinion); cf. the compounds, OS. gimênian to make known, OHG. gemeinen to proclaim, show forth, bimeinen to decree, destine, dedicate (whence bimeinida testament).

    OED: Forms: 1 mǽnan, 3 mæinen, 3–7 mene, meane, 4 men, meen, 4–5 meene, 4–6 meine, Sc. meyn(e, 5 menne, 6–7 mein, 6– mean. pa. tense. α. 1 mǽnde, 3 mende, 4 meenede, mennede, 4–5 mened, 4–6 Sc. menit, -yt, 5 menyd, 6 Sc. meynd, meind, me(i)nit, 6–9 meaned, (6 Sc. -it); β. 4–5 mente, 4–7 ment, 6– meant. pa. pple. α. 1 (e)mǽned, 5 meened, 6–9 meaned; β. 4–5 yment, 5 imente, imeynt; 4–5 mente, 4–7 ment, 6– meant.

    “Mente” is Latin noun for mind.

    And then that CONSENT Trick, via Contracts, oh the irony of all this governed crap.

    Go to:

    Search for form 56.

    Form 56 is a “Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship” the first line asks for;

    Name of person for whom you are acting {as shown on tax return}.

    Form 56 is a pdf, so scroll down to the bottom, to the “Definitions” section;

    Person. A person is any individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.

    An individual by legal definition is a natural person, while something like a trust is an artificial person. The registration of your birth with the State, your Birth Certificate, and your social security number represent a trust which is an artificial person.

    The Federal Reserve has a lien held on that trust because you are being held as collateral for the National Debt that the bankers created.

    After slavery was abolished {by the thirteenth amendment, not the fourteenth} the “freed” slaves were placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government by the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1;

    Amendment 14 “Citizenship Rights” Ratified 07-09-1868 under very suspicious circumstances;

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Pocket Edition defines a “Privilege” as the following;

    privilege. 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity GRANTED to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty

    legal,adj.1. Of or relating to Law; falling within the province of Law. 2. Established, required, or permitted by Law; LAWFUL. 3. Of or relating to Law as opposed to equity.

    grant,verb. 1. To give or confer (something), with or without compensation. 2. To formally transfer (real property) by deed or other writing. 3. To give permit or agree to. 4. To approve, warrant, or order (a request, motion, etc).

    Remember that the Contract makes the Law, and we have the unlimited right to contract, even if we have no knowledge of making a contract.

    The Declaration of Independence states clearly:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed, —

    {In case your thinking process has become confused here Dick, men are created equal under the contractual agreement being defined here, they are not created equal in reality}

    endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

    en·dow (n-dou)
    tr.v. en-dowed, en-dow-ing, en-dows
    1. To provide with property, income, or a source of income.
    a. To equip or supply with a talent or quality; Nature endowed you with a beautiful singing voice.
    b. To imagine as having a usually favorable trait or quality; endowed the family pet with human intelligence.

    Jurisdiction is a HUGE part of Law. If your Creator {whomever that may be} endowed you with “unalienable rights” what mortal, or mortal institution, has the Lawful authority to strip you of those rights? Like, if you have the “Right to Bear Arms” why do you have to ask the State for permission to exercise that right by obtaining a permit?

    The philosophical idea of a “Creator” is the idea of an “Absolute, Highest-Authority.” That authority “endowed” YOU with unalienable rights, so why are you asking the State for permission to exercise them?

    It is because you are less-than human. Or at least something pertaining to you is.

    Remember that slaves were considered to be animals and “less-than-human.” Even after slaves were freed, when two “freed slaves” got married it was considered “animal husbandry.” The newly freed slaves DID NOT have the same citizenship status as everyone else, the thirteenth amendment freed them and the fourteenth amendment charted out their citizenship status.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed

    Notice the word consent. TO consent means to make a contract.

    And the contract makes the Law.

    You have willingly {yet unknowingly} diminished your own political status by contracting with the State and placing yourself under Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction.

    If you have a Birth Certificate you are contracted with the State.

    If you have a Driver’s License you are contracted with the State.

    If you are a registered Voter you are contracted with the State.

    If you have a gun permit you are contracted with the State.

    If you have a Marriage License you are contracted with the State.

    The idea of Capitis deminutio and having a “strawman” is merely a symptom of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    You do not have a “right” to do something if you have to ask for permission, you have a privilege.

    Thus you are a small corporation within a larger corporation Dick, at least your strawman is.

Leave a Reply