At this point, by most accounts, Romney will secure the Republican nomination by continuing to win a plurality and occasional majority of votes in the remaining contents. Santorum, on the other hand, needs to win two-thirds and Gingrich nearly three-quarters of the remaining delegates.

MSM would have you believe that Saturday was Santorum’s day but a casual glance suggests otherwise with 80% of the contests going to Romney.

Specifically, Romney won Guam unanimously, Mariana Islands with 87% of the vote, a plurality in Wyoming with 16% lead over Santorum, and a plurality in the Virgin Islands.

The net result of Saturday: 40 delegates to Romney, 36 to Santorum, and one each to Paul and Gingrich.

Yesterday did not help Santorum. Sure, he squeaked out a narrow a 51% majority win in Kansas, but consider those losses (which are worth repeating):

• Guam voted unanimously for Romney for 9 delegates (1)
• Mariana Islands voted 87% to Romney for 9 delegates (3)
• U.S. Virgin Islands, St. Croix and St. Thomas gave eight delegates to Romney and one to Paul (2)
• Wyoming, gave Romney a 16% margin over Santorum to win plurality and 7 of 12 delegates (4)

Gingrich and Paul? Virtual no shows in Saturday’s results.

Gingrich’s Southern Strategy has already failed spectacularly. While he won Georgia with a plurality, he completely lost Virginia with 0% of the vote and placed a dismal third in both Tennessee and Oklahoma. Rasmussen Tracking currently shows Gingrich leading by 1% in Alabama but, surprisingly, Romney is up by 8% in Alabama with Gingrich down in third place (6).

At best Gingrich joins Paul as a quixotic presence through the remainder of the primaries. And, personally speaking, Paul has far more to offer in this role than Gingrich.

Is it over for Santorum as well? How does Santorum win 65% of the remaining delegates when, despite media spin, he is failing to even win a plurality, much less a majority at the end of each day’s round of contests.

And, do not forget the 150 automatic delegates (otherwise known as super delegates) (7). They, too, are trending for Romney and, in my opinion, to avoid a brokered convention, will throw their lot behind him if that gives him the nomination.

So, just looking at the math, is it over or how do either Santorum or Gingrich recover?

References:
1. Politico
2. Race 4 2012
3. CNN
4. Examiner
5. Rasmussen Reports
6. Rasmussen Reports
7. Democratic Convention Watch

Oh, wait. No, not really. None of those things have really happened. I was shocked to see The Hill, a site I read regularly for its impartiality, and whose Associate Editor, A.B. Stoddard, I have admired for her intellect. The premise of the article by Peter Schroeder is this:

President Obama, with his electoral fate tied to the economy, must be pleased with the momentum he’s getting.

Just months ago, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded and Democrats worried Obama was following in the footsteps of one-term President Jimmy Carter. Maybe he will, but reports in the last week suggest manufacturing and construction are humming, and Thanksgiving saw record-setting shopping by consumers.

The icing on the cake? A jobs report Friday shaved nearly half a point off the unemployment rate. The 8.6 percent rate was down from 9 percent in October and is the lowest unemployment has stood in two and a half years. (Emphasis mine.)

“Democrats have a very good chance in 2012 and if the economy gets better that’ll help us,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.). “Things are looking a lot better. A lot better.”

“The icing on the cake?” Really? He is promoting this false meme that the artificially reduced Unemployment numbers put forth by the Obama Administration (and which Larry Johnson thoroughly debunks in this post, “Delusional America“)? Is it really good news for Obama that over 300,000 people have given up hope of ever finding a job again? That’s a GOOD thing? In what universe? ObamaMedia World? Evidently. I was just appalled to see a site like The Hill pushing this crock of BS for Obama and the Democrats. This wasn’t an opinion piece, after all, it was allegedly “reporting.” Reporting Democratic talking points, maybe, but not the facts, or reality. At the very BEST, the number is now at 8.9%, and even that is pushing it (according to Eric Bolling on “The Five”).

These kinds of machinations by the Democrats are really mind boggling. It wasn’t so long ago that I would have bought this crap they are selling, being a dyed in the wool Dem and all. But no longer. I simply cannot understand how the Party that claims to be SO compassionate is CELEBRATING people giving up out of despair. How is that good in ANYONE’S world?

This does seem to be the Democrats’ MO, though. This kind of hoodwinking, that is. This instance has to do with the economy, riding a wave of glee on the backs of those who have given up. My good friend, CindyIndie, sent me an article about an issue in Texas that highlights more of this double-speaking machination that seems to be SOP. This one deals with their “concern” for minority presence and leadership in politics. The title gives a hint, “Opportunity Lost To End The White-Guy Streak.” Yes, and that opportunity was lost due to an appeal by the Democrats:

For a while there, before a three-judge federal panel did some three-judge federal paneling, the good and progressive people of Travis County (long self-congratulatory about their goodness and progressivity) seemed en route to ballot-box ethnic history.

[...]

This, of course, was all about Republican self-interest and had nothing to do with wanting to break the white-man streak in Travis County. But facts are facts, and regardless of why it happened (largely to stick it to longtime U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, a longtime white man), the map offered a solid possibility of electing an African American and two Hispanics to a five-person (up from the current three) Travis County U.S. House delegation.

To jack with Doggett, the GOP drew a Hispanic-heavy San Antonio-Austin district in which state Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, had a solid shot at beating Doggett in the Democratic primary. The map also brought into Travis County a multicounty, northward meandering district now represented by Republican Bill Flores of Waco.

The Travis County map also included a greatly rejiggered multicounty district in which former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, a black Republican, had a solid chance of winning. The other districts in the county (also multicounty districts) most likely would have continued to have been represented by Republicans Michael McCaul of Austin and Lamar Smith of San Antonio, who self-identify as white men.

So Travis County could have wound up with two white guys, two Hispanic guys and a black guy. Sure, only one of them (McCaul) now lives in the county, but hey, ethnic history is ethnic history — even if the black guy (Williams) and one of the Hispanics (Flores) are Republicans (a concept that irks some of the local good and progressive.) (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, of course it is obvious why the Democrats claimed this would affect minority representation – because we all know that Black Republicans aren’t really black, and I assume that extends to Hispanic Republicans, too. Much better to have a paternalist White Guy represent your interests – they do so well with that. Just look at Women’s Issues and how well our Congress has handled that (e.g., equal pay is still a dream).

Honestly, I don’t know how in the world the Democrats could have even made this argument to the Panel with straight faces. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe there were lots of winks, guffaws, and “dontcha knows” thrown in there. Beats me. But apparently, it is a mindset that allows them to say these things, much like this pronouncement from The Hill’s “Signs” article:

[snip] Democrats have felt the swing in momentum.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said the president’s chances for reelection have “improved” with the economy, while Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) says voters will see the president has things moving in the right direction.

“The economy is not where we want it to be, but it’s at least stable and slowly but surely going in the right direction,” Cummings told The Hill. (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah, just keep telling yourselves that. I suppose these folks also still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which they are presumably counting on to help ease our massive debt, which is now 100% of our GDP. Yeah, sure, the economy is doing GREAT! Just peachy! Just tell all of those folks who are first time filers for Unemployment, those who dropped out, and those who have lost their homes. I am so certain they will all agree with Levin and Cummings, aren’t you? Cough, cough. Uh huh. Maybe it is time for them to take off their rose colored glasses, and try looking at reality for a change. Just a thought. What do you think?

Cough. I could barely type that out.

I guess he will just have to drag himself off the golf course (he has already played 88 games in his short time in office). Who could forget this iconic picture of the adults in the room when Seal Team Six was going after Osama bin Laden, and Obama sitting there in his golf clothes (photo courtesy of geneveith.com):

So, while Obama is off vacationing in the sun and surf, he admonishes Congress to stay in town and get things worked out for the extended tax cuts, according to The Hill, while blaming the Republicans for everything (forgetting -again – that the Senate is controlled by Dems):

[snip] “We’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen,” Obama said. “They shouldn’t go home for the holidays until they get this done.”

The president called out congressional Republicans for stalling legislation aimed at helping create jobs and spur the economy.

“Unfortunately, too many Republicans in Congress don’t seem to share that same sense of urgency,” he said. “Over the last few months, they’ve said ‘no’ to most of these jobs bills. ‘No’ to putting teachers and firefighters back to work. ‘No’ to putting construction workers back on the job. And this week, they actually said ‘no’ to cutting taxes for middle-class families.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that it is a bit hard to take someone’s admonition to work harder when Obama has consistently been absent from the big decisions. He has been so busy campaigning on our dime, or hiding upstairs in his room, watching sports, that he is HARDLY in any position to criticize the working habits of anyone else. IMHO, that is.

I reckon while the rest of the nation is worrying about paying its bills, or where their next meal is coming from, or how they will be able to get toys for their kids, much less heat their houses, Obama will be kicking back drinking a Mai Tai with a cute little umbrella on the sunny sandy shores of Hawaii with this exhortation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And if you can’t be happy with all that is going on in the nation, just do what Obama does – blame the Republicans!

Open Thread, have at it!

There is a reason why I am mentioning this. I just have to share what one of the owners of the development said while we were chatting. She said she didn’t know where we stood politically, but that for their purposes, they were really glad Obama was president. Why? Because a whole bunch of Americans are buying property down there. People are upset that they may be taxed up to (and above?) half of their income. The developer went on to say that she wasn’t just talking about people who were wealthy, but like a plumber who had worked hard all of his life, and saved his money for his retirement.

I told her that I am okay with being taxed up to 30% (which she thought was exorbitant), but any more than that seemed excessive, especially when there are so many corporate loopholes that need to be plugged, not to mention those who commit tax evasion (like Charlie Rangel and Timmy Geithner, to name two). Since we are regular donors to a number of worthy causes of OUR choice, we want to be able to continue giving to those organizations rather than the government taking half (or more) of our income.

Anyway, I thought that was pretty interesting to hear from her, and telling, too.

Seems those OWSers are still hanging around. Yawn. Glad Philly arrested a bunch of them. How they have gotten so much ink and air time on so vague a message is beyond me, but that’s our media. Go figure.

It’s kinda like the AP story I saw today highlighting the debate flubs of the Republican candidates, “Fact Check: GOP Field Flubs, Big And Small.” I am not suggesting that the media NOT cover these things, of course they should. But if they are going to highlight the GOP flubs, they sure as hell better highlight the DNC flubs, too. Obama easily has as many malapropisms as Bush, though you’d never know it from the MSM. And while this article is focusing on Civics, one could easily focus on Obama’s claim that if Congress won’t act, he will independently of them. Talk about a blatant disregard for the Constitution at best, and ignorance of the three branches at worse. Never mind the Great Lakes in Oregon, or the 57 states, or any number of malapropisms from Obama. Only the GOP flubs are fodder for the media. Whatever.

And one last thing I want to mention, speaking of the media. If you have already heard about this while I was gone, my apologies. But get this – Holder is telling The Daily Caller to stop reporting on the calls for him to resign. I am not kidding. But what is WORSE is that those in the media whose job it is to be watchdogs for this kind of thing are just ignoring Holder’s attempt at censorship. Huh? From The Daily Caller:

[snip] The groups’ silence contrasts with their vigorous defense against Republican critics of the news media, and contrasts with the praise given to the media’s aggressive coverage of decisions by officials in George W. Bush’s presidency.

The media watchdogs’ silence comes as President Barack Obama’s administration faces political peril with public approval having fallen to the level held by President Jimmy Carter. A Holder resignation would likely add to the administration’s immediate problems, and increase the GOP’s 2012 momentum.

Attorney General John Ashcroft “never asked a reporter to stop reporting on a subject, no matter how uncomfortable it may have been,” said Mark Corallo, who served as Ashcroft’s press secretary during his 2001 to 2005 term, when many media articles painted Ashcroft as a proponent of excessive police powers after 9/11.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. … We understood that we would take a lot of heat,” he said. “Freedom of speech and of the press — our wonderful First Amendment — allowed the media to cover things that made us uncomfortable.”

The controversy began on Nov. 29, when TheDC’s reporter asked Holder about congressional calls for his resignation. The question prompted the nation’s top law enforcement official to point his finger at the reporter and demand that “you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

“I don’t recall [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales ever talking with a reporter like that — ever,” said a former department official. In 2007, Gonzales was subject to numerous critical articles following Democratic legislators’ investigations into the administration’s decision to fire several district attorneys, all of whom had earlier been hired for political slots by the same administration. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, which includes specifics about just what the media “watchdogs” did report on after this attempt to silence The DC.)

Uh, yeah, no. And believe you me, I was all over anything negative (IMO) the Bush Administration did, and Gonzales in particular. But I don’t recall Ashcroft or Gonzales trying to silence factual reports of their activities, or calls for resignations, either.

Okay, that’s it for me for now. Too many interruptions with the tree guys here and the fence being delivered, etc., etc. So, it is up to you now. What’s on your minds?

You might recall, Obama tried this very same phrase back in 2008 with John McCain. It didn’t get much traction then, but that hasn’t stopped Obama from trotting it back out now, trying to scare the crap out of people and malign the Republicans all at the same time.

And may I digress for a moment and say, this whole thing about forgiving student loans at OUR expense pisses me off. I just paid off my student loans last month. I am not kidding. It is expensive to go to graduate school in New York City and Boston, but I did it because that is what I needed to do for ordination. No one forgave my loans, no one helped pay off my loans, and I damn sure didn’t ask my fellow taxpayers to cover the debt I CHOSE to incur. Just sayin’. Frankly, I do not think MoveOn.org should be dictating our public policy. But that’s me.

Ahem. But that is precisely what Obama is talking about doing in his current jaunt around the country at our expense, trying to get back the 20-somethings who have become disenchanted with The One. But it is not just at our financial expense, but at the expense of our Constitution. There is a reason we have checks and balances, and it is precisely to keep the president from acting as King. But that is not stopping the so-called Constitutional Scholar in Chief. No sirree. His claims belittling Republicans and Congress have gotten out of hand, and his rhetoric is negative, to put it mildly.

One Congressman who is not taking it sitting down is Rep. Paul Ryan. Ryan is fighting back against Obama’s allegations that the reason he willfully plans to violate the Constitution (and just WHEN is someone going to call him on that) is because those horrible Republicans will not pass any of his plans, damn their eyes. Not only does Ryan speak out against the plans, but claims, rightfully, IMHO, that Obama is “sowing social unrest.” I could not agree with him more (Photo by US Embassy Kabul):

“Instead of working together where we agree, the president has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past,” Ryan will say, according to speech excerpts. “He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.”

“Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless,” Ryan also plans to say.

[...]

“Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment,” Ryan says, according to his prepared remarks.

“This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.” (Click here to read the rest.)

You tell ‘em, Rep. Ryan – that is PRECISELY what Obama is doing. He is playing people off each other, threatening them with doom and gloom should they not keep him in the White House, like the past 3 years have been anything to crow about (continued high unemployment, continued low house sales, escalating health costs, etc.).

Obama’s fear-mongering in an attempt to keep people in his camp is disingenuous at best, especially given his lack of effort in actually working with the House, and his convenient amnesia that the Senate is controlled by Democrats. I am glad Rep. Paul Ryan is standing up to Obama, and calling him out on his divisive rhetoric. It reminds me of why I wish he was running for president. Someone who actually has a grasp of economics seems like a mighty good choice to me right now, not to mention someone who doesn’t antagonize half of the nation.

But hey, that’s Mr. Unity Hope and Change for you – you can bet if he says something, the exact opposite is the case, at least as far as I can tell. How about you?

First to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has declared that the problem with unemployment isn’t the lack of private sector jobs. Nope, it is the lack of government jobs, see. Never mind that the massive $787 Billion Stimulus bill added a whole slew of Federal government jobs (in the thousands). Oh no, as over 400,000 people have been added to the roles this past week, surely it is because the Obama Administration just isn’t hiring enough people! Ahem. Seriously, Reid is talking about firefighters, police officers, and others. Though he is still wrong on the numbers.

Good grief. What is WRONG with this man? Here is Reid’s “logic” on this topic:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.

“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Reid was responding to recent comments from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who accused Democrats of purposefully pursuing higher taxes as part of the teacher/first-responder bill, S. 1723, so that Republicans would oppose it. McConnell said the bill was meant to fail in order to give Democrats an issue to run on in the 2012 election, but Reid said the Republicans are simply trying to defeat President Obama any way they can.

The legislation Reid is defending is part of Obama’s jobs package. Vice President Biden was in Pennsylvania, an important election state, on Tuesday to push for the administration’s plan on increasing the number of teachers. (Click here to read the rest.)

Right. And since the Stimulus worked OH so well (not) the last time around, spending over $228,000 for EACH job SAVED or created, it does not appear they are doing a very good job of managing the funds they want us to pony up. Again.

I love this whole smoke and mirrors action around the “saved” jobs. The whole point of the Stimulus Bill was to STIMULATE the economy and CREATE jobs, not just “save” jobs, a sleight of hand accounting by any measure. What a joke.

Not that we can’t use police officers and firefighters. Of course we do, But this is a far more complex issue than Reid is making it appear. My guess is he’s trying to deflect for failing to pass the Jobs Bill.

Speaking of Biden and his little campaign for Obama’s jobs bill, what this article leaves out in its description was how completely unhinged Vice President Biden appeared on Wednesday, yelling about how women will be raped and people robbed if this flawed Jobs Bill that was never meant to be passed didn’t pass. Don’t take my word for it, here he is in his own words:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Gee, Joe – fearmonger much??

And then there was this “testy” exchange with a Human Events reporter who asked VP Biden if he wanted to back down a bit on his claim that women would be raped and people murdered if this Jobs Bill isn’t passed:

On Wednesday, Biden gave a speech saying budget cuts had drastically impacted police forces in many cities and “the result has been, and it’s not unique, murder rates are up, robberies are up, rapes are up.”

“I didn’t use … no, no, no,” Biden said to Mattera. “Let’s get it straight, guy. Don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”

Mattera followed up, asking the vice president, “You didn’t use a rape reference?”

“I said rape was up three times in Flint,” Biden replied. “Those are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder is up; rape is up; burglary is up. That’s what I said.” (Click here to read the rest.)

This kind of browbeating, yelling, and threats from the Office of the Vice President to blackmail Congress into passing a flawed bill is disturbing on a number of levels. And one pesky fact Reid and Biden keep forgetting – the Senate is controlled by Democrats, and the bill failed there as well.

Both of these men, Reid and Biden, are appearing a bit desperate in their attempts to force this bill down our throats (shades of Obamacare). But these lengths to which they are going are far afield, and need to be ratcheted back. A lot. What we need is reasoned discussion on both sides of the aisle to come up with a workable program that will address the 9.1% unemployment and over 16% underemployment in this country, not this dear mongering, and blame game being played by Reid, Biden, and Obama. We need a real plan, not a political campaign slogan (at our expense, I might add – you cannot tell me this whole bus tour wasn’t a campaign event).

That’s what we need, and we need it now. What do you think?

First there is the massive upset in New York City when a Republican, Bob Turner, took Anthony Weiner’s seat, the first time a Republican has gotten the District 9 seat in almost 90 years. Holy cow. It Every report I have seen claims this is most definitely a referendum on Obama:

[snip] Republicans sought to turn the race into a referendum on President Obama, tying Weprin to the surprisingly unpopular commander-in-chief at every turn. (Obama’s approval rating was at 43 percent in the district, according to a survey conducted by Siena Research Institute).

Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cast the result as a rebuke of Obama’s new jobs plan.

Obama’s position on Israel became, fairly or not, an effective wedge against Weprin. The Democratic candidate tried to distance himself from Obama’s assertion that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders but Turner effectively linked that position, deeply unpopular in the district’s Jewish community, to his Democratic rival.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner and explained that a victory by the Republican would be the best way for Democrats to send a message to the President. [snip]

You might want to check out the rest of that Washington Post article. The author could not have worked herself into more circles trying to claim why this was NOT a referendum on Obama and the Democrats. It is almost comical, if this wasn’t supposed to be a REPORT, and not an opinion piece.

Meanwhile, there was also a special election in Nevada. This one wasn’t anywhere near close (and the Turner v. Weprin was not exactly a squeaker).Republican Mark Amodei beat Democrat Kate Marshall by at least a 20 point spread (hey, it’s Nevada – you have to talk in betting terms, right?). Not even close. Yeah, apparently the Democrats are getting a bit worried about 2012.

In Obama’s usual tone deaf manner, and despite the Solyndra debacle that is costing us over half a billion dollars, he is pushing on with his agenda for “green jobs.” Now, you know I am all for doing work that helps preserve the environment, and would certainly support viable alternatives to foreign oil, like wave power, for instance, or geothermal energy, things of that nature. But Obama just doesn’t seem to get how his agenda fails to hit the mark:

[snip] More recently, approximately 500 Texans lost their jobs Monday because of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the energy industry.

And the president has offered no specific regulatory relief, other than a single ozone regulatory proposal he nullified a few weeks ago.

Former Sen. Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the former ranking member of a “green jobs” Senate subcommittee, told The Daily Caller he has warned the administration and the American people about the perils of agenda-driven green jobs programs before, to no avail.

“This was a very important subject when we raised it in the spring of 2009, and again in the summer of 2010, but people didn’t really catch on,” Bond told TheDC. “Now, I’m watching the regular news media; even CNBC has figured it out.”

While in the Senate, Bond authored a report just after Obama took office predicting much of what has happened with the “green jobs” agenda. Promised technologies have not panned out economically, and few new U.S. jobs have resulted.

“As we talk about stimulus, people might want to dig deeply into the green jobs initiatives, even high speed rail, to make sure we don’t spend money in very wasteful, unproductive ways,” Bond said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Speaking of Solyndra, seems there is more afoot than the Administration wants us to know. Apparently, some pesky little emails are making their way out to the light of day. Yep, seems there was some concern about Solyndra , but someone – as in the White House – pushed for the loan for Solyndra. Check that, they RUSHED the loan through:

[snip] One e-mail from an OMB official referred to “the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra.” Another complained, “There isn’t time to negotiate.”

“We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),” one official wrote. That Aug. 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.” (Click here for the rest.)

See, this is why I think Congress should read bills before passing them, like Obamacare, and Obama’s Newest Stimulus bill. Because rushing things through without due diligence is just a tad problematic, especially for the taxpayers of this country.

Just out of curiosity, just what does it take to impeach a president? I’m just wondering since there seems to be one damn thing after another coming out about Obama and his ways. Oh, dangit – I reckon that is going to get me a mention on Obama’s new Watch list. And the Democrats don’t have a problem with this? Wait, that’s right – Obama did this in 2008, too – rat people out who might disagree with him even when the truth backed them up. Can’t have that, after all, can we? (I am purposely not linking to this because, well, I don’t wanna. Ahem. However, Helenk, did provide the link, bless her heart.) Somehow, that isn’t sounding particularly American, is it?

Good grief. After all of this, I feel the need for a metaphorical shower. I imagine you might, too, so I want to share with you the incredible story, also from Nevada, about a principal in Las Vegas, Sherrie Gahn:

Click here to view the embedded video.

How amazing is Ms. Gahn? Just in case you were wondering, she was on the Ellen Show, and Target not only gave her school $100,000, but provided backpacks filled with books, pens, paper, etc. Go, Target – always did like that store. Anyway, Ms. Gahn is an amazing example of how much just one person can accomplish. I tip my hat to her. (For those who have a hard time accessing videos, here is a link about this incredible woman.)

What other stories are on your mind today?

I, for one, am very glad this law will no longer be on the books. It is about time our LGB Americans are able to serve openly without fear of reprisal should their private life be found out. No one should have to hide who they are for fear of being stripped of their position, of their vocation (for some), of their income, simply because of who it is they love. This is long, long overdue.

But for some in the community, this change comes to late. One such person is Lt. Dan Choi, a decorated war veteran, and graduate of West Point. Lt. Choi was dismissed because of his sexuality. It was a tremendous loss for our Army, and for Lt. Choi, who was willing to serve his nation, and did, with great distinction.

And now, Lt. Choi is considering throwing his support not to Barack Obama, but to former governor, Gary Johnson:

Choi, who in 2010 was arrested for chaining himself to the fence of the White House in protest, told The Daily Caller in an email, “I lost significant trust in Obama and his fawning gay elites in the wake of recent homophobic court appeals and election-induced double-talk.”

Choi’s frustration with the president’s apparent lack of interest in the policy’s repeal during the lame duck session of Congress has been compounded by administration appeals of court decisions that have ordered an immediate end to the policy’s enforcement.

[...]

Choi has ruled out supporting Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who he said “foolishly aids the Obama camp in making a cartoonish parody” of Republicans.[snip]

Interesting. I admit, I do not know much about Gary Johnson, but I certainly share Choi’s frustration with Obama. I am pretty tired of people acting like he is all that for the LGBT community when his DOJ has repeatedly upheld DOMA, for instance, not as a matter of law, but by characterizing gay people as perverts. For Obama to now say he supports a bill by Sen. Feinstein to repeal DOMA is just laughable. That’s an easy thing for him to say – costs him nothing. But those of us who have been paying attention know what his Administration has done to keep it in place.

In much the same way, Obama has done NOTHING to abolish DADT. He didn’t push for it, others did. He merely paid some lip service when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Like all of a sudden having the Certification to end DADT coming as his numbers continue to decline. What a coincidence, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so, either.

But Lt. Choi didn’t stop there:

[snip]“There are some very appealing candidates such as Governor Gary Johnson and others who are much better than Obama on civil rights,” Choi said. “Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Gary Johnson assails conservative Iowa group’s marriage pact.)

[...]

“Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Ain’t that the truth. We are the newest political football – whee!

I never expected Obama to do anything for this community anyway. As I have written numerous times, the people whom he has counted as close friends, like IL Senator, the Reverend James Meeks, or campaigned with, like Donnie McClurkin, are not exactly gay-friendly (that is a massive understatement – they are both unbelievably homophobic). Quite the opposite, in fact. Still, it is nice to see people like Lt. Choi realizing Obama is no friend to us – unless it helps his poll numbers, that is…

In any event, at long, long last, in 60 days, all Americans will be able to serve equally, without fear of reprisal. This is no small thing. Having to hide something so fundamental, so integral, is soul-sucking stuff. It is a horrible thing to do to another human being, and it sure shouldn’t have been institutionalized in our military.

It will be a good day, indeed, when this is behind us…

There was so, so much more to this woman than I knew. Mainly, I knew her as the wife of the bumbling Gerald Ford, who took over the presidency after the Watergate Scandal felled Richard Nixon. I have since learned that the clumsy, klutzy depiction of Gerald Ford was the result of one trip, glorified by Chevy Chase on SNL, and forever associated with this former Michigan quarterback and US Navy veteran. Such is the power of the media, even those dedicated to spoofs (how many people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house after Tina Fey made the comment on SNL?).

But back to Betty Ford. In her early days, she was a dancer, modern dance in particular. She even danced in New York with Martha Graham’s company at Carnegie Hall (who knew?). There is much to this woman, including how involved she was with women’s issues, and the work of the president in general:

[snip] According to their son Jack, Betty Ford not only read through the President’s briefing papers on political issues he faced, and reviewed with him those pertaining to social programs or any which affected women. She also quietly worked as a conduit on legislative and other domestic agenda issues, both to and from him to others. Although she refused to ever discuss what issues they may have disagreed on, she did admit to serving as what she called, a “sounding board,” and exercising “pillow talk” on occasion. She also admitted to reviewing his more important speeches, offering advice to make cuts and use livelier language, without the need to always spell out details but rather leave audiences with some eagerness for further clarifications. Publicly, she gave only faint enthusiasm for the public relations effort “Whip Inflation Now,” a public relations action effort by the Administration intended to encourage cost-cutting and budgeting by citizens to counter the economic inflation of 1974-1975. In the White House, Mrs. Ford emphasized that she was reducing both her family and public entertaining food costs by serving less-expensive poultry, substituting soup for the pricier fish course, having smaller portions served. Personally, she stated, she would have her older shoes dyed rather than buy new ones for each event she needed them, and purchased her cosmetics in larger bulk to keep cost down. She also signed a “consumer’s pledge” to buy “only those products and services priced at or below present levels…” [snip]

She was an amazing woman, to be sure. If you have the time and inclination, you can read all about her at the National First Ladies’ Library.

First Lady Ford’s funeral is Tuesday, July 12th. Something else I did not know is that presidents and first ladies prepare their funerals down to the detail. According to this Washington Post article, First Lady Ford knew a few years back who she wanted to deliver her eulogy:

[snip] In 2006, Cokie Roberts got a call from Ford’s daughter Susan: her mom wanted Roberts to deliver a eulogy, whenever that time came, at her funeral.

“Wow — that’s an incredible honor,” the veteran D.C. journalist replied. Then, she recalls, Susan gave Roberts her assignment: “Mother wants you to talk about the way things used to be.”

Meaning?

“A time in Washington when Democrats and Republicans used to be friends, when their families were all friends,” Roberts told us Monday. “The main message she wanted me to say is when you’re friends, government works. It’s like she planned it for this week.”

Roberts has been friends with the Fords for decades. Her father, Hale Boggs, was House majority leader when Gerald Ford was minority leader. Her mother, Lindy, teamed with Betty on various causes. The familes went to school and church together.

“They were all friends with each other,” Roberts said. When her father disappeared after an Alaska plane crash in 1972, the Fords were “devastated. . . they were so supportive.” [snip]

Ah, yes, those were the days, were they not? Sadly, they seem long gone, it seems…(There will be two other speakers at the Washington funeral, First Lady Rosalynn Carter and the Betty Ford Center’s Geoffrey Mason. First Lady Ford will have a funeral service in Michigan, too, where she will be laid to rest with her husband.)

What an amazing, complicated, dedicated woman First Lady Betty Ford was. My sincerest condolences to her family and friends. In honor of First Lady Ford being an Episcopalian, I have the following rendition of the Nunc Dimittis* is in her honor (this is one of my favorite hymns from Vespers):

Rest in peace.

* Translation:

Salva nos, Domine, vigilantes, custodi nos
dormientes, ut vigil emus cum Christo et requiescamus in pace.
Save us, O Lord, while we are awake, and guard us
when we sleep, that we may watch with Christ and rest in peace.

Nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine, secundum verbum tuum in pace:
Quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum
Quod parasti ante faciem omnium populorum:
Lumen ad revelationem gentium, et gloriam plebis tuae Israel.
Now Thou dost dismiss Thy servant, O Lord, according to Thy word in peace;
Because my eyes have seen Thy salvation,
Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.

I have a candidate or two I like, but I’m sure not in love yet.  I understand the enthusiasm some folks have for Sarah Palin, but if Hillary was too polarizing to win, Sarah is a lost cause already.  Sure, she can energize a crowd of supporters, but she can also fan the cold embers of Obama’s disillusioned followers into a raging fire of Progressive voter turnout like no other Republican.  If she runs, and that’s unknown at this writing, she probably won’t get the nomination for that very reason.  I suspect she knows this.  The opposition to her is just too damn strong.  It more than negates her vote-getting power.  Even if the Republican stalwarts turn out in droves to vote for her, the Obamites will turn out even more than they did in 2008.  But I must confess, just knowing how much they hate her makes me want her to head the Republican ticket!

So who else have they got?

Herman Cain?  Hmmm.  He’s interesting, but he does not have the credentials we need in a leader any more than Obama does, and I frankly hate the whole concept of putting forth a black candidate to take on a black incumbent just because he’s black.  It just irks me on the lack of merits.  After four years of the Race Card, I’m sick to death of it.  It should never have been an issue to start with.

And I think most of us could not be happier that Newt Gingrich self-destructed so early in the game.  Now, would somebody please tell him?

Tim Pawlenty.  Sorry, he bores me too much to bother…

Jon Huntsman is a dream candidate for many Centrists and ex-pat Democrats, so that would go a long way, it would seem, in bridging the political divide.  Unfortunately, he has taken a pacifistic approach, apparently trying to out-McCain McCain, suggesting that the election doesn’t have to be mean, low-down, and dirty.  I know Jesus admonished us to turn the other cheek, but you can bet the mortgage that the Obama camp won’t be pulling any punches.  And I don’t think he’s outspoken enough about what exactly he has to offer as President besides quiet diplomacy.  That was Obama’s schtick in 2008, and it was ridiculed then as it should be now.

I’ve heard it postulated that the Republican Party really does want to lose this election so they can run Jeb Bush in 2016.  If this is true, I hope the Mayan calendar is right.  The world should end in 2012 if that’s the case.  In fact, if Obama wins re-election, it probably will!

There is also a popular theory that the Republicans are prone to giving their old war-horses their “turn” at leading the party.  Like in 1996, it was Bob Dole’s turn.  In 2008, it was John McCain’s turn.  But I suspect that is only true when they expect to lose, or want to lose, and I strongly don’t believe they want to lose this time, nor do they have any reason to expect to lose.  Even if the polls showed Obama consistently beating a Republican rival, I’d be very suspicious of those polls for a variety of reasons.

In 2008, the election polls were very close between Obama and McCain until the financial crisis hit.  I heard from several sources that many people felt Obama and the Democrats were the better bet for dealing with the economic meltdown, that a change at the top was needed.  So, according to this theory, Independents swung to Obama and Republicans stayed home on Election Day.  If this is true, then Republicans should be very optimistic about unseating him if the economy stays like it is.

But for the Republicans to beat Obama, they have to not only get a good Republican turnout, they have to win over the Independents, and they have to hope the Democrats become as complacent as the Republicans were in 2008.  I know the conservatives want to put forward a truly conservative candidate for a number of reasons – to fire up their own kind, to offer a starkly contrasting political view, etc.. But truly conservative candidates rarely win over the Independent voters, and there are more of them now than there have been in recent memory, maybe more than ever in the USA.  So if the Republicans want to win over these Independent voters, they need a relatively Centrist candidate.  I really don’t think many Republican voters will be complacent and stay home this election like they did with McCain.  And if they want disillusioned Democrats to stay home on Election Day, they can’t risk having a staunch Conservative heading their ticket.

I believe in the truth of the old adage that “people vote their pocketbooks,” so that leads me to think the Republicans have a strong advantage in unseating Obama this election, since this economic mess shows no signs of healing itself.  I suspect that may be part of what is driving them to put Romney in front.  Economics is his strong suit.

While Conservatives may dislike him because of the Massachusetts healthcare issue, it does have a neutralizing effect on that controversy.  The Dems sure can’t throw it in his face if he doesn’t make it a campaign issue himself.  I know the Republicans made it a big deal that they were going to overturn that piece of legislation, but the reality is that’s not going to happen.  And as much as it irks Republicans, and even though the healthcare legislation was poorly written and poorly legislated, overturning an entitlement like that is a losing proposition.  It needs to be modified, of course, but I’m afraid it’s going to remain.  I really don’t see a political advantage for the Republicans to run on that hot-potato issue.

So all things considered, as it stands now, it looks like Romney is the guy to beat.  The question remains, can he beat Obama.  Most pundits seem to think the GOP needs a stronger candidate, and I agree.  But I can definitely see why Romney is the front-runner so far.

On the other hand, it reminds me of where Hillary was positioned four years ago.

Mitt best be looking over his shoulder.

No, I am not making this up. Really. I swear. Paul Bedard had this report in the US World and News Report, “Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing.” Who knew, right? I just thought these parades were celebrating the Independence of our country. Who knew that they were really right wing breeding grounds? Or so these Harvard researchers claim:

[snip]“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

Uh, yeah – I bet it would be a shocking result. But even more shocking is the percentages by which these researchers claim these findings:

[snip] * When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
* It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
* It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

[...]

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Gosh, “Republican towns” like, say, BOSTON??? Good grief.

Really, these “statistics” are laughable – by 1%? 2%? 3%? What was the margin or error in these stats? Let me guess, 1%? 2%? 3%? What a freakin’ joke.

And if I may quote one more comment I saw, I cannot let this one by Michael Dean slip by. It is just too damn funny:

Good News for Democrats!

Who says Democrats don’t celebrate Independence Day? Yesterday the White House updated President Obama’s July 4th schedule to include a stop in London where the Commander-in-Chief will officially apologize to the Queen and the British people for North America’s racist colonial aggression of the late 18th Century that led to the illegal formation of the breakaway United States. In a ceremonial gesture that U.S. liberals call long overdue, the President will formally repay the Crown for the tea and other property lost in 1773 when disloyal Massachussetts residents committed acts of economic terrorism by tossing cases of tea into Boston Harbor. Scientists have reached a consensus that this original so-called “Tea Party” created an environmental hazard which remains a primary cause of global warming and therefore a threat to all life on earth, especially women, minorities, and the poor. In recognition of the worldwide suffering caused by centuries of American exceptionalism, Democrats will mark the upcoming July 4th holiday with legislation calling for a “success surcharge” on all U.S. households earning more than $250,000 per year. Vice President Biden calls it “the patriotic thing to do.” Finally, Senate Democrats will celebrate July 4th by joining hands on the steps of the Capitol where they will sing the updated version of “God Bless America” entitled, “May the Deity You Find Least Offensive Improve the Lives of Everyone on Earth, Especially Undocumented Immigrants.” Happy 4th of July!!!

Indeed.

Can you believe someone PAID for this study, and even thought to look at it in these terms in the FIRST place? WTH?

Wow, all these years, I was under the misguided assumption that the Fourth of July was a celebration for all Americans to acknowledge the birth of this great Nation. Evidently not, at least according to these Harvard researchers. Enjoy celebrating our Independence Day all by your lonesomes, Republicans. Apparently, the Democrats will be sitting it out…

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

Good grief.

Yes, that is the problem – that Weiner’s “privacy” has been violated, not that he has disgraced his office, his wife, and himself, with very little contrition for what he actually DID. No, his tears were over being CAUGHT, not that he is a freakin’ pervert, engaging in sexting with women around the country, and apparently, made phone calls to some of these women from his House office. There is no doubt that not only did he act unprofessionally, but unethically, compounded by his vast number of lies upon lies.

But as Jennifer Rubin pointed out in her Washington Post piece, “Anthony Weiner, Wronged Man? Not Quite,” some are taking the Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz approach, claiming this is a “private matter.” They are wrong. Rubin specifically mentions Ezra Klein and Richard Cohen:

I’ve been a bit amazed at the post-bizzaro press conference insistence by some on the left that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a wronged man. Ezra Klein via Twitter professes to be puzzled how this can be a big deal. Richard Cohen writes:

We are doing a terrible thing here — we hypocrites of the press, especially of the blogosphere. Every man lives a bit in a fantasy world, maybe women, too, but I know nothing of them. Every man is a boy, either in mind or in deed. Much of this is harmless. There are no bodies. There is no crime. This is the case with Weiner. No damsel was in distress, and no one was rescued.

This is the place for me to condemn Weiner. Consider it done. He’s a liar and a creep, although how one can be the latter without being the former is beyond me. (Still, lying is impermissible.) But I would also like to condemn those who made it their business to destroy him, who deputized themselves to invade someone’s private life, his fantasy life, and hold him up to ridicule.

Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. [snip]

So let me make sure I understand Mr. Cohen’s point – he thinks the press is doing the wrong thing by REPORTING THE NEWS??? I am just shaking my head in disbelief at these men. Oh, no, check that – I am shaking my head in DISGUST at these men, and their willingness to use their professions as “journalists” to try and protect this pervert.

Jennifer Rubin’s response was very good, I thought:

[snip] Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. (As for the comment, “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian in this case is a Jew,” I am dumbfounded and dismayed that Weiner’s religion should enter into the discussion.)

As for the “I just don’t get it” response of some young liberal men out there, I can only imagine that ideology so dominates their lives that they fail to see the harm in a public figure’s not-at-all-private conduct. Or perhaps they too see the Tweets as a harmless pastime. Maybe, for all the “sexual harassment” training we’ve gotten, we’ve forgotten some essential training in ethics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t get it, either, Ms. Rubin, except to say that this mindset is incredibly disturbing. (Ms. Rubin goes on to note that the Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on Rep. Weiner’s behavior and judgment, and I encourage you to either finish reading her piece, or read the WSJ piece here.)

The next piece of news also deals with a Democratic Representative, Earl Blumenauer. Seems Rep. Blumenauer is upset at the effort put forth by the Parks Department for doing anything that might amount to educating Gov. Palin about American history. Yes, he is upset that money is being spent to give the governor an education at our historic sites and monuments, presumably because it is making her smarter than many in the press (I refer you to the ridiculous recent brouhaha over Paul Revere) in which journalists by and large failed to factcheck before jumping on their condescending “gotcha” bandwagon).

Yes, this representative, Earl Blumenenaur, has some “serious concerns” over the money spent thus far on Palin and her bus tour:

[snip] “Many of the press accounts of stops included in this tour, which provided personal and political benefits to former Gov. Palin, suggest that National Park Service resources were made available to an extent beyond that which an average American family would receive,” Blumenauer wrote.

He cited media reports of Palin and her family receiving a private guided tour of Mount Vernon, early admission to the National Archives and a 10-person escort involving park rangers and New York City police officers at the Statue of Liberty.

“For cases in which the Park Service did not have additional personnel on duty as a result of the tour, was manpower diverted from regularly-scheduled services to accommodate the Palin family’s visits and is this a routine practice for visiting celebrities?” Blumenauer added.

National Park Service spokesman Jeffrey Olson said his understanding is that Palin received customary treatment for a visiting celebrity and that the costs of her visits were nominal at best.

“We see celebrities on a regular basis, it’s something that we’re used to,” Olson said. “We give them a tour but we also try to not make it a bug hoo-ha for all the other visitors. So it’s kind of standard fare if there’s a celebrity or two that show up we do a special program for them.”

That usually involves rangers and interpreters that are on the job regardless. “That’s why it’s not an extra cost for us,” Olson said. “We just try to make sure everybody has a good experience at a national park.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Maybe that’s what is getting Rep. Blumenaur’s goat – that Palin is seen as, and treated like, a celebrity. Oh, but the best part? Palin was not the one who requested the Park Police provide an escort while she was at the Statue of Liberty. Rather, it was one of the officers in charge who did that. Oops – so much for this little “gotcha” attempt by Rep. Blumenaur.

One of the commenters at this Politico.com article was kind enough to post a video of another “celebrity” getting a private tour at the Statue of Liberty. I wonder if Rep. Blumenaur was so quick to investigate the money spent on THIS tour:

I am going to guess, no, Rep. Blumenaur did NOT demand an accounting from the Parks Service for Rep. Weiner being able to go where people had not been able to go since 9/11. But, hey – that’s different, right? Yeah, sure, right.

And in an incredible twist of irony, Rep. Weiner called President Clinton to apologize to him for this whole sexting scandal. President Clinton officiated at Weiner and Huma Abedin’s wedding.

Gee, I wonder what the conversations are like between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin?

Blech. This whole thing is making me ill – support for this immoral, unethical piece of work (Weiner), and attempts to take down someone as a result of PDS. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I am just sick of it.

How about you? Feel free to talk about the issues above, or anything else on your mind today.

Bear in mind, first and foremost, that the Obamacare program, voted into law SOLELY by Democrats, contains MASSIVE cuts to Medicare. Doctors are now limiting Medicare patients as a result. But that doesn’t stop the Democrats from railing at Ryan’s plan, acting as if he is going to unplug machines or something.

Don’t take it from me, though. FactCheck.org, a division of the Annenberg Foundation, just came out with an article highlighting the new DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s lies about this very program.

But first, astute readers may recall that the Annenberg Challenge is where Barack Obama and his good buddy, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, served on the board together. This is no conservative organization coming out with this information, but one with a liberal past.

So, what did the DNC Chair say exactly? This, according to the FactCheck article, “DNC Chair Throws Truth To The Wolves,” the headline of which says it all:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz falsely claimed that seniors with preexisting medical conditions would be denied Medicare coverage under the GOP’s plan. The House GOP plan specifically says insurance companies “must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries.”

She also repeated a false Democratic talking point that future beneficiaries — those who are now younger than 55 — would be left on their own to buy insurance in the private market. The GOP plan, as we have written before, would provide subsidies for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Wasserman Schultz, the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, made her comments May 29 on “Face the Nation.”

Wasserman Schultz, May 29: What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, “You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the — in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions. We’re going to give you ‘x’ amount of dollars and you figure it out.”

She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions.” [snip]

Not that you would know it from the attacks from Obama and his minions, but the Ryan Plan is not as Draconian as they want people to think. They are just blowing smoke to make sure no one pays attention to the cuts THEY made, which are affecting people on Medicare. But hey, why let the truth stand in your way? The Dems aren’t, that’s for sure:

The Republican plan — dubbed “Path to Prosperity” by its chief architect, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — would make no changes in Medicare for those 55 and older. But it would make significant changes to Medicare for those younger than 55 — just not as described by the Florida Democrat. The plan would provide future beneficiaries with government subsidies to purchase health insurance through a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Path to Prosperity: Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said “we stand by the statement” that the GOP plan would deny coverage to future beneficiaries with preexisting conditions. (Emphasis mine.) Sevugan provided excerpts of testimony given April 5 by Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, at a hearing of a House oversight subcommittee. But in that testimony, Cannon said that “all seniors under the chairman’s proposal, as I understand it, will be able to obtain health insurance coverage.” And those with preexisting conditions “will get larger vouchers” because payments will be “risk-adjusted so that people with severe illnesses will get larger vouchers.”

Sevugan made the point that the government subsidies — or “vouchers,” as Cannon calls them — won’t keep up with insurance premiums and, as a result, seniors would be forced to go without coverage. But that’s not what the DNC chairwoman said. She said the GOP plan would allow private insurers to “drop you for preexisting conditions,” and that’s just not true. [snip]

Lies, lies, and more lies. But what I love is that the DNC spokesman, in the face of facts to the contrary, claims that they “stand by their statements.” They are misrepresenting a plan to the American people to cast Ryan’s plan in as negative a light as possible, even if what they say is not true. Wow. That takes some chutzpah. Or complete and utter lack of ethics. You decide.

The conclusion of this article (and there is more to it, so I urge you to click here to read the rest), is this:

[snip ]It’s fair game to debate whether the subsidies are adequate to cover insurance costs. But it’s wrong to say that the GOP plan would “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage.”

When FactCheck.org is telling you you’re lying, and you keep doing it, that is disingenuous at best, and deplorable at worst. They are simply trying to gin up votes, and just like 2008, they don’t care how much they lie to do it.

Of course, Rep. Wasserman Schultz is just following Obama’s lead. He is the one who started this BS back in April, lying through his teeth, as FactCheck.org made clear. I think Rep. Paul Ryan is a bit over it, this Hill article makes clear from the meeting between Republicans and Obama on Wednesday,
“Ryan to Obama: ‘Leadership Should Come From The Top‘”. Why, yes, it should, Rep. Ryan. Yes, leadership should come from the top. But Obama isn’t a leader, he is a liar, which he has demonstrated time and time again. Why would you expect anything less than that from him, or his hand picked DNC chair?

Ahem. To his credit, Ryan stood firm:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) confronted President Obama over his attack on the Republican budget plan in the most dramatic moment of a White House meeting with the House GOP conference.

Saying he wanted to “clear the air” amid a deficit debate marred by partisan rancor, Ryan, the author of the House GOP budget, told the president he was wrong to characterize Republicans as turning their backs on children and senior citizens.

“Leadership should come from the top,” Ryan said to Obama, according to Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who described the exchange to The Hill.

Ryan also called out the president for his speech at George Washington University in April, where Obama castigated the Republican budget in harsh terms while Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sat just a few feet away.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes – Obama the picture of decorum and good manners. Not.

Both Rep. Ryan and FactCheck.org have tried to set the record straight about Ryan’s Budget plan. The Democrats will have none of it. Better to stick with the lie than the truth, especially if it will score a bunch of points, right? They are intentionally manipulating people, scaring some, and pissing off others as a result of their continued false meme. That is reprehensible.

You know, I still cannot believe that this is how the DNC has always operated, and I was just too blind to see it. But if the past 3 years is any indication, that is exactly what they were doing, I am ashamed to admit. Is it really so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the behalf of ALL AMERICANS? To not worry about who gets the most points for it? Is it really so hard to put the country first, and our worsening economic situation, over partisan sides?

Evidently. And that just makes me mad. How about you?

Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.

Except, when he’s in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of A Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.

[...]

Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime – often in the course of one Downing Street reception – the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.

I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.

No kidding. Is it any surprise that Obama went abroad given the very, very brief bump in his poll numbers, and the continued Spring of Discontent in this country? I am only surprised he didn’t go to the West Bank after his disastrous speech about Israel.

Perhaps he knew that Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was going to be better received than Obama’s was from the State Department. And that Netanyahu would get more standing ovations than Obama did for his State of the Union address. Ahem. Perhaps that is why he felt compelled to get the hell out of Dodge and to get some of that adoration he thrives on so much…

It is all about the spin, isn’t it? Like the spin the MSM is putting on the special election up in NY State. They are making it sound like the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, won by a landslide, and that it is a HUGE referendum on The Republicans’ position on Medicare.

There are two problems with this logic: 1. Hochul had all of 4% more votes than the Republican, Jane Corwin; and 2. the alleged Tea Party candidate, Jack Davis, siphoned off 9% of the votes. Do the math.

And about Davis, I think it is safe to say that Davis, who has run a number of times as a Democrat in that region, was a spoiler, and a successful one at that.

The major spin here, though, as Dana Perino pointed out, is that The DEMOCRATS cut $500 million to Medicare in the DEMOCRATIC passage of Obamacare. How is it that they are now going to be the ones to save it from those evil Republicans? Good grief.

It is clear, though, that this is how the MSM is going to spin it – it is the primary headline for a number of outlets. Wow.

This kind of hoodwinking and bamboozling seems to be the stock and trade these days, and is certainly a hallmark of Obama’s. Along those lines, I will leave the conclusion to Mr. Delingpole, who sums up Obama’s trip to the UK, and his presidency in general, beautifully:

[snip] Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?

Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat – but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!

By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like seome presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.

Amen to that…