Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

The Making of the President

Susan Rice speaks to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference today, and you won’t believe what happens next! (Sorry.) As Twitchy notes, “The highlight of her speech was undoubtedly the standing ovation she received for acknowledging the desire for a complete halt to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The look on her face while waiting for the cheers to die down so she could add ‘but’ and finish her sentence: priceless:”

John Podhoretz responded, “So without a deal, Rice is saying, Iran will build a bomb. Also, with a deal, Iran will build a bomb. This is really astounding.” And Twitchy also quotes Bloomberg’s Dave Weigel, who tweeted, “Before Susan Rice got up to speak at AIPAC, the video screens played friendly reminders not to boo anybody.

Last night, Roger L. Simon asked, “Will Obama’s Iran Deal Be the Worst Deal Ever Made?” That is, if it even comes to pass:

 I don’t enjoy making predictions because I’m usually wrong, but this is what I suspect will transpire as of Sunday night, March 1.  A deal ultimately will not be made.  Khamenei never wanted one in the first place, only to mark time for more nuclear research.  To make a deal would, for him, undermine too many years of hating America, undercutting the rationale for his hideous regime.  BUT… Israel (specifically pushy Netanyahu), not Iran,  will be blamed for the failure by the U.S. administration and its MSM minions, led by the New York Times.  Iran will collude with this, dropping the proper hints — if it weren’t for those Israelis we would have had an agreement, but you know they can’t be trusted.  The Republican presidential candidates will be swept up in this. They better be ready, but I fear they are not.  They don’t impress me as a particularly sophisticated bunch on the international front, I’m sorry to say, and the Iranians know how to play disinformation-hardball almost as well as the Russians.  I hope I’m wrong in all this. I hope Netanyahu knocks that same hardball out of the proverbial park and with it some sense into the American public.  But I worry.

And for ever-increasing good reason.

Related: We know that, to paraphrase Sean Davis, Elizabeth Warren is off the reservation when it comes to Netanyahu’s speech tomorrow. So where does Hillary stand?

hillary_blackberry_3-2-15-2

In this Oct. 18, 2011, file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton works from a desk inside a C-17 military plane upon her departure from Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, bound for Tripoli, Libya. (AP Photo / Kevin Lamarque, Pool, File)

“Ever wonder why multiple investigations of the Benghazi attack failed to turn up much from Hillary Clinton’s e-mails?” Ed Morrissey asks at Hot Air:

So did the House Select Committee investigating the attack on the facility and the failures that led to it. To their surprise, the Secretary of State had conducted all of her e-mail on a private account rather than an official State Department account — and her aides had carefully culled only the e-mails they wanted investigators to see. The New York Times’ Michael Schmidt dropped that bombshell earlier this evening:

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. …

The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered as a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

Two weeks ago, Mrs. Clinton provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks that Mrs. Clinton’s aides had found among her personal emails.

Why, it’s not like Hillary is some sort of paranoid secretive character out of 1984, is she?

As Moe Line asked, shortly before news of Hillary’s private emails broke, “Hillary Clinton STARTED OFF as the villain. How does she plan to become the hero?”

But… that’s the problem, isn’t it? In 2007 the Democratic electorate was told, point-blank, You do not have to ‘settle’ for Hillary Clinton. You can have something that’s better. Different. Not more of the same.  And the Democratic electorate arguably responded* to that. And their reward? …Hillary Clinton has come back in 2016.  Only now she’s almost a decade older, and probably considerably more bitter about life.  Not to mention, really inevitable this time.

Thus the paradox. Hillary Clinton was used to establish, fix, and personalize everything that the Obama campaign wanted primary voters to think was wrong with the current system. Then they brought her into the administration, which means that she’s inextricably linked to it.  So Hillary Clinton can’t run on being opposed to Obama’s policies, because she helped implement them**.  But if she runs on being on-board with the Obama agenda, she’s left with two problems, the second*** one being that a large part of the Obama agenda was that he supposedly represented a break of the politics of the past, which were in no small part exemplified by… Hillary Clinton.

Of course, even before this latest Clinton scandal erupted* there was a simple solution for Democrats who pay lip service to transparency:

*You saw what I did there, right?

Update: And upon sighting a big juicy scandal to sink their shark-like teeth into, the Establishment Left MSM swings into action — to attack a conservative!

 

As Jon Gabriel writes at Ricochet after being singled out by the Over-the-Hillary Gang for ritual shaming, “The D.C. press corps is so unsettled by offering even the mildest concern about Democrats that they must quickly return to their comfort zone mocking proles. There is little interest in questioning the rich and powerful, it’s all about defending their tribe. The Clintons certainly don’t view Gray, Confessore, et al., as fellow elites, but this only makes these reporters more desperate to flaunt the tribal markers.”

Another day, another hit piece on Walker, this time from Philip Rucker of the Washington Post. (Link safe; goes to Hot Air; I’m not rewarding attack articles with extra traffic):

Walker responded by ticking through his recent itinerary of face time with foreign policy luminaries: a breakfast with Henry Kissinger, a huddle with George P. Shultz and tutorials at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution.

But then Walker suggested that didn’t much matter.

“I think foreign policy is something that’s not just about having a PhD or talking to PhD’s,” he said. “It’s about leadership.”

Walker contended that “the most significant foreign policy decision of my lifetime” was then-President Ronald Reagan’s move to bust a 1981 strike of air traffic controllers, firing some 11,000 of them.

“It sent a message not only across America, it sent a message around the world,” Walker said. America’s allies and foes alike became convinced that Reagan was serious enough to take action and that “we weren’t to be messed with,” he said.

According to Politico, Rucker was the guy who whined, “What about your gaaaaaaaffffffes!!!!!!” to Mitt Romney in 2012; but what about Rucker’s gaffes, specifically, his lack of knowledge of history? Specifically, history that happened likely before the young Democrat operative with a byline was even born. Rucker’s article is headlined “Scott Walker calls Reagan’s bust of air traffic controller strike ‘most significant foreign policy decision,’” but that’s not a bad summation of how those events played out.

Return with us now to the early 1980s. In his 2009 book The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989, Steve Hayward of Power Line wrote:

Smashing the air traffic controllers union has loomed large in populist lore ever since as a “signal” to private sector management that it was now okay to squeeze unions, but this is too simple. (If Reagan had really wanted to send an anti-union message, he would have proposed privatizing air traffic control.) Generally polls showed that public esteem for organized labor was at an all-time low by the time of PATCO’s ill-considered gambit. Labor was getting the message. A Wall Street Journal headline a month later told the story: “Economic Gloom Cuts Labor Union Demands for Big 1982 Contracts.” Fed chairman Paul Volcker later said that Reagan’s firing of the PATCO strikers was the single most important anti-inflationary step Reagan took.

There was one unanticipated audience that paid close attention to Reagan’s manhandling of the strike: the Soviet Politburo. Since taking office the administration had been looking for an opportunity to demonstrate in some concrete ways its toughness toward the Soviet Union. As is often the case, the most effective opportunity came in an unexpected way and from an unlooked-for place. The White House realized it had gotten Moscow’s attention when the Soviet news agency TASS decried Reagan’s “brutal repression” of the air traffic controllers.

For the American news media, Reagan’s handling of the strike became the opening for a new line of criticism. During the budget fight, the dominant line of criticism was that while Reagan’s policies might be cruel and uncaring, he himself was a kindly man. Having wondered whether Reagan was too “nice,” Haynes Johnson now wrote: “A glimmer of a harsher Reagan emerges…. For the first time as president, he has displayed another, less attractive side. Firmness is fine in a president; indeed, it is desirable. But something else came through last week—a harsh, unyielding, almost vengeful and mean-spirited air of crushing opponents. It makes you wonder how he will respond if faced with a direct, and dangerous, foreign challenge, one requiring the most delicate and skillful combination of strength and diplomacy.”

Gee, ask Secretary Gorbachev how that worked out.

In her 2003 book about Reagan,  Peggy Noonan quoted the Gipper’s Secretary of State George Schultz, who called it:

“One of the most fortuitous foreign relations moves he ever made”. It was in no way a popular move with the American public but it showed European heads of state and diplomatic personnel that he was tough and meant what he said.

Yesterday, Noonan added at the Wall Street Journal:

What Reagan did not speak about was an aspect of the story that had big foreign-policy implications.

Air traffic controllers in effect controlled the skies, and American AWACS planes were patrolling those skies every day. Drew Lewis: “The issue was not only that it was an illegal strike. . . . It was also that a strike had real national-security implications—the AWACS couldn’t have gone up.” It is likely that even though the public and the press didn’t fully know of this aspect of the strike’s effects, the heads of the union did. That’s why they thought Reagan would back down. “This hasn’t come up,” said Lewis, “but the Soviets and others in the world understood the implications of the strike.”

Foreign governments, from friends and allies to adversaries and competitors, saw that the new president could make tough decisions, pay the price, and win the battle. The Soviets watched like everybody else. They observed how the new president handled a national-security challenge. They saw that his rhetorical toughness would be echoed in tough actions. They hadn’t known that until this point. They knew it now.

However, I’m not at all surprised that the newspaper whose then-subsidiary magazine declared “We Are Socialists Now” upon Mr. Obama’s inauguration in 2009 would not be all that familiar with the history of the final years of the Cold War.

And speaking of Reagan:

Exit quote:


The pile continues to grow.

Update: “Arrogant Media Elites Mock Middle America,”  Salena Zito writes today at Real Clear Politics:

As consumers of news, most Americans want an honest look at the potential presidential candidates and where they stand on serious issues.

Reporters mock those news-consumers when they mock candidates who aren’t like the reporters themselves — but who are very much like normal Americans.

It is unforgivably arrogant for anyone in the media to think that the rest of the country thinks like they do.

“A reporter’s job is to report the news, not to drive it or to create it. A reporter’s audience is not just an echo chamber, not just D.C. friends, rivals, partisans and followers on social media. (Remember: Only 8 percent of Americans get their news through Twitter.),” Zito writes.

Don’t think of the DC media as reporters, as Glenn Reynolds recently noted:

The press sees itself first and foremost as political allies of Democrat-dominated institutions, which most emphatically includes universities, a major source of funding, foot-soldiers, and ideological suport for Democrats. When outsiders want information that might hurt Democrat-dominated institutions — see, e.g., ClimateGate — they are always portrayed by the press as partisans, malcontents, and evil. That is because the press today functions largely as a collection of Democratic operatives with bylines.

And the successful pushback against government unions by Walker — like Reagan before him — explains much of the subtext driving Rucker’s ahistoric ruckus.

Is Leftism Exhausted?

February 28th, 2015 - 11:45 am

“All This Has Happened Before …and will happen again,” Sonny Bunch writes at the Washington Free Beacon, noting how the left has always loved itself a good circular firing squad:

What the angry left of today has in common with the angry left of yesteryear is a lot of rage and little cohesion. There’s not an actual program being pursued, no series of demands. There’s just vitriol and angst wrapped up in vaguely leftist sloganeering. They eat their own because it’s easier. This is basic human psychology: When you attack an outsider, he’s just as likely to give you the finger and tell you to get bent as he is to listen to your grievances. But when you attack one of your own—when you scream at someone who has professed a desire to be your ally, when you harp on and on how they have failed to hew to your orthodoxies—it is easier to cow them into submission and convince them to beg forgiveness for their heresies. Left-on-left spats in social media are common because these are fights the radicals can win. And it’s always more psychically pleasing to win a fight than lose one.

More on this later, perhaps. I’ve got to run: I’m late for my RINO hunt. There are some cocktail parties in Georgetown that need cleaning out.

Heh. At NRO, Jonah Goldberg adds that “the cultural Left has disengaged from mainstream political arguments, preferring instead the comforts of identity-politics argy-bargy. You judge political movements not by their manifestos but by where they put their passion. And on the left these days, the only things that arouse passion are arguments about race and gender,” which for the left also involves devouring your own, yet another sign that leftism is exhausted, as Jonah writes. Fortunately, as George Lucas would say, there is a New Hope on the horizon:

For instance, the feminist agitprop drama The Vagina Monologues is now under fire from the left because it is not inclusive of men who believe they are women. Patricia Arquette was criticized from the right for her Oscar-acceptance rant about women’s wage equality, but the criticism paled in comparison to the bile from the left, which flayed her for leaving out the plight of the transgendered and other members of the Coalition of the Oppressed.

Such critiques may seem like a cutting-edge fight for the future among the protagonists, but looked at from the political center, it suggests political exhaustion. At least old-fashioned Marxists talked about the economy. Of course liberalism isn’t dead; it’s just resting. But it certainly could use an exciting, charismatic savior to breathe new life and fresh thinking into its ranks.

Thank goodness Hillary Clinton is waiting in the wings.

Which will be fascinating to watch: vote for me to relive the glory days of the 1990s, even though I’m running on policies that are an extension of Obama’s, and totally repudiate all of my husband’s, except for Hillarycare, which is what led to him losing Congress in 1994, which helped usher in the glory days of the 1990s.

Not to mention the possibility of lots of really cheap Scott Walker versus Hillary’s walker jokes. Perhaps a looming fear of that sort of reverse Alinsky-style ridicule is one part of the subtext of the media’s coordinate hits on him over the past few weeks?


As Bill Whalen of the Hoover Institute asks at Ricochet:

I can’t remember a candidate at the front of a presidential field — and this early in the process — tapping into conservatives’ media distrust. Yes, Newt Gingrich engaged in heavy media-bashing in 2012 (the former Speaker went nuclear after questions pertaining to his past marriage), but he didn’t get into it until the debate season was underway. And he was never a frontrunner, though at times his campaign did exceed expectations.

Think it’s enough to sustain Walker for the next 11 months?

Maybe. Maybe.

Big Dave, come on up here. Stay right here. Here’s Big Dave. He is doing a great job.

They love you, Big Dave. They love you.

He is doing a great job.

Now, in the last day here, Dave only has one thing on his mind. He wakes up with this thought, he goes to sleep with this thought, he eats and lives and breathes and dreams about getting you to the polls tomorrow. That’s all he is thinking about.

More specifically, getting you to the polls to vote for me. That’s what he’s thinking about.

(APPLAUSE)

That’s his job, get you to the polls, vote for Obama. My job is to help him do his job. So I am going to try to be so persuasive in the 20 minutes or so that I speak that by the time this is over, a light will shine down from somewhere.

It will light upon you. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it.

And if you make that decision, if that moment happens, then it would be great — even though it’s just one day to go — for you to fill out one of these supporter cards before you leave, because that way we’ll know, you know, who, in fact, is going to be voting. Make sure that you are getting to the right precinct. It will be very heful to Dave in doing his job.

CNN Transcript of Obama during the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, January 7th, 2008.

Related: To be fair, Obama was able to convince one class of particularly gullible followers that they experienced an epiphany and a light upon them.

“Giuliani, Walker, and the Media’s Pro-Obama McCarthyism,” as charted by John Nolte of Big Journalism:

Because Walker didn’t vouch for Obama’s Christianity and patriotism, the coordinated and effective media attacks are coming from all sides: 1) He’s not ready for primetime. 2) He’s racist. 3) He’s extreme 4) He’s a bumbler.

Sorry, but “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer to both questions.

If you had asked me 5 years ago if Obama was a patriotic Christian, I would have answered in the affirmative on both accounts. A lot has happened since. Obama’s deeds — apologizing for America, the dishonest and unnecessary example of the Crusades, using his Christian faith to lie about and hide his support for same sex marriage, etc. — have given me doubts.

Under oath, if asked today if Obama is a patriotic Christian, I would have to answer, “I don’t know.”

But “I don’t know” isn’t the answer the media wants. The media wants a “yes,” and if members of the GOP refuse to vouch for Obama’s faith and patriotism, the media is determined to see them destroyed.

If Walker were running around attacking Obama’s patriotism and faith, that would be reprehensible. He is not doing that, though. He’s not doing anything. He’s not saying anything. He’s not volunteering anything. He wishes to remain silent on the meaningless subject of Obama’s faith and patriotism.

Nevertheless, silence is not good enough for the media.

“To grasp just how farcical this game is, one needs only to run an eye across the list of those who are now feigning high dudgeon,” Charles C.W. Cooke adds at NRO:

 Yesterday, on CBS’s Face the Nation, Obama’s former adviser David Axelrod pretended to be surprised at Walker’s remarks: “I don’t know why there is confusion,” Axelrod proclaimed, indignantly. Really? At present, Axelrod is running around the country promoting a book in which he confesses bluntly that Obama’s well-documented objections to gay marriage were nothing more than opportunistic lies. In 2008, Axelrod recalls in one chapter, “opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church.” In consequence, he adds, Obama “accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union.’” Elsewhere, Obama would tell audiences that, being “a Christian, . . . my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman”; and that, “as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian . . . God’s in the mix.” Axelrod’s admission that this was baloney will sell him a lot of books.

Such suspicions are routinely expressed on the Left. At various points during Obama’s tenure, public figures such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher have openly suggested that President Obama is either an atheist or an agnostic, and that he is merely pretending to be a Christian to placate the rubes in the middle of the country. “You know who’s a liar about [his faith],” Maher suggested last year, “is Obama. He’s a drop-dead atheist, absolutely.” “Our new president,” Christopher Hitchens told France 24 in 2009, “I’m practically sure he is not a believer.” Richard Dawkins, meanwhile, has noted correctly that this theory is popular among progressives. “Like many people,” he averred in 2014, “I’m sure that Obama is an atheist.” These statements lacked the modesty of Scott Walker’s effective “dunno.” In fact, they were far, far harsher. And yet they were met with relative indifference. Are we to conclude that the bien pensant class considers it to be more honorable for a person to suggest that the president of the United States is lying than to say that he does not know and does not care?

Evidently, the media never thought the bill would come due for its sophistry, which has been going for almost a decade now.

Oh and while, as Nolte writes, the MSM is busy “blackmailing Walker with threat of harsh coverage if he doesn’t vouch for Obama’s patriotic Christianity,” crickets in the MSM over the chairwoman of the Democratic Party allegedly prepared to blackmail Obama as “being sexist, anti-semitic if she lost her DNC job,” as Allahpundit writes today.

The DNC’s operatives with bylines will report no bad news concerning the home office, ever.

On the other hand, check this out:

But it was the Democrats who weaponized Hillary Clinton — and her supporters — in 2008 by throwing every smear at her imaginable to pave the way for Obama’s coronation. Just wait ’til all of that source material is repurposed in the run-up to 2016.

Update: “Thank The Left For Presidential Candidate Scott Walker,”  Brandon Finnigan adds at the Federalist, with a look back at how Walker won what were in essence near annual re-election bids in Wisconsin thanks to the crazed leftists and government unions there:

Had the Democrats not targeted Walker with a recall, that massive fundraiser network, the national profile, the party unity, and his highly developed get-out-the-vote team almost certainly wouldn’t exist. He may have still won re-election, but he would be just another Midwestern Republican governor who enacted reforms and faced push-back, not the conservative folk hero of a party longing for a win. He would most likely resemble Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a reformer but hardly a man with a cult following. There would still be plenty of new problems with the governor his opposition could cite, instead of leaving him mostly vetted for 2016.

They shot the king and missed, making a balding, sleepy-eyed executive into a god among a growing horde of followers. That’s bad enough for the Progressive set. In the unlikely event he wins the Republican nomination and the presidency? They struck the match that ignited their own national hell.

And we’ve seen over the past week, the leftwing media still can’t put an end to their own pyromania.

Don’t Hold Your Breath, Rudy

February 22nd, 2015 - 11:01 pm

Now is the time when we juxtapose, Small Dead Animals-style:

Barack Obama’s victory should once and for all finally break the notion that race is a barrier to any goal in the United States. And those who’ve built their power from anger and racial divisiveness, like Ayers, the Panthers, and Reverend Wright should now be mocked like the small men they are. It will be up to Obama as president to transcend the figures of his past–and it’s up to the rest of us as a nation to finally put them into the rearview mirror.

“Congratulations, President Elect Obama,” Ed Driscoll.com, November 4th, 2008.

I hope and pray that President Obama can rise to the occasion and underscore America’s greatness as our history and values merit. If he does so, I will be the first to applaud him. But I can only be disheartened when I hear him claim, as he did last August, that our response to 9/11 betrayed the ideals of this country. When he interjected that “we tortured some folks,” he undermined those who managed successfully to protect us from further attack.

And to say, as the president has, that American exceptionalism is no more exceptional than the exceptionalism of any other country in the world, does not suggest a becoming and endearing modesty, but rather a stark lack of moral clarity.

Over my years as mayor of New York City and as a federal prosecutor, I earned a certain reputation for being blunt. The thoughts I express, whether clearly or ambiguously, are my own and they are my individual responsibility. But whether you agree or not with what I said last week, I hope the intention behind those words can be the basis for a real conversation about national leadership and the importance of confidence and optimism in framing America’s way forward. I hope also that our president will start acting and speaking in a way that draws sharp, clear distinctions between us and those who threaten our way of life.

—”Rudy Giuliani: My Bluntness Overshadowed My Message. Whether you agreed with me or not, I hope this can be the basis of a real conversation about national leadership,” Rudy Giuliani in the Wall Street Journal, today.

Given that our semi-retired president is clearly in the You’re Only President Once back nine phase of his time in office, I doubt anyone, least of all America’s Mayor Emeritus, is waiting for Mr. Obama to “start acting and speaking in a way that draws sharp, clear distinctions between us and those who threaten our way of life” anytime soon.

On the other hand, “Marie Harf has Turned all Democrats into Neocons,” Leon Wolf quips at Red State, as Harf, Media Matters and other leftists were all frantically quoting GWB to justify Harf’s loopy “jobs for ISIS” dissembling:

Of course, the Democrats don’t really believe this, inasmuch as they don’t believe anything of conviction with respect to foreign policy. They are merely saying it aloud because they are reflexively incapable of refusing to defend anything the Obama administration does, even though Obama is term limited and the statement in question fell out of the mouth of the Lucy and Ethel duo that have been systematically (and probably purposefully) embarrassing the State Department since their arrival. It does not matter – if Obama (or even one of Obama’s low-level flunkies) wants them to be neocons, then neocons they shall be.

And if you wanted people who were capable of a coherent view of foreign policy, you shouldn’t have voted to put Democrats in charge.

Well, yes. But then, as Glenn Reynolds writes at USA Today, “Unpatriotic voters elect unpatriotic leaders,” though I think the fault lies much more in the pundit class, who built a failed community organizer turned tyro senator with excellent trousers into the second coming of JFK, FDR and Lincoln than the voters who blindly accepted their rhetoric.

As Mark Halperin noted on the Today Show in 2012, “the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants.”

And how! Just ask Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin, as seen in the above tweet.

Just as a refresher, Halperin, in the midst of his earlier stint at Time magazine*, during a rare moment of clarity in November of 2013 when asked by an interviewer about “Death Panels” in Obamacare, responded unhesitatingly, “It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled.”

He’s now back to using schoolyard epithets against one possible GOP successor in the White House. Or as Mark Steyn writes in “O Beautiful, For Specious Guys…”

The US media have had a fit of the vapors over Rudy Giuliani’s suggestion that Barack Obama does not love America. As the Instapundit says, their reaction suggests that Giuliani hit a nerve. For my own part, I am way beyond that. By the way, I’m growing rather weary of the cheap comparisons of Obama with Neville Chamberlain. The British Prime Minister got the biggest issue of the day wrong. But no one ever doubted that he loved his country. That’s why, after his eviction from Downing Street, Churchill kept him on in his ministry as Lord President of the Council, and indeed made Chamberlain part of the five-man war cabinet and had him chair it during his frequent absences. When he died of cancer in October 1940, Churchill wept over his coffin.

So please don’t insult Neville Chamberlain by comparing him to Obama. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, because conspiracies are generally a comforting illusion: the real problem with Obama is that the citizens of the global superpower twice elected him to office. Yet one way to look at the current “leader of the free world” is this: If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?

That’s a question that everyone in the MSM should be asked.

After watching the brain of Dana Milbank of the Washington Post similarly explode like a character in Scanners, Jazz Shaw of Hot Air writes, “Milbank should at least be honest enough to wear a ‘Ready for Hillary’ t-shirt when he goes to work every day if this is how the upcoming election analysis is going to be handled.”

Well yes, hence the rather skewed ratio of stories lambasting a retired mayor’s remarks about a lame duck president versus the tiny amount of coverage of a front-running candidate’s funding “from questionable foreign governments and shady billionaires—something even Clinton’s defenders admit is a problem,” as Andrew Stiles writes at Hillary’s bête noire, the Washington Free Beacon.

At the start of the week, John Steele Gordon of Commentary wrote, “Republicans Should Declare War on the Mainstream Media:”

What should Boehner do? I think he, and every Republican, should do what George H.W. Bush did to Dan Rather as the 1988 presidential race was heating up: eat the mainstream media alive. They are the enemies of the Republican Party and should be treated as such. Stop trying to curry favor because you won’t get it. Bush laid a trap for Rather, insisting on the interview being live so it couldn’t end up on the cutting room floor. It totally flustered Rather, greatly energized Bush’s campaign, put the kibosh on his too-much-a-nice-guy image, and helped mightily to propel him to the White House. Make mainstream media bias the issue. Throw loaded questions and those premised on liberal assumptions back in their faces. Accuse them of bias when they are biased. Don’t be Mr. Nice Guy.

Why have the Republicans been such wimps when dealing with the media? The reason, I think, is that the Republicans were the minority party in this country from 1932 to 1994. The Democrats held the House for all but four of those 62 years and the Senate for all but ten of those years. In far too many ways, the Republicans still act as the minority party, begging for crumbs from the media. But they now hold more political offices, at both the federal and state levels, than at any time since the glory days of Calvin Coolidge. Instead they should, in dealing with the media, emulate Joan Crawford, at least as depicted by Faye Dunaway in Mommy Dearest, dealing with the board of Pepsi Cola (warning, she doesn’t use ladylike language).

After driving Halperin, Milbank, Ron Fournier and countless other Hillary apparatchiks into apoplexy, Rudy may have just hit on the poison pill to neutralize much of the MSM from within. Or at least have a “Hillary, Coordinate! Hillary, Coordinate!” pause while waiting for new programming from the Borg Queen, to mangle Star Trek metaphors.

Update: At the Pocket Full of Liberty Website, Jay Caruso sums it up: “In Obama [the media sees] themselves. What he wants to carry out is what they want and they are going to do what they can to make sure these last two years he gets to do just that, the consequences be damned.” Or to paraphrase Caruso’s headline, from the MSM’s perspective, when you attack Obama (or Hillary), you’re attacking us.

This was self-evident in 2008…

…But I’m honestly surprised to see the MSM not distance themselves a bit seven years later.

* Mea culpa: When I wrote the first draft of this post, I had forgotten that last year, Halperin jumped from Time to Bloomberg. Of course, we shouldn’t forget that a decade ago during his salad days at ABC, Halperin was more than a little susceptible himself to doing what the Kerry campaign wanted.

“The best thing Obama can seem to say about the country is that it elected him into office,” Jonah Goldberg writes in his latest G-File:

Look, it was like a week ago that we were talking about Obama’s inability to criticize the Islamic State without first going out of his way to flagellate the West and America over the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, and Jim Crow. Is it really so crazy to think a guy who feels compelled to warn his own countrymen not to get on their “high horse” about child rapists and slavers (who are also beheading and/or immolating and/or burying alive Americans, Christians, Yazidis, and fellow Muslims) might subscribe to an, um, unconventional form of patriotism?

* * * * * * *

More than any other president, Obama was raised with a detachedly critical view of America. He grew up abroad and in Hawaii, which is as close as you can get to growing-up abroad and still be in the United States. (Sorry, I love Hawaii, but it’s true.) At school he hung out mostly with the foreign-exchange students from Pakistan. “For years when Barack was around them, he seemed to share their attitudes as sophisticated outsiders who looked at politics from an international perspective,” David Maraniss writes in his biography of Obama. “He was one of them, in that sense.”

Byron York writes in his piece on the Maraniss book:

But Obama was ambitious. Appalled by the “dirty deeds” of “Reagan and his minions”* (as he wrote in “Dreams from My Father”), Obama became increasingly interested in, as Maraniss writes, “gaining power in order to change things.” He couldn’t do that as an international guy hanging around with his Pakistani friends; he needed to become an American.

So he did. One of those Pakistani friends, Beenu Mahmood, saw a major change in Obama. Mahmood calls Obama “the most deliberate person I ever met in terms of constructing his own identity,” according to Maraniss. The time after college, Mahmood says, “was an important period for him, first the shift from not international but American, number one, and then not white, but black.”

Mahmood, Maraniss writes, “could see Obama slowly but carefully distancing himself as a necessary step in establishing his political identity as an American.”

His early political years involved similar strategic positioning, from joining Jeremiah Wright’s Church to (according to David Axelrod) lying about his opposition to gay marriage. And it paid off. And when he finally burst on the national scene, he could use his detachment to his advantage. Indeed, his whole approach to politics has been, “People of Earth, stop your bickering. I’m Barack Obama and I’m here to help.” The slogan “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” implies the building-up of a seething desire to make this country different than it is and throw off the dead weight of the past. Whenever he talks unapologetically about patriotism, it is invariably in the context of trying to get the country to rally around some new government endeavor (and, more importantly, himself).

Read the whole thing, which condenses a century of “Progressive” history down to a handful of easily-digestible paragraphs, and notes along the way, “culturally and psychologically, what endures is the pious progressive conviction that the government is better than the people it serves, at least when the right people are running it — and that the job of progressives is to bring the bitter clingers up to the government’s ideals, as best they can.”

Which, along with Mr. Obama’s own hatred of Reagan, makes this Reagan-Obama comparison by former AP man Ron Fournier such a non sequitur.  But then, as a obedient Democrat operative with a byline, Ron’s not above questioning the patriotism of those on the other side of the aisle himself.

On the other hand, we can say this about Mr. Obama:

And this response from the left is fun…

…When you consider the improbable career arc of the source. But then, as Moe Lane writes, “the Left isn’t screaming about this because they think that the charge is unfair. They’re screaming about this because they agree with the charge, but were unpleasantly surprised to see that we picked up on it, too. …Oops?” Oh and incidentally, note this little poke at Mr. Obama’s predecessor from the Obama White House:


You stay classy, young White House turks!

* Paging Ron Fournier to the red phone, please.

Oh MSNBC, don’t ever change:

● “MSNBC Guest Stephanie Miller: Rudy’s Obama Comments Like Using the ‘N-Word,’ and ‘C-Word.’”

NewsBusters, today.

● “National Journal’s Hirsh [appearing on Chris Matthews' Hardball]: Time for a moral sanction against gun metaphors similar to the ‘N’ word.”

The Daily Caller, January 21st, 2011.

● “Can’t Make This Up: Now Joking About Obama’s Love for Golf is ‘Racist’ to MSNBC.”

NewsBusters, August 29th, 2012.

“Chris Matthews and MSNBC Now Claim the Word ‘Chicago’ Is Racist.”

NewsBusters, August 30th, 2012.

Just another day at the office for Comcast’s Jim Crow TV. Which is why, as Ace writes today, “Enough of the game. Your entire politics is based upon resentment towards the existing American order and a hatred of current American mores. Get the f*** out of here with your insistence that I credit you as ‘loving America.’”

Update: As Charles C.W. Cooke writes today at NRO in “The Fall of MSNBC,” unlike right-leaning Fox News, MSNBC, “by unlovely contrast, does not aim at a broad swath of the United States at all, but is instead focused on a fascinating alternative universe to which few would-be viewers have ever been. Its handful of rather ordinary news anchors to one side, MSNBC’s hosts do not so much exist to represent a popular viewpoint as they are put on air to play a set of dramatic roles in what has become a vast and monomaniacal piece of conspiratorial performance art, of the sort that one might see composed by the theater department at Oberlin.”

Hence the kabuki theater above, just a microscopic sampling from MSNBC’s daily offerings.

Say, About Creepy Uncle Joe Biden

February 19th, 2015 - 1:35 pm

“Top Democratic 2016 contenders are poor generals in the ‘war on women,’” Ashe Schow writes at the Washington Examiner: 

Now that the opening shots have been fired in the “war on women” 2016 narrative, a ploy used by Democrats in 2012 to paint Republicans as anti-woman, it’s time to retaliate. The current top two contenders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination – Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden – are really, really lousy figures in the pro-woman department.

Vice President Biden, who currently appears to skate away from controversy as “Creepy Uncle Joe,” has a weird habit of treating women like Richard Dawson, the former “Family Feud” host known for kissing female contestants. As my colleague Byron York pointed out on Tuesday, it’s time to ask why it’s okay for Biden to act like a 1960s corporate manager (without the extramarital affairs) but not okay for the coworker or friend to do so.

Especially given the fact that this is the same Biden who has for decades championed the Violence Against Women Act and more recently, the Obama administration’s efforts to combat campus sexual assault. In 2000, as York also noted, Biden said “There is no circumstance under which a man has a right to touch a woman without her consent other than self-defense.” This would be at odds with the inappropriate touching of women by Biden during White House events. As far as I can tell, he has not been defending himself from constant physical attacks by politicians, wives or daughters. But I guess that would be the ultimate twist.

But with Democrats and their activists giving so much attention to the issue of campus sexual assault, could they really nominate someone who at nearly every event he attends does something that college activists would label as assault? Or will the old Richard Nixon defense be used: “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

The “1960s corporate manager” reference is key — barring a disastrous gaffe by Hillary (let me rephrase that, given her propensity at making them — barring a disastrous gaffe by Hillary which somehow gains traction among the American people despite the best efforts of DNC operatives with bylines to tamp down the fire), Biden is at this point the longest of longshots at getting the Democrat nomination. Instead, the Hollywood that religiously watches Mad Men every week and tut-tuts the lecherous behavior of Don Draper and Roger Sterling (while looking the other way at the lecherous behavior of Woody & Roman and dozens of others in their own industry), will cheerfully give their pocket change to the wife of Bill Clinton.

To be fair to Biden though, as Jim Treacher writes, “He should maybe stop contributing to rape culture by feeling up anything in a skirt, but I hope he never stops telling us how much Obama stinks.”

As the Politico reports, smelling salts in firmly in hand:

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

* * * * * * *

In an interview after the dinner — Walker aides insisted all of the governor’s comments were off the record — Giuliani said he would “eventually” back a Republican presidential candidate. He also elaborated on his criticism of Obama by arguing the president “sees our weaknesses as footnotes to the great things we’ve done.”

As Ace adds:

That is Guiliani garbling his thoughts; our weaknesses are footnotes (and footnotes worth reading, as footnotes usually are) to our accomplishments.

Obama doesn’t see our failings as footnotes. He sees them as the main text. He sees America doing a few good things here and there (most importantly: electing him) as the footnotes.

Click over to read the rest. And then check out Jim Treacher, who offers an illustrated drive down memory road for anyone in the DNC-MSM who has forgotten some of Mr. Obama’s more infamous moments. “Obama loves you, America. Now stop clinging so bitterly to your old life and change,” Treach adds.

Back in 2007, Ace once referred to “the Ike Turner school of patriotism,” practiced by those “who love America show it by denigrating and beating the shit out of her at every opportunity.” Mr. Obama fits that mindset perfectly. And the MSM knows it, because in their heart of hearts, they also support such a punitive worldview, which is at the reactionary heart of the Progressive mindset, but one that they’ve spent eight years working so diligently covering up in Mr. Obama.

Which is why they’re so angry with Giuliani for openly stating the obvious. And hey, two more years to go of Obama in full You’re Only President Once mode. As Obama continues to go Bullworth, the media will continue to attack Republicans ever more viciously as they point out his failings — a dangerous negative feedback loop for all concerned.

Finally, an exit question for the MSM:

 

Quote of the Day

February 17th, 2015 - 8:10 pm

Anyone familiar with my foundation knows my position. I think a trillion dollars of student loans and a massive skills gap are precisely what happens to a society that actively promotes one form of education as the best course for the most people. I think the stigmas and stereotypes that keep so many people from pursuing a truly useful skill, begin with the mistaken belief that a four-year degree is somehow superior to all other forms of learning. And I think that making elected office contingent on a college degree is maybe the worst idea I’ve ever heard.

But of course, Howard Dean is not the real problem. He’s just one guy. And he’s absolutely right when he says that many others will judge Scott Walker for not finishing college. That’s the real problem.

However – when Howard Dean called the Governor “unknowledgeable,” he rolled out more than a stereotype. He rolled a pencil across the desk, and gave Scott Walker eight minutes to knock it out of the park.

It’ll be fun to see if he does.

—Mike Rowe, host of TV’s Dirty Jobs and Somebody’s Gotta Do It. Read the whole thing.

“Scott Walker’s national education effect” is explored by Glenn Reynolds in his latest USA Today column:

Though Walker attended Marquette University, he left before graduating, which has caused some finger-wagging from the usual journalistic suspects. After all, they seem to believe, everyone they know has a college degree, so it must be essential to getting ahead. As the successful governor of an important state, you’d think that Walker’s subsequent career would make his college degree irrelevant, but you’d be wrong.

And that’s why a President Walker would accomplish something worthwhile the moment he took office. Over the past few years in America, a college degree has become something valued more as a class signifier than as a source of useful knowledge. When Democratic spokesman Howard Dean (who himself was born into wealth) suggested that Walker’s lack of a degree made him unsuitable for the White House, what he really meant was that Walker is “not our kind, dear” — lacking the credential that many elite Americans today regard as essential to respectable status.

Of course, some of our greatest presidents, from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Harry S. Truman, never graduated from college. But the college degree as class-signifier is, as I note in my book, The New School, a rather recent phenomenon. As late as the 1970s, it was perfectly respectable for middle-class, and even upper-middle-class, people to lack a college degree. And, of course, most non-elite Americans still do: 68% of Americans, like Scott Walker, lack a college diploma. But where 50 years or 100 years ago they might not have cared, many now feel inferior to those who possess a degree.

Or to put it another way:

Walker is certainly driving all of the right left people utterly insane; the Times has had to quietly correct both of their goofball hits on Walker this month:

“Call off the Dogs,” Dowd proactively begs her readers, adding, “I’LL pay for this column,” in her characteristically overblown fashion. But setting that aside, she’s certainly onto something here:

The Rottweilers will be unleashed.

Once the Clintons had a War Room. Now they have a Slime Room.

Once they had the sly James Carville, fondly known as “serpenthead.” Now they have the slippery David Brock, accurately known as a snake.

Brock fits into the Clinton tradition of opportunistic knife-fighters like Dick Morris and Mark Penn.

The silver-haired 52-year-old, who sports colorful designer suits and once wore a monocle, brawled his way into a Times article about the uneasy marriage between Hillary Clinton’s veteran attack dogs and the group of advisers who are moving over from Obamaland.

Hillary hasn’t announced a 2016 campaign yet. She’s busy polling more than 200 policy experts on how to show that she really cares about the poor while courting the banks. Yet her shadow campaign is already in a déjà-vu-all-over-again shark fight over control of the candidate and her money. It’s the same old story: The killer organization that, even with all its ruthless hired guns, can’t quite shoot straight.

Squabbling competing factions helped Hillary squander a quarter-of-a-billion dollars in 2008.

By titling her article “Call off the Dogs,” Dowd is reduced to begging angry mobs of Times readers to attack her last — because the paper certainly has no qualms about whipping up a mob to advance its own interests on a regular basis. This past November, the Times published Ferguson police office Darren Wilson’s home address, a not so subtle invitation for its more wild-eyed core readers to descend upon his residence. (This after the paper accused Sarah Palin’s clip art for magically shooting Gabrielle Giffords.)  In 2010, the paper attempted to publish the addresses of legal New York gun owners. In recent weeks, the paper has taken the side of hometown mobs over the NYPD. In 2011, Paul Krugman was so approving of Occupy Wall Street’s methods, we created a “Krug Army” Photoshop to accompany our posts on the former Enron Adviser turned leftwing rabble-rouser.

Since 2008, the Times has been rather approving of the community organizer currently occupying the White House. And has never lost much sleep over Media Methods’ tactics when they’re employed against the right. But all of a sudden, Dowd is concerned about a community being organized against her. Should have thought of that sooner, MoDo.

And as Dan Riehl writes today at Big Journalism in response to Dowd’s column:

Perhaps John Podesta, as Dowd suggests, can step in and give Hillary the kind of campaign she didn’t have in 2008 – one that wins. But for now, the same old shenanigans too long associated with Clinton, Inc. are rearing their ugly heads. If she isn’t careful, that might make a potential non-candidate-in-waiting, Elizabeth Warren, looks even more attractive to Democrats that she is already. Should Hillary stumble early, it might not take long for the party faithful to start calling for someone else to step up.

Warren’s followers attacking Hillary’s would certainly be quite an echo of the internecine struggle between far left and really far left in 2008. In 2008, Obama called Hillary’s Democrat supporters bitter clingers obsessed with guns and religion. Moving in lockstep, his supporters rushed to dub their fellow Democrats racist white men. How will a repeat of that scrum work out in the twilight of his administration?

Related: In case you missed, “NYT Columnist Blames Scott Walker for Teacher Layoffs That Occurred Before He Was Governor.” Former AP man Ron Fournier collateral damage in Gail Collins’ botched attack.

Shot:

Q: There’s a perception that vaccine refusal is especially common among affluent, well-educated, politically liberal parents—is there any truth to that?

S.M.: It’s dangerous to make broad generalizations about a group, but anecdotally and from the overall data that’s been collected it seems to be people who are very actively involved in every possible decision regarding their children’s lives. I think it relates to a desire to take uncertainty out of the equation. And autism represents such an unknown. We still don’t know what causes it and we still don’t have good answers for how to treat it. So I think that fear really resonates.

Also I think there’s a fair amount of entitlement. Not vaccinating your child is basically saying I deserve to rely on the herd immunity that exists in a population. At the most basic level it’s saying I believe vaccines are potentially harmful, and I want other people to vaccinate so I don’t have to. And for people to hide under this and say, “Oh, it’s just a personal decision,” it’s being dishonest. It’s a personal decision in the way drunk driving is a personal decision. It has the potential to affect everyone around you.

Q: But why liberals?

S.M.: I think it taps into the organic natural movement in a lot of ways.

I talked to a public health official and asked him what’s the best way to anticipate where there might be higher than normal rates of vaccine noncompliance, and he said take a map and put a pin wherever there’s a Whole Foods. I sort of laughed, and he said, “No, really, I’m not joking.” It’s those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food-eating people.

“Why the ‘Prius Driving, Composting’ Set Fears Vaccines,” Science magazine’s 2011 interview with Seth Mnookin, the author of The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear.

Chaser (click to enlarge):

vacc-rate-2012-electoral-map-2-3-15-4-sml

Eh, make it a double:

Hangover:

Update: This topic is time-limited, MSNBC. Get your faux outrage in fast!

 

And speaking of NBC…

More: The Daily Beast “senior editor” offers cool, reasoned and entirely objective nonpartisan commentary on the topic:

Tomorrow’s Campaign Ads Today

February 2nd, 2015 - 4:15 pm

In 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago.” In 2008, Hillary asked Democrat primary voters who they wanted to answer the 3:00 AM phone call. (Actually, then and now, they’d prefer that the phone was simply off the hook, as it apparently was in the White House during Benghazi.) This year, Benjamin Netanyahu asks Israeli voters who’d they like to babysit their kids. As John Podhoretz tweets, “If you don’t think this is a great commercial, you’re bonkers,” and some smart American campaign consultant will likely steal it next year. But it only works for the right candidate — Bibi’s bona fides as pretty rock solid when it comes to fighting terrorism; which is why the ad works for him, it’s a kinder and gentler version of Hillary’s 3:00 AM ad, in this case, repositioning a man of the right to appeal to the squishy center while still promoting his core competency. (The punchline is a hoot, too.)

So who can use this ad in America? Given her husband’s predilections, Hillary asking if you want her to babysit your kids would seem icky, though in retrospect, it’s a shame flinty ol’ Cold Warrior turned GWOT proponent John McCain’s strategists didn’t think of this approach in 2008. But could someone like Chris Christie use such an ad to soften his gruff appearance? Uncle Joe Biden? In any case, somebody will use a variation of this ad next year.

“Trickle-down economics is a Leftist lie,” British conservative Daniel Hannan politician writes:

In a 2012 paper for the Hoover Institute, the brilliant American writer Thomas Sowell showed that phrase was first used by FDR’s speech writer, Samuel Rosenman, who attacked “the philosophy that had prevailed in Washington since 1921, that the object of government was to provide prosperity for those who lived and worked at the top of the economic pyramid, in the belief that prosperity would trickle down to the bottom of the heap and benefit all.”

* * * * * * *

What free-marketeers in fact advocate is not trickle-down, but trickle-up. The way to become rich, in a competitive economy, is to offer a service to the broad mass of consumers. I am typing these words using software that I bought from Bill Gates. The transaction enriched him – adding fractionally to his net wealth – but it also enriched me, making my life more convenient. Bill Gates became wealthy, in other words, by persuading a great many poorer people to buy something from him. In doing so, he made us considerably better off, too. Trickle-up, you see.

Trickle-down, by contrast, would represent the precise opposite of an open market system. It would involve handing wads of cash to the undeserving rich in the hope that their affluence would somehow transfer itself to the rest of us. Now such transfers do occasionally happen. The bank bailouts were the most notorious example: they shifted a great deal of money, through coercive taxation, from people on low and medium incomes to wealthy bankers and bondholders. The Common Agricultural Policy is another instance: its cost falls disproportionately on the poor, who spend a relatively high percentage of their income on food, and its benefits go overwhelmingly to big landowners. Likewise the alternative energy boondoggles that force the general population to subsidise those same landowners through higher fuel bills.

In other words, the whole mindset of crony socialism that market the early days of the Obama administration, and can be summed up in a single, damning word: Solyndra (or Tesla. Or Government Motors, but that’s two words.) In the early 1920s, the American left began to use the traditionally conservative word “liberalism” to separate themselves from the failed “Progressive” (read: totalitarian) policies of Woodrow Wilson. Over the next 15 years they would go on (as FDR and Truman both did) to Orwellianly denounce Coolidge’s laissez-faire worldview as “fascist.” Similarly, the next GOP presidential candidate could have lots of fun driving his interviewers absolutely insane calling for a permanent end to the trickle-down economics of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.

The left steals bases all the time. Why can’t we?

Related: In his weekly USA Today column, Glenn Reynolds offers a troika of additional ways “to ‘do something’ about poverty.”

The Biden 2016 campaign is certainly steaming along nicely, no?

At an event this morning, Vice President Joe Biden told Democrats that, “To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country.”

“And they’ve been really tough for our party. Just ask [former DCCC chair] Steve [Israel]. They’ve been really tough for our party. And together we made some really, really tough decisions — decisions that weren’t at all popular, hard to explain,” said Biden.

At the end of 2000 election, Slate noted, “In the wake of a successful centrist presidency and the best economy in memory, Gore adopted an angry populism as the tone of his campaign. Michael Kinsley aptly characterized this stance as ‘You’ve never had it so good, and I’m mad as hell about it.’”

Biden has reversed this formula: “To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country. And they’ve been really tough for our party.” So vote for me for four more years!

As for where things stand with the suddenly Romney-less GOP field, Tom Blumer has you covered over at the PJM homepage, along with one of my Photoshops for “George Stephanopoulos, Democrat Sniper.”

Related: Tanned, rested, and ready!