Speaking of "Macaca" Moments, Rep. Pete Stark(D-CA)has yet another mental meltdown when speaking to a group of his constituents. Michelle Malkin has the full 9 minutes of Stark raving madness but highlights the money quotes that can be seen in the video below:
At his latest encounter at a town hall, Stark Raving Mad mocks Bay Area constituents expressing outrage at our lax immigration policies. To a member of the northern California Minutemen, Steve Kemp, Stark snarks:
“Who are you going to kill today?”
In response to concerns about violence at the porous, unsecured border, Stark retorts:
Stark replaced Charlie Rangel as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after Rangel was forced to relinquish the gavel. Stark has had his own run-ins with the Office of Congressional Ethics but was cleared despite his bizarre and belligerent behavior during the investigation. Stark represents a fairly liberal district in the San Francisco Bay area that continues to re-elect Stark despite a history of outlandish behavior. There is only one way to wrestle that gavel from Stark's hands, we're only 125 days away from making that happen.
Carol's Closet has a report on stark-raving Democrat Alan Grayson caught in a game of dirty pool to ensure his re-election. Unlike Stark, Grayson is quite vulnerable in November - a fact that is likely motivating his efforts to take the election in any sleazy underhanded way he possibly can.
Via Memeorandum
Democrats are desperate to control the media narrative hoping they can stave off annihilation in November. Their latest efforts include a call for action from their new media army to seek out and destroy Republican candidates by uncovering their "Macaca" moments. The Accountability Project is touted as a "grassroots, volunteer project to hold Republican candidates accountable for their claims, their public statements, and their campaign tactics." Never mind the big old beam in their eyes, Democrats will save the American people from any old Republican speck they can find.
Meanwhile beams are protruding from the eyes of Democrats everywhere. Ed Morrissey catches the amateur president Obama in an Obamateurism nearly every day. Jim Geraghty takes a stroll down memory lane and finds a few moments Democrats would prefer to forget. Frankly, a complete tour of Democratic "Macaca" moments since they gained control of Congress in 2006 and all branches of government since 2008 would require more pages than all the Democratic pieces of legislation combined.
Just in the last day or so, Democrats have added to their growing tome of gaffes. Someone let Joe Biden loose in a custard shop, hilarity and snarky-sniping ensues:
When Democrats in power aren't busy sticking their foot in the custard, they frequently suffer from amnesia as does this Obama aide in today's New York Post:
As the former public-affairs executive for Service Employees International Union Local 1199, Patrick Gaspard earned $37,191 in carried-over pay while on the White House payroll.
He failed to disclose the income on financial-disclosure forms, Politico reported. Where arrangements for payment by a former employer must be listed on the form, he checked a box indicating he had nothing to report.
I guess he forgot about that $37,191 in Union money or better yet, maybe Turbo-Tax made him do it.
What would a day be like without someone in the Democratic leadership or one of their aides making some disparaging and misleading statement about Tea Party people? An aide to Senator Claire McCaskill steps up to do the dirty work today with a comparison between tea party participants and Hitler's brownshirts:
"Someone said 'brownshirts'...People got offended with that," Burns said. "But if you look at history, when Hitler took over Germany, he did it just that way: disrupting meetings, screaming -- and then it got violent. But they were always a minority."
McCaskill was embarrassed by her aide and issued a hasty apology to her constituents. Fortunately McCaskill doesn't have to face re-election in this anti-Democrat midterm environment where her votes for the Obama/Pelosi agenda will have more influence on voters than the unbearably stupid comments from one of her aides. Democrats may prefer to focus on the specks they hope might distract voters from their failures to govern but they leave themselves wide open to voters determined to "yank the plank" so many Democrats chose to walk instead.
A good Friday morning laugh to start the day. No there is nothing new on the Crazed Sex Poodle, formerly known as Al Gore. Politico had this video posted and it has gotten 20,000 views in a few hours. This is possibly the most honest political ad you will ever watch. If only all politicians would freely admit that all their motives were ulterior:
Some 30% in the poll said they "do not really relate'' to Mr. Obama. Only 8% said that at the beginning of his presidency. Fewer than half give him positive marks when asked if he is "honest and straightforward.'' And 49% rate him positively when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities,'' down from 70% when Mr. Obama took office and a drop of 8 points since January.
Just 40% rate him positively on his "ability to handle a crisis," an 11-point drop since January. Half disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the oil spill, including one in four Democrats.
"As a Democrat and as a woman, I am disappointed in him," said poll respondent Melissa Riner, a 42-year-old law clerk from Mesa, Ariz. Referring to the oil spill, Ms. Riner added, "I don't think he's handling it. He doesn't seem to be doing anything. He just talks."
James Ciarmataro, a 23-year-old stay-at-home dad from Macomb, Mich., said it was difficult to relate to Mr. Obama, because the president is "eating steak dinners at the White House and playing golf" while the country is suffering.
Imagine the disappointed faces at NBC and MSNBC when they read these grim reviews of the One that sends a tingle through the liberal legs of Chris Matthews and crew. Not to worry, borrowing bathtub boy's scuba gear Tingles Matthews attempts an "underwater" rescue operation that would make the notoriously liberal General Stanley McChrystal proud:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: It may have been done that way but the President may benefit here. There is a question that has been raised in this handling of the oil spill – about the chain of command and executive authority. And here's a chance for him and somewhat in a way or somewhat in a personnel manner to insist on his role as commander in chief. In a way that hasn't been so clear during this whole oil spill matter. BP has been the front institution, not the United States government, in this whole horror down in the gulf and I think its hurt the President's standing.
I don't know about you but all my doubts about his leadership are erased. The thin-skinned POTUS fires the General he appointed and now it's time to move over Abe Lincoln - Barack Obama is back and better than ever.
Politico prepares the way for Obama's space in the history books providing a readers with The tick-tock: How President Obama took command of the McChrystal situation. You would think they were detailing the timeline of events leading up to a secret showdown with the Iranian leadership or something. Obama doesn't confront those enemies though - just the liberal Generals who think "Rolling Stone" a sufficiently war-friendly publication in which they can spill their doubts about the Progressive paragon Barack Obama.
McChrystal is now an afterthought, a hapless victim of the "brilliant" and "diabolically clever" Barack according to Joe Klein. Klein evidently got the "brilliant" memo and adds the "diabolically clever" bit all on his own. Klein unleashes the nearest thesaurus and has a veritable adjective Mardi Gras as he paints a picture of an event set to answer all those timeless questions about Democratic leadership and the military:
It was the nature of McChrystal's blunder that made the reascension of Petraeus inevitable. It was the insular, locker-room puerility of McChrystal's team, spewing in a recent Rolling Stone article — the stone-cold belief that they had all the answers; that the civilians in charge, especially those who were members of the Democratic Party, were just a bunch of feckless chin pullers — that made the incident so dangerous; it cut far too close to the bone. It raised timeless questions about civilian authority over the military in wartime and a nagging one that has shadowed American politics since Vietnam: whether Democrats are too soft, too removed from the realities of military life, to pursue an effective national-security policy.
In one fell swoop Klein recreates the whole "Team of Rivals" narrative the media loved so much at the outset of the Obama presidency:
And that is why the Petraeus appointment is at once brilliant and clever — because his prickly relationship with the President has been the symbolic heart of this problem, and now it will take center stage, in Washington and on the battlefields of Afghanistan. How it is resolved, if it is resolved, will determine the fate of Obama's presidency.
Klein carefully avoids the fact the prickliness in the relationship was entirely on the President's part. Of course it is resolved, Obama no longer needs to undermine Petraeus' success in Iraq to win the election. He won as we are reminded endlessly. If anything Obama's brilliant choice was a tacit admission his demagoguery of the Surge was - how shall I say it - bullshit. Klein must know this because the rest of his piece goes to lengths to cast doubts on the counterinsurgency strategy as key to the success in Iraq while he builds to the "real question, whether this Democratic President and the military, symbolized by Petraeus, can make the adjustments necessary to live with each other." Is there any doubt who would be portrayed by the media as unable to make the necessary adjustments?
Klein, Matthews and the rest of the fawning media will never let this President fail without a fight. It should be interesting to watch what they do with Obama's polling numbers over the next few weeks. No doubt any downturn will be rationalized while any minor uptick will be proof of Obama's brilliance. Mission Accomplished.
NBC News is reporting citing Pentagon sources that General Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his command in Afghanistan. Obama is set to give a speech in just a few minutes addressing the subject of McChrystal's controversial statements in the soon to be released issue of Rolling Stone.
Stay tuned... AP is confirming
UPDATE: Petraeus taking command is good news though one has to wonder how many Democrats who pilloried Petraeus with derogatory names such as "General Betray Us" can look themselves in the mirror.
More: Petraeus taking command is a huge step down for him but seems in-line with a man of his character to put the mission above all else. Petraeus will have to overlook a lot from the Dem crew in DC. A stroll down memory lane is revealing. Remember Obama's questioning of Petraeus? Here is the shortened version: "it was really the Sunni Awakening - the Surge didn't work."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, opened her questioning of Petraeus and Crocker with the standard "I honor you for your service." And then she let the two of them have it.
"You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy" in Iraq, Clinton said. "Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."
Clinton added that "any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside."
God bless General Petraeus who is indeed a better man than his civilian superiors.
Thus Obama's "annus horribilis maximus" got just a tad worse while giving an unexpected break in favor of an ailing economy in the Gulf:
A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.
Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium.
President Barack Obama's administration has halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.
Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.
The 22-page ruling is online though I haven't had the chance to read through the whole thing yet. I can tell you that you don't have to go further than page 3, however, to find the Court calling out the "misrepresentations" in the Executive Summary issued by Secretary Salazar's office:
In the Executive Summary to the Report,the Secretary recommends “a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs.” He also recommends “an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.” Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that “the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a "misrepresentation.” It was factually incorrect. Although the experts agreed with the safety
recommendations contained in the body of the main Report, five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling. They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review, they complain, and was never agreed to by them. A factor that might cause some apprehension about the probity of the process that led to the Report.
In other words the fact the executive summary played fast and loose with the facts there was little proof the recommendations of the report had any merit. Michelle Malkin also notes the Court's attention to the obvious duplicity in the report and adds:
Takeaway from decision: “After reviewing the Secretary’s Report, the Moratorium Memorandum, and the Notice to Lessees, the Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium.
It's funny how lines from certain movies always come to mind when describing the Obama administration. No, I am not thinking of memorable Wizard of Oz quotes in this instance, though I am sure there must be one that is fitting. Lately I have been reminded of the line from the movie "Terms of Endearment" when Emma, describes the difficult task of raising children, "As hard as you think it is, you end up wishing it were that easy." A variation of that line comes to mind, as I often think when it comes to this administration as bad as I thought they were going to be I end up wishing they were that good.
The latest "flap" comes from an obviously discontented General McChrystal who has obviously become so frustrated with the group he let his hair down and dishes in a forthcoming issue of Rolling Stone Magazine:
An article out this week in “Rolling Stone” magazine depicts Gen. Stanley McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to convince even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war…
McChrystal himself is described by an aide as “disappointed” in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops…
If Eikenberry had the same doubts [about McChrystal's strategy], McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.
McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.
“Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so.”
That clatter you hear is the sound of all hell breaking loose at the White House. "Within hours after today's Rolling Stone story broke, McChrystal was called by the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were not happy." I'll bet they were not happy. McChrystal issued an apology post haste. Though he didn't apologize for his poor judgment in voting for Obama, the apology was intended to assuage the bruised egos of "the national security adviser, Jim Jones, a retired general, a "clown" who is "stuck in 1985," as well as Vice President "Bite Me" Biden. Ouch.
McChrystal saved the bulk of his ire for Eikenberry as the two have a long history of trouble between them as Ambinder explains at length:
Eikenberry's beef with McChrystal goes back to the time when McChrystal was the Pope. The Pope is the head of the Joint Special Operations Command. The nickname goes back to an off-hand remark that Janet Reno made after failing to obtain information from JSOC after the raid at Waco. (JSOC operators were on the ground but did not assist in the raid itself.) She called JSOC the Vatican. And the head of the Vatican is ... the Pope.
At some point, I think in 2005, one of McChrystal's task-forces-that-didn't-really-exist did something in Afghanistan that angered Eikenberriy, who was in command of the region at the time. The two men exchanged words and built mutual mistrust. They have not worked well together ever since. McChrystal blames Eikenberry for trying to influence policy by leaking information and by impeding McChrystal's efforts to build better relationships with Afghanistan's fragile government.
During the strategy review, Eikenberry didn't think McChrystal's surge could work. He told the White House that contractors would have to pick up the slack for years to come. McChrystal insisted that he could execute his COIN strategy with a heavy presence of special operations forces ... and be out in 18 months (i.e, troops would begin to be drawn down). The White House ultimately sided with McChrystal.
But there were tensions. Even though McChrystal voted for Obama and told him so during their first meeting, he sensed that a number of senior White House aides didn't really believe that the former commander of the military's special missions unit during the Bush-Cheney years was suddenly on their side. National Security Adviser James Jones, who is a bit of cipher to McChrystal's team, may or may not have been one of these aides. No one in the West Wing bought all that liberal internet chatter about JSOC's alleged crimes -- but no one really didn't buy it, either.
What a mess. Though McChrystal will surely take the heat for insubordination, one has to wonder what thought, if any, Obama and his cronies gave to carrying out this mission in Afghanistan. The tensions between McChrystal and Eikenberry were deep and there was an obvious sense of mistrust towards McChrystal on the part of the new administration. If Obama's aides doubted McChrystal's allegiance why was he given charge of what Obama called the "real war" in Afghanistan? Bizarre.
This is bound to make the headlines over the next few days as the Rolling Stone article hasn't even hit the newstands yet. Fasten your seat belts, this one doesn't appear to have a happy ending coming any time soon.
Scroll down for UPDATE Quite Rightly posted a transcript of the video below showing Senator John Kyl, who met with constituents at a town hall meeting sponsored by the North Tempe Tea Party explaining to his constituents why Obama refuses to secure the borders. The meeting was held June 18, shortly after news was broken that the administration intended to challenge Arizona's immigration law 1070 in court. Senator Kyl responded to a question from an audience member questioning Senator Kyl about the legal challenge. Senator Kyl explained President Obama's opposition to securing the border:
I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us . . . and we had a discussion about this. . . . Here’s what the president said:
“The problem is,” he said, “if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”
In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.
Now, I explained, “You and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation. It also has potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform.” I said, “You’d be surprised. Maybe you don’t think that there would be any more incentive for comprehensive reform. But I’m not so sure that that’s true.” In any event, it doesn’t matter. We’re supposed to secure the border.
But that’s why it isn’t being done. They frankly don’t want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty.
It's entirely debatable whether there would be support for comprehensive reform once the borders were secured. Both parties want to be seen as catering to the growing Hispanic voting block. The problem for politicians, however, is simple - the American people want the borders secured before any plan for immigration reform becomes law. This is hardly asking a lot. As Kyl points out, it is the responsibility of those elected to govern to secure the border and protect the citizens of Arizona who are bombarded with the crime that spills across its border.
Democrats won, or so they keep reminding us. There is no excuse for their dereliction of duty here but who will hold them accountable? We have that opportunity in November folks but beyond that it should become common knowledge the Democrats have no intention of securing the border. Let voters everywhere keep that in mind when AG Holder at the behest of the President sue the state of Arizona for attempting to enforce the borders Democrats refuse to secure.
See the entire video here but I have embedded the transcripted portion below:
UPDATE:
Predictably the White House has issued a denial that all but calls Senator Kyl a liar, then proceeds to affirm the validity of Kyl's statement:
The White House Monday rejected Kyl's account.
“The President didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told ABC News. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the President has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”
Senator Kyl stands by his statement:
Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said the senator stood by his account, which he said was "about as straight forward as you can get."
"There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfeiffer was not one of them. Senator Kyl stands by his remarks, and the White House spokesman’s pushback that you must have comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border only confirms Senator Kyl’s account."
Via Hot Air
Greta Van Sustern had Governor Jan Brewer on as a guest last night to react to news the Obama Justice Department would sue Arizona to block their immigration law. Sec of State Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag in Ecuador before the news was delivered to the American people or the people of Arizona. Brewer was stunned hoping that Obama would instead follow through on points made in their "very cordial" meeting held just two weeks ago:
Brewer, for her part, has previously said the president has ignored her requests to work together on border security issues and is ignoring its responsibilities along the border.
The Arizona governor spoke to reporters following the meeting, which she described as "very cordial."
"I am encouraged that there is going to be much better dialogue between the federal government and the state of Arizona," she said. "I hope that's not wishful thinking, I hope it's positive thinking."
Brewer said the president told her officials would head to her state in the next two weeks to see the situation firsthand and to consider how best to deploy federal border security resources. Mr. Obama recently announced plans to request from Congress $500 million and deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to improve southern border security, and Brewer said Mr. Obama indicated the majority of that money and troops would go to Arizona.
Asked about the possibility of a lawsuit, Brewer said the president indicated that he did not want to discuss the matter and "brushed over a little bit." She said she got the impression he is leaving the decision to the Department of Justice.
Looks like Governor Brewer was engaged in wishful thinking if she truly believed there would be better dialogue let alone any kind of serious assistance from the Obama administration. Instead they are going to get the lawsuit :
As Hotsheet reported yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a television interview in Ecuador this month that the Obama Justice Department "will be bringing a lawsuit" against the controversial Arizona immigration measure signed into law earlier this year.
The comment was striking because both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had said only that the administration was considering a suit. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called Clinton's comments stunning and added that "to learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous."
It was unclear yesterday whether Clinton's comments were simply a prediction or mistake or whether instead she was getting ahead of a planned announcement by the administration.
Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.
It seems Hillary may have gotten ahead of the planned announcement if the Justice Department has truly not finished building its case against the Arizona law. Brewer has every right to be outraged by this completely incompetent maneuver by Obama and his Justice Department. Good luck to Obama and his fellow Dems with a lawsuit against a law that has broad support from the American people. Meanwhile support for the re-election of Obama is looking pretty bleak.
Via Jay Cost who writes in a piece titled, "The Pulpit of a Bully," comes this startling bit of information uncovered in a report at Politico:
EXCLUSIVE: Phil Schiliro, the White House congressional liaison, has told the Senate to aim to take up an energy bill the week of July 12, after the July 4 break (and after the scheduled final passage of Wall Street reform). Kagan confirmation will follow, ahead of the summer break, scheduled to begin Aug. 9. The plan is to conference the new Senate bill with the already-passed House bill IN A LAME-DUCK SESSION AFTER THE ELECTION, so House members don’t have to take another tough vote ahead of midterms.
A White House aide has the official word: “President Obama reiterated his call for comprehensive energy and climate legislation to break our dependence on oil and fossil fuels. In the coming weeks he will be reaching out to Senators on both sides of the aisle to chart a path forward. A number of proposals have been put forward from Members on both sides of the aisle. We're open to good ideas from all sources, and will be working with Senators on a comprehensive proposal. The tragedy in the Gulf underscores the need to move quickly, and the President is committed to finding the votes for comprehensive energy legislation this year.”
FACTS OF LIFE: How many crises of historic proportions are going to require unprecedented government action? Stimulus, Wall Street, health care, troops, energy: These are all big issues, but at what point will people think the president is just trying to spook people into massive government action?
Cost notes the 51st Congress was known as the Billion Dollar Congress, after the Republican-run legislature "raided the Treasury in an effort to pay off all its supporters." Cost suggests the 111th deserves the moniker the Trillion Dollar Congress. After passing an enormously unpopular health care bill despite the protestations of the American people, the Trillion Dollar Congress intends on pulling the same shenanigans by passing a huge energy package in the lame-duck session before the 112th Congress is convened . Wither the will of the people who would have rendered their verdict on this Congress during the November midterm elections. We all know how they value the will of the American people.
President "Never Waste a Crisis" Obama set the stage for this in his widely panned speech from the Oval Office Tuesday night. Though the speech is replete with references to the urgent need to transition from fossil fuel, this section seems excerpted from his many health care speeches with only the subject changed to energy:
Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.
Read the rest if you have trouble remembering the formulaic speeches Obama used to set the stage before Congress pulled every single trick imaginable to pass the health care law. All the pieces are in place just as they were for health care, a House-passed legislation that won't be deemed dead until a new Congress convenes in January 2011, a Congress led by the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a band of merry thieves in Congress intent on imposing a New World Order whether the American people like it or not. Damn the law let the peasants shout Viva il Duce.
Every Republican challenger ought to be demanding that their Democrat incumbent opponent pledge in writing that they will not pass an energy bill in a lame-duck session if they are defeated.
Jay Cost warns such bullying will haunt Obama in the 2012 presidential election That is all well and good, but heaven knows the extent of the damage he will have inflicted until he finally usurps Jimmy Carter's place in the annals of failed One-Term Presidents.
Anne Leary linked a new RNC ad on her blog and in response to a great post by Sherry Antonetti over at Potluck. Sherry had a few things to say after reading Obama's speech. Here is a sample:
Remember the miles of boom offered early on, sitting in warehouses in Maine? It’s still there. Again, we don’t know why.
Raise your hand if you remember the Governors and legislators of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama were all begging for the Federal government to lift restrictions which they had not so that the states could act. Me. I remember that.
Those national guards that the Federal government mobilized? They’re hampered by the lack of a chain of command. So far only 1400 of the 17,500 authorized have been engaged. Why? The Coastguard and BP have to okay the missions. So because there are bureaucratic layers, the mess sits and the resources both causing the problem and capable of solving it, lay idle, wasting.
Now. Raise your hand if you remember Ken Salazar doing anything.
What? No hands?
Name three things you remember the President did do since April 20th.
Bet they weren’t 1) meet with BP 2) authorize personnel and equipment for the Gulf 3) mobilize the American people to help deal with the crisis.
Bet they were 1) Vacation in Chicago or North Carolina, 2) Golf and 3) Party with Sir Paul.
From Sherry's keyboard to the RNC's ears - so to speak - here is the ad:
Reviews are in on Obama's speech last night and it isn't pretty. Perhaps the most scathing assessment came from Obama's own champion cheerleaders at MSNBC. When you lose Matthews, Olbermann and Fineman Mr President, you've got trouble:
Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."
Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."
Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."
Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."
There is a certain poetic justice that the kharmic gods have decided to heap on Obama a disaster that not only exposes his supreme inadequacy but at the same time proves the old adage, "what goes around comes around." The American people were ahead of Matthews and Olbie, however, in tearing back the curtain to see the great wizard was a one trick pony:
Though Obama has yet to reach the historic lows in approval Bush experienced after nearly 8 years, two wars and a financial collapse, the latest Rasmussen Report poll shows him well on his way. When Bush left office 43% strongly disapproved of his performance. Obama's latest numbers show him neck in neck with Bush on this count, a full 44% strongly disapprove of his performance:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 75% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 12% Strongly Approve and 52% Strongly Disapprove.
Bush hit his lowest numbers after he attempted immigration reform which cost him support among his base. I think we are seeing the cracks in Obama's base but the question remains will they rally to support him or have the rats started to abandon ship never to return. Time will tell
Louisianans polled by left-leaning pollster PPP answer the lingering question, is the Gulf of Mexico oil spill Obama's Katrina yet:
Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.
50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.
Overall only 32% of Louisianans approve of how Obama has handled the spill to 62% who disapprove. 34% of those polled say they approved of how Bush dealt with Katrina to 58% who disapproved.
Brutal, just brutal. Perhaps another speech, scheduled to start any second now will cure Obama's Louisiana blues though I tend to doubt it. There was one winner according to the poll, you can see the newly crowned king of the approval polls in action here.
Live blogging the speech (aka misery loves company) over at Potluck.
Star Magazine has the scoop on the break up of the "Love Story" couple Al and Tipper Gore:
In the June 28 issue of Star, on sale Wednesday, we report that Al and Tipper's breakup didn't come as much of a surprise to one Hollywood player — Laurie David. Star has learned that Al has been having an affair with Laurie, who divorced Seinfeld creator and Curb Your Enthusiasm star Larry David in 2007 amidst reports she was cheating with the caretaker of their Martha's Vineyard summer home.
“Al and Laurie went from friends to lovers," an insider tells Star. "It couldn’t be avoided."
So it was as inevitable as global warming or something.
The Lonely Conservative wonders What Kind of Woman Would Have an Affair With Al Gore? upon seeing the first sign of the siren at Drudge. She follows with the update:
Update: Doug Powers on Twitter: Al doesn’t call it an “affair”; but a “marriage offset” – heh!
Update: Duh! Al had an affair with a fellow traveler.
A close friend of both Al and Tipper Gore's laughed at the report and said there was nothing to it. "It's complete crap," he said.
"The story is completely untrue," Laurie David said in a statement.
"It's a total fabrication. I adore both Al and Tipper. I look at them both as family. And I have happily been in a serious relationship since my divorce."
A Gore spokeswoman said Gore would not comment on the stream of stories about his separation. He normally refuses
Yesterday, The Hill reported on the "offensive" opportunities Democrats have identified as targeted seats to change from "Red to Blue." Even the left-leaning Swing State Project found this bravado a bit much noting, "Or maybe they should be calling it "Keeping Blue Blue." In truth, the DCCC list targets four Republican held seats while the remaining 7 are open seats. Among the seats the DCCC plans to target are HI-01 Charles Djou, MN-06 Michelle Bachmann, MO-08 Jo Ann Emerson, and PA-06 Jim Gerlach.
The latest Public Opinion Strategies poll lets the air out of the patched tires on the "Red to Blue" express. The poll targeted 70 battleground districts including 10 currently held by Republicans. While the DCCC blusters on about their "offensive" strategy, the poll results indicate they have a tough road ahead on offense and defense:
The results are a wake-up call for Democrats whose loses in the House could well exceed 30 seats. In the named-congressional ballot in the 60 Democratic districts, Democrats trail their Republican opponent, 42 to 47 percent, with only a third saying they want to vote to-relect their member. In the top tier of 30 most competitive seats, the Democratic candidate trails by 9 points (39 to 48 percent) and by 2 points in the next tier of 30 seats (45 to 47 percent). On the other hand, the Republican candidates are running well ahead in their most competitive seats ( 53 to 37 percent).
So much for that anti-incumbent mood the media loves to promote. The districts of Djou, Bachmann and Gerlach were included in this group that was running well ahead. Though the poll doesn't give a specific breakdown for each of the districts included in the study, both the Bachmann and Gerlach races are listed as likely Republican according to Cook Political Report. The newly-elected Republican in Obama's home district is listed as toss-up but the newly-anointed "Red to Blue" candidate Colleen Hanabusa was the DCCC's second choice. Hanabusa had been urged to drop from the race for the Democratic nomination.
The poll paints a picture of an electorate that is fired up against Democrats and the failed economic policies of the Obama administration.(see this power point of survey graphs ) These results likely explain why some included in the DCCC's "Red to Blue" program are resorting to the strategy used to elect the poseur Blue Dog candidates in 2006 and 2008. State Senator Joyce Elliott, who is running for the AR-02 seat, is a perfect example:
Also behind a paywall (at the Hotline) is this tidbit that state Sen. Joyce Elliott (D) said she "doesn't know" whether she'd support Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Elliott, who has a liberal reputation, probably has some re-positioning to do to remain competitive in this race, but is acting Pelosi-agnostic really plausible? Even Mike Oliverio eventually backed down from this perch - and he's infinitely more conservative than Elliott.
Even if Democrats were able to pull the wool over a few more eyes with a another faux-conservative they face other hurdles pointed out in the poll:.
The effort by individual campaigns will have to push against walls that seem very hard to move at this point. We tested Democratic and Republican arguments on the economy, health care, financial reform and the big picture for the 2010 election. The results consistently favored the Republicans and closely resembled the vote breakdown. Democrats are hurt by a combined lack of enthusiasm and an anti-incumbent tone.
The Congressional Budget Office calculated in August 2009 that the companies would need $389 billion in federal subsidies through 2019, based on assumptions about delinquency rates of loans in their securities pools. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimated in February that aid could total as little as $160 billion if the economy strengthens.
If housing prices drop further, the companies may need more. Barclays Capital Inc. analysts put the price tag as high as $500 billion in a December report on mortgage-backed securities, assuming home prices decline another 20 percent and default rates triple.
Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones Ratings Co. in Haverford, Pennsylvania, said that a 20 percent loss on the companies’ loans and guarantees, along the lines of other large market players such as Countrywide Financial Corp., now owned by Bank of America Corp., could cause even more damage.
“One trillion dollars is a reasonable worst-case scenario for the companies,” said Egan, whose firm warned customers away from municipal bond insurers in 2002 and downgraded Enron Corp. a month before its 2001 collapse.
The Big Picture thinks the trillion dollar figure is high unless of course banks continue to dump their bad loans into the quasi-governmental boondoggles known as Fannie and Freddie:
That trillion dollar number has a number of challenging assumptions in it. It assumes a large downleg in housing prices, a continuing foreclosure surge, and ongoing unemployment.
My estimates are for about half of that — between $450-500 billion dollars. But with just the right — or wrong — economic policies, bailouts and bad decisions, I wouldn’t rule out a trillion dollar loss. And if we keep allowing banks to dump all of their bad loans onto the GSE’s books, I would raise my odds of a trillion dollars in losses from 25% to 100% . . .
The American people own 80% of the GSE's where banks are dumping their bad loans. Don Surber says Enough is Enough:
We, the people, are tired of what becoming an America with a centralized, government-controlled economy with a perpetual 10% unemployment rate.
Enough.
If it passes, sue and stop it until November 2 swhen the Democratic Congress is voted out of power.
For the second week in a row, Rasmussen Reports shows support for the repeal of ObamaCare at 58% of likely voters. This report was taken after the White House began yet another public relations appeal to sell the plan to voters. Do they seriously think that sales pitch number 5784 will do the trick?
The more we find out about the bill Democrats rammed through Congress, the less we like it. Even the cheerleaders at The New York Times are no longer able to deny the harsh reality that the "sweeping promises" of ObamaCare can not be kept:
In some respects, the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public in the fight over health legislation.
In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to “keep their current coverage if they like it.” It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to “reap the benefits of additional consumer protections.”
Oh so we may not actually get to keep our current plan if we like it after all. Who knew? Presuming the "benefits of additional consumer protections" are not enough to finally convince us to love the law, Democrats appear poised to "reap the benefits" come November.
Every voter in the 2nd Congressional District of North Carolina should see this shocking video of their Congressman Bob Etheridge (D) on his way to a fundraiser featuring Speaker Pelosi. Etheridge evidently has trouble with students asking whether he fully supports the Obama agenda:
So, yeah, Democrats who are up for reelection this November are a bit testy.
Fortunately, Rep. Etheridge isn’t one of those gerry-mandered political welfare queens. According to the Cook Report, his district is an R+2 district. He has a credible opponent. Check her out here
Let’s recap what we saw on this video. A sitting Congressman–a presumed living extension of James Madison and other founding fathers–was asked on a public street whether he supported the President’s agenda. His response was to hit away a video camera and assault a student. The age of Pericles this ain’t.
No, not exactly the age of Pericles, this incident seems more like the harbinger of doom for the "golden age" of Democratic rule. Perhaps Alvin Greene isn't the only Democrat who warrants amental status evaluation, Etheridge doesn't appear to be in full possession of his faculties in this video.
Normally I might suggest the following exchange is proof positive Democrats don't get economics but in this case it may be proof they don't understand simple arithmetic. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) attempts to elicit a response from Fed Chief Ben Bernanke that Republicans who hope to trim the deficit by cutting spending without raising taxes are just plain wrong in that assumption. Instead it is Rep. Connelly who is shown to be wrong in his assumption shared by fellow Democrats that you just can't cut enough from the budget to reverse deficit spending. As Liberty Central notes, "Connolly voted for the ‘stimulus,’ for an increase in the debt limit (to $14.3 trillion) and for a health care bill that will drive the debt up significantly.’ In fact, thanks to people like Congressman Connolly, there is far more spending to be cut than there was just a few years ago."
Connolly doesn't want to look at the spending increases he and his fellow Democrats have put in place. He resorts to the frightening thought of cuts to Homeland Security and National defense instead:
CONNOLLY: I’m telling you, they don’t have an open mind. They have publicly expressed that they do not favor — you know, they’re all for deficit reduction as long as anything having to do with revenue is off the table. Can we get to serious deficit reduction — change that trajectory you talked about — if we eliminate half of the ledger sheet?
BERNANKE: Well, theoretically you could if you cut enough, but it would be very difficult to do that.
CONNOLLY: Is there enough spending to be cut?
BERNANKE: Of course! I mean … [laughs]
CONNOLLY: National defense, homeland security?
BERNANKE: That’s your judgment, that’s the Congress’ judgment. That’s not my judgment.
CONNOLLY: Ah. Um … it must be nice to be an economist.
Doh, you don't have to be an economist to understand the problem with the faulty Democratic assumption raising taxes will automatically increase revenue thereby mitigating the need to cut spending. The prospect that the Bush tax cuts will be sunsetted at the end of this year is already having a stifling effect on the economy. That argument is beyond the scope of Connolly's question though. Connolly and his fellow Democrats have trouble with simple arithmetic. They seem to have mastered addition and multiplication at least as far as growing the size of government is concerned, subtraction and division - not so much:
Jim Treacher has his own unique version of a transcript:
Some dude who isn’t Rosie O’Donnell: The hate speech comes from the fact that Jews left Poland and Germany because they were being killed.
Rosie O’Donnell: Correct.
SDWIRO: And so, hate is inferred when she says, “Go back there.”
Some broad who isn’t Rosie O’Donnell: Oh, that is absurd.
RO: Well, here’s the other thing. Right after World War II, when Jews who did survive the Holocaust went back, they were killed there. Right? Not millions, but thousands of Jews were killed when they tried to go back and reclaim their businesses and their homes. They were killed by, y’know, local people in Poland and in Germany. So, y’know, there’s that historical reference that is in fact true. But now, I think, in the year 2010, y’know, what she was saying was not, “Go back to the ovens.”
Oh What a night. The big winners on this Super Tuesday of midterms: Meg Whitman GOP nomination Governor CA, Carly Fiorina GOP nomination CA Senate, Nikki Haley GOP nomination Governor South Carolina, Sharron Angle GOP nomination Nevada Senate and Blanche Lincoln who held on to the nomination for her Senate seat against a challenge on the left from Bill Halter. Blanche might as well enjoy the victory now because she will surely be defeated in November. Her challenger John Boozman leads her by a whopping 25 points as she heads off to defend her vote for ObamaCare in a state where 72% support repeal of the bill. Bye Bye Blanche.
Other notable winners included Senator Jim DeMint who faces a cake-walk to re-election in South Carolina and locally former Eagles tackle Jon Runyan won the GOP nomination to challenge John Adler for New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District seat. Runyan had no trouble tackling the question of whether he lacked sufficient experience to handle the job:
"People question me all the time about my experience," said Runyan. "They question my experience in politics, and the first thing I always tell them is yes, I have no experience raising taxes over and over. I have no experience increasing the debt in a state."
Runyan seems to have developed a flair for this business. He sounded positively Reaganesque in that response. Though there were many more winners in the primaries held in 12 states, the closely-watched races were dominated by a field of talented Republican women. I am sure Senator DeMint and Mr. Runyan won't mind a little Kool and the Gang in celebration of "Ladies Night:"
First an overview of how out of hand the heckling got when Nancy Pelosi spoke at America's Future Now Conference. After spending a few minutes attempting to understand what the hecklers were chanting, Pelosi is advised by an aid that they should leave as protesters were "throwing stuff."
The hecklers were attacking Pelosi for not being far enough to the left to suit their tastes. The RightScoop has video of a portion of the protest where a group of Code Pink loons are paying homage to Helen Thomas, I presume holding a sign that reads "Stop Funding Israel Terror." The second group protesting created a bizarre scene according to The Washington Post:
"I'm not going to leave," Pelosi said to the audience of several hundred leaders of the progressive movement. "I'm going to deliver my speech. . . . I am going to make my speech over your voices."
The protesters, wearing orange shirts and chanting "Our homes, not nursing homes," did not let up until Pelosi finished her address and left the stage with security guards. The protesters said they were members of ADAPT, an activist group that advocates for disability rights and is fighting for passage of the Community Choice Act. The bill was introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in 2009 but has not advanced out of the Finance Committee. In the House, a similar measure remains in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The act would allow those who are eligible for care in a nursing home to instead receive similar care in their own homes through community-assisted living.
Many of the protesters were in wheelchairs or otherwise disabled, and they held up banners. One protester shouted at Pelosi: "We supported Obama. We supported you. We supported the campaign . . . But we don't want to be taken from our homes."
I don't know who they think would do more for their cause than Pelosi. This group seems to be under the impression there will be money left to care for them in nursing homes though they prefer a community-assisted living program. I am not familiar with the legislation these activists support but it is clear that the left will not be happy unless Obama/Pelosi take the country way over the left-wing cliff:
The left has a message for Barack Obama: Shape up, or we’re shipping out.
A high-profile conclave of progressives, which served as a platform for supporting Obama in years past, opened in Washington on Monday amid growing disenchantment with the president over the Gulf oil spill, health care, jobs, immigration and political deal cutting.
Liberal activists warned that Obama can no longer count on a progressive base that was supposed to protect Democrats from a mass wipeout in the midterms in 2010 and propel him to reelection in 2012.
Let's hope they are serious and carry through on that last threat.
Here is the video of the heckler shouting at Pelosi over health care:
Hot Air has this ironic video clip posted of a speech Obama gave at Kalamazoo Central High School's graduation. Nothing said here is beyond the scope or even entirely appropriate for a high school graduation. Nevertheless, everything seems loaded with irony given who the speaker is. Imagine Barack Obama telling a room full of students to avoid the quick fix in life, the importance of paying your dues etc., etc. Nearly a third of the way through, however, Obama lectures the students on avoiding pointing fingers and shifting blame. Was it me or do I detect a round of applause from students who find the message ironic as well. There was one student who misses all the irony and chooses to take a nap instead. Look for his bobbing and weaving head in the upper right corner of the video near the end. That was the perfect ending:
H/T: Hot Air Headlines
Arthur Laffer predicts more "Hope and Change" on the horizon in today's Wall Street Journal. After nearly ten years of demagoguing the Bush tax cuts as tax cuts for the rich, Democrats may see the law of unintended consequences in action as their "if you see it move tax it" strategy for economic doom meets the sunsetting of Bush tax cuts:
Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.
Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.
Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.
There are already many signs we are headed for the dreaded "double dip." Friday's dismal job report was all but a day of reckoning for Democratic policies that tax and regulate businesses to death. It is one thing to campaign on pitchfork politics channeling outrage at big business and the rich, it is quite another thing to then expect the rich and big business to churn out jobs in response.
As bleak as the economy has been in 2010, Laffer may be right that what little growth we have seen represents a shift in demand from 2011 to 2010. We saw this same shift in demand from the future to the present with the cash for clunkers program Democrats hoped would light a spark under the auto industry. Obama's delayed tax increases may be shifting demand from the future even while the threat of increased regulation chokes off real growth. In contrast, the Reagan tax cuts saw relatively flat growth along with an increase in unemployment while business waited for the tax cuts to take effect before turning on the growth engine. As Laffer points out, the economy then took off "like a rocket:"
But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.
Hope and change 2011 is shaping up to be a real dud. I wonder how much pain must be inflicted on the public to guarantee us real hope that the White House will be Obama free in January 2013?
The New York Times reports on the death of the town-hall meeting, by design of course. Democrats are desperate to avoid the nuclear rage they know exists in the hearts of their constituents after they all but sold their votes to the Obama/Pelosi agenda. The solution Democrats concocted is similar to the famous "Duck and Cover" drills where school children were taught to "assume the fetal position, lying face-down and covering their heads with their hands" in order to survive a nuclear attack:
The sentiment that fueled the rage during those Congressional forums is still alive in the electorate. But the opportunities for voters to openly express their displeasure, or angrily vent as video cameras roll, have been harder to come by in this election year.
If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.
It was no scheduling accident.
With images of overheated, finger-waving crowds still seared into their minds from the discontent of last August, many Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions. The recommendations were clear: hold events in controlled settings — a bank or credit union, for example — or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects.
If ducking under a desk at the local bank or credit union doesn't work, I assume desperate Democrats could opt to put their fingers in their ears while muttering "lalalalalalalala.....I can't hear you!"
Besides the Flyers tying the Stanley Cup Series, that is. David Freddoso reports the Republican candidate for Governor has a hefty lead over Democrat Dan Onorato. The latest Rasmussen survey shows Corbett with 49% while Onorato had the support of 33% of those surveyed. The grim news for Democrats goes beyond the race for Governor though. The truly important races this year will be those that give control over redistricting after the census:
Republicans hold a 30-20 majority in Pennsylvania’s state Senate, whereas Democrats narrowly control the state House, 103-97. If Republicans can pick up four House seats, then a Corbett victory at the top of the ticket gives them control over redistricting, just as they enjoyed in 2001.
In this year’s U.S. House elections, Republicans are finding Pennsylvania a target-rich environment. Among the possible targets: Democratic Reps. Kathleen Dahlkemper, Paul Kanjorski, Mark Critz, Tim Holden, Jason Altmire, Patrick Murphy and Chris Carney, in addition to the open seat left behind by Joe Sestak. (Many of these seats were held by Republicans until 2006, but Republicans were a bit too ambitious with redistricting in 2001 and left them too vulnerable.)
Let's hope the Republicans who did the redistricting in 2001 learned some lessons from that experience. While trying to preserve a strong district for Republican Tim Murphy, they made a mess of the already messy PA 12 Murtha district. Taking bits of Northeast Philadelphia and adding them on to PA8 paved the way for Patrick Murphy to unseat Mike Fitzpatrick in 2006. The good news is Fitzpatrick has another challenge against Murphy this year. More good news, should Republicans gain control over the redistricting this year, they have the potential to knock one Democrat left standing after the midterms. Pennsylvania is expected to lose one seat in Congress and many believe that it will likely be the former Murtha district that disappears.
Via Breitbart
My apologies for the light blogging this past week. It was a busy one and took me a bit by surprise that everything seemed to pile up at once. Here is a post to start the week off on the "right note." As Herman Cain responded, "that's what I'm talking about."
It was his often repeated promise during the campaign, to be a president who could both walk and chew gum, yet 17 months into his presidency Barack Obama is now described as "stumbling and bumbling." The characterization arises upon recent confirmation a leading Democrat was offered, not one but three jobs , to drop from a race for Congress:
But now a series of recent missteps just keeps getting worse for Barack Obama’s political operation, already under fire from inside the party for losing its golden touch.
The second-guessing of the White House political shop — which is coming in part from top House Democrats — was sparked anew late Wednesday by news that the White House tried and failed to coax another Democratic Senate candidate out of making his race by dangling administration jobs in front of him.
In a possible repeat of the Joe Sestak episode in Pennsylvania, insurgent U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado said deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina reached out to him — with a wince-inducing e-mail that is now public — with three possible jobs in September 2009. Obama wanted to keep him out of a race against Sen. Michael Bennet, the White House’s favored candidate.
Taken together, the Sestak and Romanoff cases suggest a White House team that is one part Dick Daley, one part Barney Fife.
What a combination, Dick Daley and Barney Fife. Who knew the man who suggested the oceans would recede and the planet would begin to heal under his watch could fall this far to earth? Alright, we all did. Nevertheless, it is still rather stunning when the admission comes from "top House Democrats." The rats are indeed scampering from the ship my friends:
One senior House Democrat said it is baffling "how one group of people can be so good at campaigning and so bad at politics" — a phrasing nearly identical to that of a second veteran House Democrat who expressed the same sentiment.
Lawmakers say the White House seems capable of handling only one issue at a time — a stunning contrast to the candidate whose campaign promised that he could "walk and chew gum" at the same time in 2008.
Now this senior House Democrat said he's worried that the White House isn't able to handle multiple major challenges.
"They're paralyzed," he said. "It potentially loses the House."
The White House political director is Patrick Gaspard, a former community organizer with long ties to organized labor. But the political operation is heavily influenced by several more senior aides — including Emanuel, Axelrod, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and Plouffe, an outside adviser who recently re-engaged with Obama political operations after writing a memoir celebrating his role in the 2008 campaign.
If Emmanuel, Axelrod, Gibbs and Plouffe are involved, Obama can't be far behind. This is the team that took him from freshman Senator to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Moreover, this is his Chicago posse who along with Valerie Jarrett have greatest access and influence over the One. It seems you can take the team out of Chicago but not the Chicago out of the team. That this group is unable to pull the same tactics in 2010 they used successfully in 2008, is testament to this incompetent administration's inability to walk while they chewed on a lousy economy, a massive oil spill, a health-care overhaul that no one wanted along with a host of other problems around the world. Who knew they wouldn't be able to pull it off? Alright, we all did.
Via Breitbart
Just the thing to come back to after Memorial Day Weekend. Nancy Pelosi is spreading the gospel according to ...em, Nancy Pelosi:
"The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.
“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”
Hate to break it to you Nancy, but I think how you measure up may have a little something to do with the policies you promoted that were driven by the abortion industry. Cafeteria Catholics like Pelosi fill the Word with whatever they want but that doesn't mean any of that measures up. Heaven only knows what Pelosi would pass into law in the name of her devotion to the liberal ideology she worships. Frankly that thought makes me shudder:
Anyone Joining Me at CPAC?
-
I am a little under the weather, but I hope to rally and make it to CPAC
next week. Anyone joining me? Here is the most update list of events.
Looks l...
