The first step is admitting…
It was a simple question to someone accustomed to much tougher ones: What was her proudest achievement as secretary of state? But for a moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing recently before a friendly audience at a women’s forum in Manhattan, seemed flustered.
Mrs. Clinton played an energetic role in virtually every foreign policy issue of President Obama’s first term, advocating generally hawkish views internally while using her celebrity to try to restore America’s global standing after the hit it took during the George W. Bush administration.
But her halting answer suggests a problem that Mrs. Clinton could confront as she recounts her record in Mr. Obama’s cabinet before a possible run for president in 2016: Much of what she labored over so conscientiously is either unfinished business or has gone awry in his second term.
So…no definitive successes and some clear-cut failures. And that’s the generous New York Times assessment.
The Democrat fantasy story about Mrs. Clinton paints her as strong and accomplished on her own. In reality, this is a woman who is professionally defined almost entirely by two men in her life, both of whom happen to have been two-term presidents. Throw into the mix the fact that her relationship with both is uneasy at best and some vulnerabilities which can be exploited by opponents begin to appear.
The Hillary that both Republicans and Democrats talk about as being dynamic, formidable and inevitable doesn’t really seem to exist in the real world under close examination. She got where she is seemingly by making some uncomfortable compromises with two men she doesn’t seem to like very much. Her greatest electoral victory came because her opponent got cancer.
This Times piece tries to portray her as rather hawkish. Where does that fit in with a constituency that twice propelled President Obama to victory? Does she get a gender free pass from the hopeychangeys?
I know that she is supposed to be a juggernaut because pretty much everyone who isn’t me says she is, but I still don’t see it.
Apparently, neither does she.
And it’s not even about the plane. Thoughts to follow the video:
OK, how does John King manage to work in a Mitt Romney dig? Oh yeah, because the Leftmedia monkeys can’t criticize a Democrat without throwing in some nonsensical random reference to a Republican who isn’t even on the national stage right now as a palate cleanser.
Then there is Jonathan Martin’s perfunctory, “Hey it’s no big deal when a Democrat does something stupid like this…” response. He says the folks in Louisiana “probably will never know” that the ad is faked, which is most likely his way of saying, “Yeah…no one is watching us talk about this right now.”
Democrats are courting former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to challenge Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) in the 2014 election cycle, according to The New York Times.
Sebelius has increasingly been mentioned as a strong Democratic challenger against Roberts and, according to the Times, one Democrat who spoke directly with her said she is “thinking about it.”
But a Sebelius Senate run wouldn’t ensure Democrats took control of Roberts’ seat. Not only does her resume include serving as the top healthcare official in the Obama administration for overseeing the Affordable Care Act but Democrats have also not controlled a Senate seat in Kansas since 1939.
Well, now we know what the shelf life for feigned shame over a job poorly done is for them. She’s been gone all of…wait, is she even really gone yet?
Just a few days after the left media tried to-wink, wink, nudge, nudge-pretend that she was the fall gal for the nightmarish Obamacare rollout, they are now touting her troubled tenure as a résumé builder.
The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind party never really punishes anyone from the ranks for not performing well. Just look at what Anthony Weiner had to do to finally get shunned.
Once you’ve turned a guy who drowned an intern into a lion of your party there isn’t much in the way of embarrassment to go around anyway.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo once earned plaudits from liberals for his tough talk on gun control and success in legalizing gay marriage in the state. But, lately, he’s found no shortage of frenemies to his left.
In the past month, liberal protesters outside Cuomo’s office have dubbed him “Governor 1 Percent”; a prominent progressive activist has suggested that he run for reelection as a Republican; the head of a major labor union has called for someone to challenge the governor in the Democratic primary; and a series of behind-the-scenes feuds between Cuomo and other top Democratic officials have spilled out into public view.
The proximal cause for the infighting during an election year, when parties typically put aside their internal differences, is the state’s recently concluded, highly contentious budget process, which ended many Democrats’ hopes for sweeping ethics reforms this year. On fiscal policy, Cuomo aides insist the budget is “very progressive,” but the labor-backed Working Families Party, which endorsed the governor in 2010, is reconsidering its support this year, saying that Cuomo “chose inequality over progress.”
Progressives have been involved in a deliberate, decades-long takeover of the Democratic Party that has mostly been hallmarked by patience. The current occupier of the Oval Office has increased their expectations, however. Any Democrat who won’t smash the tax piggy bank and give them ALL THE THINGS will be found wanting and, dare I say, targeted.
One of Cuomo’s sins is that he doesn’t worship at the altar of Big Labor all of the time.
“This is not a minor shift, but it comes after a slow burn that started in 2010 … and finally just exploded in the past week and a half,” says Bill Samuels, a New York City Democratic fundraiser and activist. “There was probably no one who liked Andrew better than me.…. He lost most of us permanently. And I mean permanently. I don’t have one friend who is a Cuomo supporter.”
At its root, much of the animosity lies in some Democrats’ suspicion that Cuomo is not really one of them. Richard Brodsky, a former Democratic state senator who is now a senior fellow at the think tank Demos, has dubbed Cuomo’s worldview “progractionary”—a mix of “progressive” and “reactionary.” On social issues, the governor is a textbook liberal, but on economics, he’s embraced tax cuts and is skeptical of labor unions.
Perhaps Cuomo is skeptical because Big Labor gets rejected in every place it isn’t forced upon workers by mandate. Labor proponents will have us believe that every workplace in America will immediately morph into a sweatshop from 1894 if Big Labor has any of its power diminished or if people are allowed-wait for it-the right to choose whether they want to join a union.
The reality is that Big Labor’s fairy tale isn’t working anymore and people know that most labor unions (especially public sector unions) are all about political lobbying for things that will line the bosses’ pockets and have nothing to do with workers. And, as we have seen in Wisconsin, they can’t always win by throwing all of the money they have at an election.
It’s not that Cuomo is actually moving towards the center, his psychotic gun grab alone should prove his leftist bona fides. He is merely centrist compared to someone from the “leans commie” end of the spectrum, like Bill de Blasio:
Against this backdrop, there was bound to be conflict between Cuomo and New York City’s new mayor, who struck an emphatically populist tone in his campaign. Days after Bill de Blasio’s inauguration, an education-policy battle erupted that typifies the opposing wings of the party the two men represent. De Blasio wanted to fund a universal prekindergarten program with tax increases on the wealthy and to rein in some of the city’s charter schools; Cuomo vociferously opposes tax hikes and is a staunch defender of alternative public education.
You know who hates alternative public education?
The ideological battle for the soul of the party that the MSM loves to say is happening in the GOP is actually happening on the other side of the aisle. Like all things MSM and Democrat, it’s merely projection for what is happening with them. Yes, Republican moderates and conservatives are in the midst of a very necessary fight for some direction, but we are used to such infighting and this squabble isn’t quite as new as many would believe. It does get heated but nobody is really going with a scorched earth approach…yet.
The hive mind on the other side brooks no dissent however. One or the other has to win because that like-mindedness is what the Democrats have been using to win elections lately and the whole thing hits one of their planet saving low-flush toilets in a hurry if there’s a family fight.
There is no level of government spending on phantom issues that satisfies progressives. They are economically challenged non-thinkers who are fueled by mutually exclusive beliefs. On the one hand, they think there is a finite amount of capital in the world and any financial success in the private sector comes at the expense of someone else. On the other, they believe that these same rich people who are stealing from the poor have an infinite amount of wealth which can be taxed to support government largesse. Once those are reconciled in someone’s head, the brain short-circuits and renders any future logical thought impossible.
One side has to win this battle outright. If Hillary Clinton does end up being the nominee for 2016 it will definitely escalate the fighting, as she is practically a Reagan Republican from the leftist perspective of the progressives. Elizabeth Warren is their Golden Girl and many progressives are murmuring about her seeking the presidency, even if Fauxcahontas herself denies that she wants to.
The academics who have been indoctrinating college youth for decades are all on the whacko left and sowing seeds that could very easily blossom into a mobilized electorate. We’ve already seen the first glimpse of that with the Occupy crowd. Those weren’t poor, oppressed American youth fighting to get to the middle class. They were college kids with iPhones who thought their education should be “free”.
There is no level of taxpayer gouging that satisfies progressives. They always want more. When one of their schemes predictably fails, the excuse is always that it was because there wasn’t enough money spent on it.
More, more more.
No, no, no.
People in Colorado may soon have an ultra-convenient option to buy their pot: a vending machine that dispenses medical marijuana and THC-laden snacks.
The machine, called the ZaZZZ, was unveiled at an event in Avon, Colo., over the weekend. Its creators told NPR that the machine uses biometrics to verify a customer’s age. It’s also climate-controlled to keep the products fresh.
These things are going to need more security than an ATM just to keep the delinquent teens at bay. And please, remember, don’t enjoy your “prescription” past its freshness date.
The upside here: the first person who can place a snack vending machine next to one of these will be able to buy an island with the revenue.
Nuance in a gay marriage debate?!? Is that even allowed?
Friedersdorf is one of those writers I agree with once in every twelfth blue moon or so, and I found myself nodding in agreement with much of this article.
He takes apart the fallacious comparison of religious opposition to same sex marriage to white supremacists’ opposition to interracial marriage (emphasis mine):
A narrow point we disagree on is the comparison of opposing interracial marriage to opposing gay marriage. Opposition to interracial marriage was all but synonymous with a belief in the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. (In fact, it was inextricably tied to a singularly insidious ideology of white supremacy and black subjugation that has done more damage to America and its people than anything else, and that ranks among the most obscene crimes in history.)
Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it’s also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.
This is largely because most leftists don’t get outside of the hive mind much, something that is sort of alluded to in a footnote at the end of the piece.
It is important to keep countering the reflexive leftist “BIGOT!” tactic with nuance, facts and whatever other interjections of reality apply. Their stranglehold on social narratives won’t disappear overnight, but they can be undermined over time.
Demonstrations against the grip on San Francisco held by wealthy technology workers took a personal turn on Friday with protesters taking aim at a Google lawyer they say personifies the tensions being stirred by abundant tech money.
Jack Halprin, a landlord in the city’s gentrifying Mission district, became the focus of the latest blockade of a tech company commuter bus, with protesters demanding Google ask Halprin to rescind eviction notices he has sent his tenants.
Protesters told Reuters they will increasingly target individuals as part of a strategy to draw attention to the growing divide between rich and poor in San Francisco, a rift widened by a tech industry boom that is inflating rents and exacerbating social problems such as evictions.
This isn’t an anomaly, it is the endgame for progressive redistribution. There is some delicious irony in the fact that the income inequality angst is bubbling over in the city that also serves as the leftist mothership. But it is a dangerous precedent. They are going after individuals and, as we have seen with almost all prog protests, it will eventually turn violent.
The sad thing is that most of the Democrats who like to stir the class warfare pot are too stupid to know they are advocating for precisely this kind of behavior. It is all part of the consequence-free dreamland they live in.
A German furniture store chain has apologised for selling mugs with Adolf Hitler’s face on them.
The ceramic cups feature a faint image of a Nazi-era postage stamp with Hitler’s profile on it, postmarked with a swastika stamp.
The mug also features a rose and handwriting in English.
The Zurbrueggen furniture chain apologised for the “terrible” mistake, which it blamed on “a stupid chain of unfortunate circumstances”.
The cups’ Chinese designer had mistakenly chosen the image of the former dictator, it said, which the chain then ordered in error – 5,000 of them.
Sure, blame it on the Chinese.
I’m pretty sure they know who Hitler is too.
It is no secret by now that Harry Reid spends his work hours in a semi-waking state, drooling and muttering “Koch brothers” whenever he senses a camera nearby. And, as the Democrats can’t really point to any accomplishments this election year, they desperately need to make the electorate focus on various nonsensical distractions, like the Koch brothers taking over American politics or “income inequality”.
As it is difficult for most Americans to take the Senate Majority Leader seriously, a little help is in order. Enter the official publication of the Democratic National Committee, aka the New York Times.
Democrats in races that will help determine control of the Senate are rapidly burning through their campaign cash, whittling away their financial advantage over Republican opponents as they fend off attacks from conservative groups, according to figures released through Friday.
The spending on both sides underscores the critical role that outside conservative groups are playing as Republicans try to retake the Senate. In state after state, organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the nonprofit linked to David and Charles Koch, have kept Democrats on the defensive with a barrage of negative ads while establishment-backed Republican candidates raise money and navigate their way through primaries.
In yet another piece lamenting money in politics (the Republican kind), the Times takes all of three sentences to drop in a Koch brothers reference. Coincidence? Sure, just like a diet of Twinkies, beer and pizza and obesity are a coincidence.
It is somewhat telling that the “BIG REPUBLICAN MONEY” stories are starting this early in the year. The Democrats usually only get this canard going when they know they’re about to get their clocks cleaned. They can’t ever admit that the GOP might be appealing to people with ideas, it has to be the money. Of course, Big Labor’s infusion of cash and bodies for get out the vote efforts is never mentioned.
For the record, Americans for Prosperity (which is only partially funded by the Kochs) and all of the other Republican stalwarts when it comes to contributions were spending just as much, if not more, money in 2012 and we know how that turned out. So much for the Moneybags Illuminati buying an election whenever they want to.
This entire piece in the Times was written just to get in the Koch brothers mention. It’s how they work. Some media entities like MSNBC are heavy-handed with their biases. The Grey Lady, however, has been doing this longer than any of the others and knows how to slip it right by people.
A pastor determined to live out the Bible’s dictate that we feed the poor was shut down by local police because he didn’t have a permit to serve food.
Twice a month, Rick Wood, a pastor at The Lord’s House of Prayer in Oneonta, Alabama, gets in his truck and drives around Birmingham with more than a hundred hot dogs and bottles of water, handing them out to the homeless. Wood has been serving those in need for the past six years because he wants to put Matthew 25:35-40 — “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,” a scripture verse he has plastered on the side of his truck — into action.
But last month, Wood was stopped from handing out food by local police because he was in violation of a new city ordinance, passed in December, that regulates food trucks. The new regulation requires food trucks to get a permit, which can cost as much as $500. Though the ordinance is specifically targeted at retail food vendors, rather than charities, the city nevertheless used it to block Wood.
True, this won’t bring about an epiphany to the progs but it does provide an illustration to maybe begin a conversation with one or two of them.
Bureaucracies need cash flow to provide the big government utopias that leftists crave and they never quite get that the approach to getting this money is rather heartless. If you have any money at all, the government is spending all of its waking hours trying to figure out ways to get to it. Regulatory burdens hurt everyone, whether directly or indirectly, and regulation is the heart of the big dreams of modern American liberalism.
It’s such an unfair way to treat people that the Think Progress folk seem to know in their hearts it’s wrong, even if their little proggy brains can’t figure out why.
Lately I have been collecting examples of the liberal love affair with misery (especially in the media) for a future project of mine. They are, as most things about modern American leftists are, generally absurd and laughable but worth sharing just to remind ourselves that we don’t want the world run by cranky grade school principals.
This morning, I happened upon this review of the new Kevin Costner movie Draft Day by the New York Times veteran reviewer A.O. Scott. Now, I don’t know for sure what Scott’s politics are, but given the fact that he has risen to the top of the heap at the Times, it is pretty easy to make a guess.
Scott has a lot of nice things to say about Costner, director Ivan Reitman and the movie, ultimately offering that “it sells itself beautifully.”
As if all of the casual enjoyment of what is obviously meant to be a fluff sports movie, Scott has to offer this in the middle of the review:
“Draft Day,” made with what appears to be the very enthusiastic — not to say domineering — cooperation of the N.F.L., is less a football movie than a promotional film. You will see sweeping aerial shots of skylines and stadiums in franchise cities. You will see the league’s commissioner, Roger Goodell, and a bunch of players and executives, past and present, gamely portraying themselves. You will not hear anything about concussions or sexual assault or the exploitation of college athletes, though you may notice that this is a story of (mostly) white men buying and selling the labor of (mostly) African-Americans.
I guess suspension of disbelief is only a thing for leftists when they listen to their political heroes speaking about policy.
This paragraph is so out of place with the rest of the review that it almost appears as if an editor scribbled it in at the last minute. A veteran movie critic knows the difference between mindless entertainment and gritty documentary movies. Why would he lament that the former isn’t the latter in a review?
Because it’s the New York Times, and it just wouldn’t be right to celebrate an easygoing flick about an American institution that is beloved in flyover country without getting in a dig about racism.
They have rules there, you know.
It has long been recognized that “liberal” and “progressive” are misnomers when it comes to describing American leftists in the 21st Century. They may fancy themselves as forward-thinking but they go back eighty or so years whenever it’s time to craft economic policy and their racial politics gaze backward a half century.
Most of the time.
At the Civil Rights Summit in Austin this week, there were some prominent Democrats who surveyed the landscape and admitted that things are, in fact, much different now than they were in the early 1960s.
Things have changed.
That was the message delivered during a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act on Wednesday.
Rep. John Lewis, a prominent figure in the civil rights struggle, said there is probably no greater symbol of that change than the fact that he was introducing Barack Obama, the country’s first black president.
The president himself mostly used the occasion of his speech to make a case for the Executive Branch doing whatever it wants. As he is surrounded by nothing but yes-men, no one bothered to point out that he was making the case for unilateral executive action by praising LBJ’s skills as a legislator, but that’s for another post.
Getting back to the subject at hand, this was President Obama’s assessment:
However flawed our leaders, however flawed our politics, Obama said, “the story of America is the story of progress.”
Yeah, it can be a hot mess much of the time, but we make it work. It’s never perfect but it’s always better than the alternatives offered elsewhere around the globe.
An African-American civil rights legend praised the progress we have made as he introduced an African-American president who did the same.
Restrictions on voting rights in conservative states endanger the core of the U.S. civil rights movement and force Americans to recreate “a yesterday we’re better off done with,” former President Bill Clinton said on Wednesday.
Speaking to a crowd of students and activists in Austin, Texas, Clinton slammed new voting laws that require photo IDs, make voting harder for students, or otherwise tighten up access to the polls.
“We all know what this is about,” Clinton said at a gathering called the Civil Rights Summit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson presidential library. “This is a way of restricting the franchise after 50 years of expanding it.”
The complaints about the Supreme Court decision from last year make sense only if you believe that we have made no progress whatsoever on race in the last fifty years and that only the strong arm of the law, rather than a monumental shift in attitudes, enabled Barack Obama to ascend to the Oval Office.
In Bubba’s version of the story, America is a festering bed of racism that is only being saved from 24/7 Klan rides by some fragile legislation. If there are any changes to that legislation then-POOF!-a time machine instantly transports you to 1964.
It’s sheer insanity. And it is a lie.
Bill Clinton is an elder of the Democratic establishment so he doesn’t see people, he sees voting blocs labeled by race and ethnicity that need to be frightened in order to be properly manipulated for electoral purposes. It’s his job to tell the faceless demographic blocs he sees that the Republicans are just one election away from rolling back the history of everything. It’s a story so riddled with logical inconsistencies that one wonders how anybody with an IQ over 7 would believe it.
The Democrats, however, have gotten so good at storytelling the past twenty five years or so that they can hold an entire summit to celebrate something and feature a beloved ex-president telling them it’s all an illusion.
This happened during a speech honoring LBJ, perhaps the last president to be as focused on personal power as the present occupier of the Oval Office is. This is just another attempt to justify the slew of executive orders he knows he will unleash if the GOP takes the Senate back in the fall.
In summation: according to his oath of office, he is sworn to protect the Constitution, which he is willing to circumvent unilaterally to advance his personal agenda.
CNN is getting out of the host business in its 9 p.m. time slot, at least for now.
The network announced on Thursday that it would insert a wide range of documentary series to play in the 9 o’clock hour lately vacated by the cancellation of the show hosted by Piers Morgan.
CNN made the announcement at its upfront presentation for advertisers on Thursday in Manhattan. One series is about jobs, “Somebody’s Got to Do It,” from Mike Rowe, the producer of “Dirty Jobs.” The network will also show “The Jesus Code,” a forensic search through the Bible.
CNN is also adding a criminal hunt series hosted by John Walsh, of the former long-running Fox show “America’s Most Wanted,” and a documentary series on the 1960s from Tom Hanks’s production company. It also has renewed series from Morgan Spurlock and Anthony Bourdain — Mr. Bourdain’s for two seasons.
All the shows are slated to fill the 9 p.m. hour, which has been especially problematic for CNN since Larry King departed in 2010.
This seems like a safer bet than putting all of their money on a longer contract with a new host. The network really doesn’t have an identity now and it would be difficult to find someone who “fits” when it is unclear exactly why kind of programming mindset he or she should fit into.
This also puts to bed any speculation that CNN would keep covering the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 as long as the plane remained missing.
Thought Purity Now!!!!!!
This is deeply disturbing, and anyone — or any business — who values ethics should be concerned.
Why is this? Because she was a part of the Bush administration? Because she is a Republican and we should hate Republicans? I mean, come on, isn’t Al Gore on Apple’s Board? He’s no saint!
No. This is not an issue of partisanship. It makes sense that Dropbox would want an accomplished, high-level, well-connected individual on their Board of Directors as they prepare for their IPO. There is no doubt that Condoleezza Rice is an extremely brilliant and accomplished individual, having obtained her Masters degree at only age 20 (and a number of other impressive accomplishments).
Choosing Condoleezza Rice for Dropbox’s Board is problematic on a number of deeper levels, and invites serious concerns about Drew Houston and the senior leadership at Dropbox’s commitment to freedom, openness, and ethics. When a company quite literally has access to all of your data, ethics become more than a fun thought experiment.
GENDER PAY GAP!
So we should celebrate a successful African-American woman being added to a big corporate Board of Directors, right? RIGHT?!?
Oh, she’s a Republican…never mind.
Remember, any opposition to a successful black American is rooted in #racism. We’re just using their playbook here.
As John Ekdahl points out in the above linked post, the prog fascists go out of their way to say this isn’t about partisanship then provide a laundry list of partisan reasons for their latest head hunt.
This is why we can’t play nice with these idiots anymore. They are intolerant bigots who will not stop until all are brought into line.
And they gotta go.
According to census data crunched by Atlantic Cities, Bachmann’s district has the lowest level of income inequality in the country. Meanwhile, inequality is highest in the New York City district of Representative Jerry Nadler, a liberal Democrat. Those extremes reflect a broader partisan divide: Across the country, inequality is lower in Republican districts than in Democratic ones.
That’s not surprising, given that high levels of wealth and poverty — and thus inequality — tend to be concentrated in cities, which are dominated by Democrats. But it does call into question the political wisdom of the Democratic Party’s effort to make income inequality the centerpiece of its national economic agenda.
That last part is the key. The Democrats have largely gotten a free pass on the fact that they are run by very wealthy people. And they represent very wealthy people. And the people they get to do their bidding from Hollywood are very wealthy.
But rich white Republicans or something.
They are so good at this ruse that during the 2012 Democratic National Convention they kept portraying Mitt Romney as a rich, white, out of touch Republican from Massachusetts while trotting out John Kerry and Caroline Kennedy on stage.
Timid, don’t-rock-the-boat Republicans have let them get away with this for far too long.
There is no real hope of shifting perceptions if we continually let the economically destructive Kabuki Pander Theater (think: Paycheck Fairness Act) perform unchallenged. The press certainly isn’t going to question the disconnect. We will have to keep working on that ourselves all the while working on getting people elected who can do it as well.
They’re going to be updating this list until next week so keep checking.
If I ever acquire a liquor company, I promise a free bottle of whatever I’m selling every April 15th. If there’s any inventory left after I have to pay, that is.
Lather. Fail. Repeat.
Critics of Democrats calling for additional subsidies for electric vehicles are pointing to the financial troubles of one stimulus-backed car producer that just announced it is closing its U.S. plant.
Missouri-based Smith Electric Vehicles said this week that it is suspending operations in the United States due to a “tight cash-flow situation.”
Its financial troubles came despite nearly $30 million in funds from the Department of Energy (DOE) granted to the company through President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus package.
“You’re setting a model for what we need to be across this country,” Obama said when he visited Smith’s Kansas City production facilities in 2010.
“You’re doing more than just building new vehicles,” Obama said. “You are helping to fight our way through a vicious recession and you are building the economy of America’s future.”
In the minds of the politicians who support these taxpayer funded greendoggles, these businesses should work simply because they want them to work. The Democrats are the anti-economics and anti-real world party and just can’t factor in the presence of reality to any of their legislative lunacy. If you’re propping an industry that has no firm foundation, you’re going to have to continue to do so (not that I want to give them any ideas) indefinitely or market realities show up.
“We didn’t see value in continuing to build a small number of vehicles at the price point we were,” said Hansel, who noted that despite federal support the company was manufacturing vehicles at a loss.
Of course when things like price points and production costs are mentioned, the average Democrat legislator-and especially this president-don’t understand a single word.
Because hey-free money, right?
Republican lawmakers have said that given existing anti-discrimination laws, the legislation is redundant and is a transparent attempt by Democrats to distract from President Obama’s much-criticized health care law.
Supporters of the bill, called the Paycheck Fairness Act, say it would bring transparency to worker pay by making it illegal for employers to penalize employees who discuss their salaries and by requiring the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect pay information from employers.
I don’t say this often (and yes, I’ve checked my temperature-no fever) but kudos to the Senate Republicans for not chasing this ridiculous squirrel from the Dem emo-panderers.
This piece of ridiculousness does nothing but put yet another suffocating layer of redundant regulation and do nothing to shrink the largely mythological gender pay gap.
Every time a Democrat starts belching talking points about income inequality a Republican should counter with, “Are you worried about that now because everyone has to pay twice as much for health insurance thanks to you?”
Two months ago, I predicted that Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee for president in 2016. The case was simple. With Chris Christie’s nascent presidential campaign fatally imploding and the rest of the GOP field too weak to stop the Hillary Clinton juggernaut, a panicked Republican establishment was bound to turn to a known, safe, and relatively centrist quantity to serve as its standard bearer.
There are many more words in the article but that first paragraph was all that he really wanted to say:
“Real conservative candidates weak, Hillary JUGGERNAUT!”
“Juggernaut” in this case actually means, “The Democrats have a pathetically weak bench”. Elizabeth Warren does have supporters on that side of the aisle and still may be a candidate but beyond those two…they’ve got nothing. Sure, Crazy Joe the Wonder Veep could make things interesting in a “dog trying to lick peanut butter off the roof of his mouth” kind of way for a few months but nobody outside of his head takes him seriously.
So they have to work overtime to establish that Hillary is THE STRONGEST CANDIDATE EVER AND SUPER INEVITABLE.
Just like she was in 2008.
The “moderates are the GOP’s only hope” argument is made by both the Democrats in the media and the old guard in the Republican party, which is yet another reason not to trust them.
I have no hope that the old guard will finally learn not to listen to what the media is telling them what’s best but I do think there might be enough voters who are grasping that it’s a bad idea.
A tiny fraction of the 880,000 doctors and other health care providers who take Medicare accounted for nearly a quarter of the roughly $77 billion paid out to them under the federal program, receiving millions of dollars each in some cases in a single year, according to the most detailed data ever released in Medicare’s nearly 50-year history.
In 2012, 100 doctors received a total of $610 million, ranging from a Florida ophthalmologist who was paid $21 million by Medicare to dozens of doctors, eye and cancer specialists chief among them, who received more than $4 million each that year.
I am not suggesting that we infer that some physicians know how to game the bureaucratic system better than others…I’m flat-out saying it.
Dr. $21 Million may practice in Florida but he is originally from the Dominican Republic and just happens to give a lot of money to a certain Democrat New Jersey Senator who has a Dominican hooker problem.
Just saying there might be a little chicanery going on somewhere. If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t trust federal bureaucracy, you might tend to agree.
Two Minnesota burglary suspects are arrested after police say one of them accidentally called 911 and left the line open as the pair discussed the crime.
Maplewood Police Chief Paul Schnell says the dispatcher got a call and hang-up, then another call that stayed open.
Gotta love that the idiot left the phone on in the first place. If these guys were smart they would have run for Congress if they wanted to rip people off. They’re from Minnesota, so even money says they were Franken voters.
Not even Archie Andrews is immortal in the world of comics.
Archie Comics says the famous comic book character will heroically sacrifice himself while saving the life of a friend in a July installment of “Life with Archie.” The comic book series tells the story of grown-up renditions of Archie and his Riverdale gang.
Archie’s final moments will be detailed in “Life with Archie” No. 36, while issue No. 37 will jump forward a year and focus on his friends Jughead, Betty, Veronica and Reggie honoring the legacy of their red-headed pal, who first appeared in comics in 1941.
If they are so determined to bring realism to comic books they should have Archie die while waiting for surgery that he can’t get because it isn’t covered on his Obamacare “Bronze” plan.
For the record: I was always a Veronica guy.
Hey, they said it.
She started to talk to other women and to examine her own behavior. All the women she spoke to said they hated advocating for themselves at work. But they had no trouble speaking up for colleagues.
So Amanatullah, now an assistant professor of management at the University of Texas, devised an experiment. In a simulation, she had men and women negotiate a starting salary for themselves. Then she had them negotiate on behalf of someone else.
When the women negotiated for themselves, they asked for an average of $7,000 less than the men. But when they negotiated on behalf of a friend, they asked for just as much money as the men.
I can almost script a leftist response to this. They’ll say a woman shouldn’t have to ask, it should be offered and there will be the perfunctory “blah, blah” about “fairness”, which doesn’t exist anywhere in the real world.
To which I will reply, “So you agree we shouldn’t give any tax dollars to a misogynistic organization like NPR, right?”
And then I will watch them twitch for a few minutes.
In this century, power companies are facing “far more intrusive and disruptive” interference from government than ever before, Anderson said Tuesday. The Chamber event came in advance of Thursday’s Senate Energy Committee hearing on the reliability of the electric grid.
Anderson heads the Akron-based holding company that can trace its lineage to the 1893 founding of Akron Electric Light and Power Co.
Unlike the past, “electricity is under attack in our country,” he said. “I believe state and federal policymakers are manipulating the supply and demand and distorting markets for electricity to further advance the ‘war on coal,’” he said.
Anderson said energy efficiency, renewable power, distributed generation, micro grids, roof-top solar and demand reduction may play “some role” in the future, but “they are not substitutes for what has worked.”
What works are the 19th and 20th centuries’ “real generating assets such as coal, nuclear and natural gas,” he said.
The Party of Science is hell-bent on making everyone use renewable energy sources that are expensive, inefficient or, most of the time, both. And they don’t care how broke it makes you.
So…science but ignore economics, technology and history.
Wait…they’re ignoring the science too.
Richard Griffin, the new general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, wants to give unions a veto over a unionized employer’s decision to relocate. If Griffin has his way, and he most assuredly will, some unionized businesses will be pinned in place at the discretion of their unions.
In the Leftist dream world, Big Labor would have the most financial influence in politics and be in complete control of the companies they plague (and will eventually bankrupt). These aren’t the unions of old, which genuinely protected the rights of workers. These are power-hungry madmen who don’t give a damn about any rights other than theirs to power.
They also know that the trend in many places has been away from forced participation in their schemes and that has them running scared and overreaching. The political landscape has gotten so ridiculous, however, that some of the overreaching might just work for them.
Former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who has been mulling a Senate run in New Hampshire for the past few months, plans formally to announce his campaign on Thursday, the Republican said in a letter to supporters on Monday.
National Republican supporters have moved quickly to buy ads supporting Brown’s potential run against incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, seeing the race as an opportunity to shrink Democrats’ 55-43 majority in the upper chamber.
I have to admire the guy’s pluckiness. Losing to a woman who was incapable of telling the truth about herself must have not only stung but been a harsh lesson in just how blue the northeastern United States is at heart. One would presume his people have been doing some extensive research about his prospects in New Hampshire.
Should the Democrats try to hit him with the carpetbagger label he can just hold up a picture of Hillary Clinton and say, “Shut it.”
As we noted here last week, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation is about to give 41 an award. Now the New York Times shows up with what passes for a love letter to a Republican for them.
Many of us respect the elder President Bush because he is a war hero and a decent man but aren’t often caught waxing nostalgic about his presidency. We are especially not fond of the fact that his reelection loss unleashed the Clinton hell that we are still suffering through, at least until Elizabeth Warren beats Hillary in the 2016 Democratic primary.
It would appear that all a Republican president has to do to receive a fair assessment from leftists is raise taxes and get out of office. That will garner praise like this:
On the other side of that argument is Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who ran for the Democratic nomination to challenge Mr. Bush in 1992. “I know they’re building statues of Ronald Reagan at airports,” Mr. Harkin said, “but in terms of their lives and their life’s work, to me, Bush 41 is much more integral to the development of American government and the process of democracy.”
Go ahead, re-read it, that’s not a misprint.
That’s so nonsensical Harkin should skip the reunion in College Station and check himself in for a psych evaluation.
Maybe they’re just trying to soften things up and hope history doesn’t recognize Jimmy Carter as an unmitigated disaster.
Or maybe they just really like taxes and hate Ronald Reagan.
We do appreciate the work he is doing to ensure that he’s the first Senate seat to flip on election night in November.
He represents a constituency that is 60% opposed to the law, by the way. My favorite part is him saying, “If you get 80% of this right…”
Close enough for government work, indeed.
In what would have been more accurate but too long for a headline it should have read, “but if we don’t get everything we want you’re all screwed.”
“We signed 15 (conventions), but there are still 48 treaties, conventions and agencies that we have not signed yet,” he told journalists. “If the Israelis release the 30 prisoners, we are committed not to join these agencies, treaties and conventions, but if they (the Israelis) don’t, we have a free hand.”
“We don’t have anything to lose,” Erekat said
Meanwhile, the Easter Island Head seems to be just now becoming aware that these people really don’t get along.
Kerry said the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks cannot continue to occupy so much of his time if Israelis and Palestinians are unable to take even minor steps toward making the negotiations successful.
John Kerry couldn’t tear off a piece of paper towel without screwing it up, he certainly shouldn’t be in charge of negotiations between two entities as fractious as these and with so much at stake.
Scratch that…he’s a professional trophy husband and he shouldn’t be in charge of anything.
A prototype app called Looking Glass brings the issue of climate change home, allowing smartphone users to see projected sea-level rise in their own town.
The app is not yet ready for the public and currently only works for people in the coastal village of Wickford, RI. But creator Eli Kintisch is hoping to expand its reach. We definitely think this needs to be done.
There is something deliciously mock-worthy about a zillion oh-so-concerned climate evangelists getting panicky about “ZOMG-TEH SEA LEVELZZZZZZZ!” by looking at a smartphone app. One can almost imaging Bloato the Gore sharing this ominous view of the future with other passengers on one of his many fossil fuel gorging airplane jaunts around the globe.
Hey, if it scares a hippie long enough for him to stop bothering me for a Greenpeace donation, I’m in.
David Letterman, the longest-running host in the history of late-night television, announced that he will retire from his CBS show next year, the latest shakeup in a rapidly changing late night talk-show lineup.
Mr. Letterman, who has always used his show as the outlet for discussing developments in both his life and his career, revealed his decision during a taping Thursday afternoon in Manhattan.
Mr. Letterman, 66, said he had informed the CBS president, Leslie Moonves, of his intention to step down from “The Late Show” at the end of his current contract, which expires in 2015. Mr. Letterman is considered by many to be the most original voice in the late-night format, and Mr. Moonves has been steadfast in his assurances in recent years that he would never ask Mr. Letterman to retire, saying at one point, “You don’t do that to a television legend.”
His departure will mean that the coveted 11:35 pm time slot will have a largely new lineup of hosts. In January of 2013, Jimmy Kimmel moved his ABC show from midnight to 11:35, and in February Jimmy Fallon replaced Jay Leno on NBC’s “Tonight” show.
Yes, I know that Letterman has been phoning it in for a few years and went off the lefty political deep end during the 2012 election, but for a good chunk of the ’80s and ’90s he knew how to bring it. I’ve been around so long I remember when he was doing stand-up even before he became a regular guest-host on The Tonight Show. The battle between him and Leno to take over Johnny Carson’s spot was some of the best behind the scenes television drama ever (Bill Carter, who wrote the above-linked article, authored a great book about it called The Late Shift).
I was only half kidding about Leno calling CBS. Jay is a noted workaholic and more than likely wasn’t thrilled with having to exit NBC this year.
Congressman Jim Jordan from Ohio gives a little harassment back to ATF Director B. Todd Jones as to why a woman who filed for tax exempt status for two Tea Party associated groups suddenly began getting attention from federal agencies.
Throw this on your victory lap, Mr. President.
A new bipartisan NPR poll shows approval numbers rising for Obamacare —which is now slightly more popular than its namesake.
Our survey of likely voters, conducted for Morning Edition by Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Whit Ayres, shows the president’s health care law is still unpopular but it might not be as heavy a millstone for Democrats as expected.
The presupposition that it might not be a millstone for the Dems is based on the hope that all will run smoothly now that the reduced expectation number of seven million was kinda/sorta reached. As this is NPR assessing its own poll, it naturally wears rose colored glasses while doing so. Given that these are Obamacare covered rose colored glasses, they are probably the wrong prescription. Either way, the numbers for both the law and the man behind it aren’t exactly party-worthy.
The 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts was a victory for Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee. It seems bound to inflame the ongoing debate over what many now see as the exaggerated influence the extremely wealthy exert over federal elections.
It also seems certain to increase Hollywood’s importance to the Democratic Party as a source of campaign contributions. The party’s major entertainment industry financiers — say, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Haim Saban — theoretically are free to contribute $2,600 to every Democrat running for a Senate or House seat in the coming midterm elections.
“Every American is now blessed to be able to contribute to all 535 members of Congress,” Saban tells The Hollywood Reporter. “And I have to go back to work really hard so I can satisfy this insane decision by the Supreme Court.”
Others in Hollywood who are consistently listed as top federal givers include Peter and Meg Chernin, Robert Daly, Jim Gianopulos, Alan and Cindy Horn, Ron Meyer, Rob Reiner, Tom Rothman, J.J. Abrams and Katie McGrath, Steve Bing, Clarence Avant, Nancy Stephens, and Harvey Weinstein.
Because the new ruling also would permit joint fundraising by the national and state party committees, it’s not unlikely that the next cycle will see fundraisers headlined by the president or congressional leaders at which seven-figure donations are solicited.
The Democrats only hate Republican money in politics, but we all knew that. What is always so irritating with stories like this is to see elected Dems and the media sync up almost immediately on the message. It’s a “chicken or the egg” thing-I am never sure which side sets the talking points in motion. I do have a hard time believing that Harry Reid-the current chief Koch detractor-is smart enough to be the architect of anything. This is the first story I read all day from a somewhat mainstream source that didn’t bark “Koch brothers!” in the headline or first paragraph.
Their goal is unfettered cash flow from Big Labor and a hyper-restrictive donating environment for everyone else.
Because they can’t continue to win unless the game is rigged.