A group of prominent American security advisers, including five with ties to President Barrack Obama’s first term, warned on Wednesday that a deal on curbing Iran’s nuclear program was at risk of failing to provide adequate safeguards.
In an open letter, the group of former U.S. officials and foreign policy experts cautioned that an Iran nuclear deal would “fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement” unless it included a tougher line on United Nations nuclear inspections and conditions for sanctions relief.
The release of the letter, which was signed by Dennis Ross, an adviser on Iran and the Middle East in Obama’s first term, comes as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to fly to Vienna on Friday to join the talks.
Perhaps you are as shocked as I to learn that this administration has standards when it comes to foreign policy. From here in regular America, it usually looks like they’re just making it up as they go along.
It often appears that John Kerry and President Obama are under the impression that any deal is a good deal. There is more concern that it get done than how it gets done. Kerry is worried about his legacy, which is probably clouding the issue further.
It is also highly unlikely that Obama will pay attention to this open letter, even if some of his former confidantes have signed it. If there is anything we should have learned by now, this administration is only concerned with photo ops that get them favorable coverage today and long-term consequences be damned.
But, hey, as long as the people with the classified intel say Iran is trustworthy…
And be sure to read this post from Bridget Johnson:
This is tiresome, but predictable. GOP candidates are forever being hounded to answer for other Republicans. It isn’t just because there are so many Republicans running this year, it’s standard operating procedure for a media class that long ago became the mouthpiece for the DNC. That transition, of course, was facilitated by media outlets hiring staffers from Democrat administrations or, as in this case, hiring the spawn of Democrat politicos. What makes Cuomo so irritating isn’t really the bias, it’s how awful he is overall on camera.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal made it official on Wednesday, announcing on his website that he’s running for president, hours before his kickoff event in New Orleans.
“My name is Bobby Jindal and I am running for president of the United States of America,” he wrote at Bobbyjindal.com.
At the very least, you have to admit that just trying to figure out the motivation of some of the Republican candidates is interesting. Jindal’s tenure as governor will be over because of term limits so he seems one of the most likely to be running for a cabinet position in this group. With his entry into the race, social conservatives certainly can’t complain about being under-represented.
Again, I say the more, the merrier, if only to keep the MSM so busy that they’re stretched thin when trying to coordinate anti-Republican bias. The current GOP field also provides a nice photo-op to contrast real diversity with the white-out going on with the Democrats.
Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey is not holding his breath when it comes to new background check measures for gun buyers, but he said it’s worth another try, following last week’s mass shooting in South Carolina.
“Honestly, I don’t want to build up any false expectations. I’m not aware that we’ve got the votes to do what Senator Manchin and I attempted,” the Republican said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday when asked if the prospects for passing new legislation are better than they were in early 2013, after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. “Is it possible that some portion of that, some subset of what we were focused on is possible…honestly, probably not likely.”
This is where Reagan’s “80/20 Rule” breaks down for me. If huge issues like matters Constitutional rights are in the twenty percent disagreement area, the political relationship is fraught with problems. A Republican who votes with on bridges, memorials and pay raises but bails on you for 2nd Amendment issues isn’t much of an ally.
A Republican who follows the progressive playbook by using a tragedy to advance anti-gun legislation on MSNBC can’t really be trusted. When the Republican in question is Arlen Specter’s successor, red flags are all over the place.
It is situations like this that I like to have handy for discussion during elections when the “80/20″ rule is invoked. Quality, not quantity, is what we should be looking for in legislators.
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton on Tuesday urged all businesses to stop selling products with Confederate flag images, and praised Wal-Mart Stores Inc and other retailers for pulling flag-related items.
The businesses stopped selling the products after last week’s racially motivated attack on black worshippers at a church in Charleston. Leaders in South Carolina, including Governor Nikki Haley, have called for a Confederate battle flag to be removed from the State House grounds.
The flag is “a symbol of our nation’s racist past that has no place in our present or our future. It shouldn’t fly there. It shouldn’t fly anywhere,” Clinton said in Florissant, a St. Louis suburb near Ferguson, the site of violent protests last year after a young black man was killed by a white policeman.
She commended WalMart for removing products with images of the Confederate flag from its shelves. “Today, Amazon, eBay and Sears followed suit, and I urge all sellers to do the very same,” she said.
Usually a gifted waffler on any issues of substance, Mrs. Bill bravely commits herself to the ones that are noisy distractions but polling well that day. It would be safe to say that this probably had to be filtered through at least fifteen handlers before the opinion was added to the robotic front-runner’s programming. Imagine a presidency that’s almost entirely designed to react to whatever is trending at Salon that day and you will have a crystal clear vision of Clinton 3.0 in the Oval Office. After about six months of that, we will be pining for the president who was too lazy to pay attention to the news because all he wanted to do was golf.
Meanwhile, while the American political and chattering classes are busy eradicating the Dukes of Hazzard, these guys are still doing bad things.
Really bad things.
Kevin Spacey and Dana Brunetti have inked a first-look deal between their Trigger Street shingle, 20th Century Fox Television and Fox 21 Television Studios — and the first project they’re developing is a doozy.
The Resident, which reads like a cross between Downton Abbey and House of Cards, follows the relationships between White House residence staffers and the various First Families that come into the famous address over the course of several administrations. And, in her first scripted effort, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly is on board as a co-executive producer.
It’s good to see Kelly using her current white-hot status in cable news to professionally reach beyond its boundaries. While not completely devoid of conservatives, the television production ranks aren’t exactly rife with them either. Getting her foot in the door with an equally white-hot entertainment production team shows that this new content-hungry world of alternative television distribution probably has far more opportunities for conservatives than the old model.
A senior Oregon lawmaker is proposing that the Democratic-led state raise its minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2018 in a move that would give it the highest statewide minimum pay level in the country, officials said on Tuesday.
House of Representatives Speaker Tina Kotek plans to present her proposal during a House Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday, in a move that if successful would bring the wage floor to $11 an hour in January before lifting it higher over time.
But the measure faces bleak prospects in the state Senate, whose leader opposes action on the issue this session.
The key there is “this session.” Oregon’s Senate president isn’t opposed to a higher, state-mandated minimum wage, he just doesn’t want to deal with it right now.
Given the incredibly liberal politics in the state, it isn’t difficult to see this becoming a reality sometime in the near future. It’s one of those issues that progressives can tug heartstrings with because math, economics and reality are harder to get across to voters than well-placed media stories about the mother who is trying to feed three kids on a minimum wage job, never mind the fact that she may very well be out of a job once the wage hike is passed.
Progressives are trying to trap people in lower wage jobs by making them slightly more comfortable with the wage increases all the while practically dismantling the next class (the middle) these people are trying to reach in the process.
At which point they’ll be forced to turn to the government for help.
They’re ruining lives while pretending to be champions of the downtrodden.
And getting away with it.
It’s “HOSTAGE!” time again. Here’s the headline from HuffPo today:
GOP Readies New Obamacare Hostage Plan As Supreme Court Drama Builds
Since the summer of 2010, the unimaginative and always frightened little intellectual chihuahuas in the MSM have used the word “hostage” whenever Republicans in Congress have used, or threatened to use, whatever legislative means available to thwart either the president or the Democrats on various issues.
At first, it merely seemed like boilerplate media bias stuff, ramping up the hyperbole even though everyone knew it was just that. Now it has become apparent that they’re just lazy and uninformed.
The hacks in the MSM can be forgiven for acting out of sorts when the Republicans in Washington try to press an advantage or behave as if they are in the majority, as it is something that doesn’t happen often enough for everyone to really be familiar with. Still, the “hostage” stuff is embarrassingly filled with hysteria.
“Legislative trickery” would be a more apt description. Both sides do it all the time, of course, but it only gets written about when the Republicans are at it. Any employment of the word “hostage” is obviously meant to add a sinister, and illegal connotation to the proceedings. In years past, I thought this was a ploy to manipulate less informed voters, but I am beginning to think that 90+% of these writers are merely parrots. Nothing else explains the constant repetition of the “hostage” motif when so many other capable scary words are available.
I’ll even give them a freebie to help them move in a new direction. I don’t want the Republicans to hold Obamacare hostage, I’d prefer they disembowel it.
You’re welcome, Huffy HuffPo Hysterics.
(h/t The Right Scoop)
“Titles Are Not Accomplishments” is the name of the ad and it is delicious. I keep hoping that Carly will get some traction because her relentless focus on tearing Mrs. Bill apart thus far has been a delight to watch.
Various Republican governors with an eye on the White House can point to tax cuts and other business-friendly policies they spearheaded as they enter the crowded 2016 presidential contest. But many of them can’t highlight robust economic growth.
Among the handful of governors and former governors competing for the Republican presidential nomination, only one – former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who declared his candidacy last week – can say that his state has outpaced the national economy over the past four years.
Economic growth lagged in other states whose governors are expected to run for president, according to U.S. government figures released on Wednesday.
“Only Perry can really brag,” said George Mason University economist Stephen Fuller. “The other guys just haven’t been there long enough and don’t have anything to show for it, anyway.”
There is a lot of “apples and oranges” going on here. The intent of the article is obviously to undermine the “executive experience” argument by GOP governors in regards to running for the presidency. The writer mentions “tepid growth” as if that were a problem. As someone who has been monitoring Reuters headlines for years I can tell you that the tiniest of upticks in the nation’s economy under Obama have been hailed as if he’d just cured cancer.
It’s also not terribly unusual for states to be lagging when the country’s economy has been in stop and start mode for years.
Still, the article is right about Perry, and Rick Perry knows it. If his campaign is sharper this time around, he’ll use the Texas economic success to hammer away at Republican rivals and the Democrats at the same time.
New York Times ‘Reporter’ Who Can’t Tell a ‘Luxury Speedboat’ from a Fishing Boat Upset that People Think He’s an Idiot
You mad, bro?
Not enough hours in the day to block hateful people on Twitter. But 24 is a start.
— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) June 10, 2015
For the second time in a week, the New York Times made an attempt to do some damage and, once again, it was a spectacular failure. Barbaro could have avoided his embarrassment if he’d engaged in the most basic of journalistic activities: making a phone call.
This modern crop of Dem mouthpiece “journalists” still haven’t grasped the nature of the new media era. In bygone days, Barbaro’s mistake/lie would have gotten some response days later in the letters to the editor, which he would have ignored unless his editor brought it up. Now, these weak, partisan hit jobs are exposed as soon as the article is posted. The journalists who have spent the last decade making themselves part of every story then get upset when they’re part of a story that is going off the rails.
Toughen up, buttercup.
Also see Roger Simon’s exclusive interview with Rubio:
Can you even imagine the avalanche of negative press if a Republican front-runner had to “relaunch” a campaign? As I have been writing and saying for weeks, the more Hillary walls herself off from the press, the more agitated they get about being shut out. It is unclear what her campaign strategy beyond “INEVITABLE!” is at this point. They can’t keep expecting the media to run interference for her all the while she’s shunning them. When you hear the way Halperin says, “…floating in the East River,” here you can tell he’s mocking the state of her campaign.
Since the 48-year-old Republican businessman narrowly became the GOP’s nominee in the Kentucky governor’s race last month, Bevin has publicly and privately wooed McConnell, trying to reset his relationship with a man who controls the state’s political machine. Immediately after he was declared the victor by 83 votes, Bevin called McConnell at his home in Louisville to solicit the GOP leader’s advice. He made a humorous video and showed it to the state Republican Party to make light of their acrimonious past. (He made sure to give McConnell’s team a heads-up before releasing it publicly, even offering veto rights.)
Bevin has scrubbed his Twitter account of all tweets prior to February — which included a parade of anti-McConnell posts. He and his team have been making overtures to key figures in McConnell’s world, including some who once launched fierce assaults on Bevin’s record. And he has sought to tap into McConnell’s vast fundraising network ahead of what will likely be a bruising campaign against Democrat Jack Conway, the state’s attorney general.
McConnell publicly endorsed Bevin after his victory but hasn’t said much beyond a terse statement. Exactly how much the GOP leader will help Bevin is still undetermined. First, Bevin will have to prove he’s a formidable candidate and finish healing old wounds before the GOP leader considers putting the strength of his machine behind him, several GOP sources said.
Politico seems to be taking Bevin to task here for behaving in a thoroughly predictable manner for a politician. The most powerful man in the Senate is his senior senator, and last year’s primary unpleasantness will have to be put aside if he is going to have a shot at becoming governor.
It will be interesting to see just how cautious McConnell remains. When dealing with the establishment Republican types who rally around the McConnells of the party, those of us yearning for new blood and ideas are often lectured about the importance of simply focusing on Republicans winning elections.
Here is a good opportunity for them to take their own advice.
In a less diverse Republican presidential field, Ted Cruz, the make-good son of a Cuban immigrant, would be viewed more for what he is – a candidate with a legitimate shot at making U.S. history as the nation’s first Latino president in 2016.
Instead, the senator from Texas finds himself in a strange position as he sees himself eclipsed both by Senator Marco Rubio, also a Cuban-American, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a fluent Spanish-speaker married to a Mexican-American, as early favorites among Hispanic Republicans who could play an increasingly influential role in the nomination process.
To Latinos, Cruz often feels more like an afterthought. And while that’s largely attributed to his hard-right stance on immigration reform, prominent Hispanic conservatives offered insight as to why his problems with Latinos run deeper. Rubio, they said, has embraced his ethnic identity in a way that Cruz, who speaks little Spanish, has not or will not.
What they’re essentially saying is that the field’s diversity makes it difficult for Cruz to be a token, which is the Democrats’ approach to such things.
All of that “blah, blah” about the embrace of his identity and Spanish speaking skills is only brought up because he is a Republican. The two Latino golden boys of the Democratic party at the moment are Julián and Joaquín Castro are still at the “¿Dónde está el baño por favor?” stage of their Spanish learning development. If that’s the litmus test, I’d be the ranking Latino if the three of us were hanging out. Also, if either Cruz or Rubio make it onto the GOP ticket, Joaquín Castro will almost certainly be given the Veep slot on the Democrat ticket because of the aforementioned leftist tokenism when it comes to race and ethnicity.
Cruz embraces being an American, and we all know how that irritates leftists.
The relative age and ethnic diversity differences between the two parties are so glaring that the MSM can’t avoid the subject, which they have tried to do until now. Expect a lot more “Well he’s not really this…” nonsense from them in the coming months.
All the Republicans have to do to counter it is respond that the anointed Democrat front runner is really rich, really old and really white.
A long-awaited EPA report released Thursday found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution caused by fracking — a conclusion that offers a victory to the oil and gas industry and a major blow to a wave of grassroots anti-drilling movements sprouting across the country.
The results of EPA’s years-long fracking study should bolster natural gas producers, who have benefited from Obama administration climate and environmental policies that have shrunk the coal industry’s hold on the electricity industry.
Let’s begin with that last line first. As we’re dealing with Politico here, it’s not that they have to get in some praise for The Lightbringer. While there are some benefits to the natural gas industry from Obama’s wholesale war on the coal industry, it’s not booming because of that, as the writer is clearly implying. Natural gas is mostly benefiting from the fact that it is inexpensive and there is a lot of it.
One of the biggest, if not the biggest, talking points for the anti-fracking activists is that it is going to pollute your drinking water, all day, every day. While this study managed to find some isolated incidents of that, it debunks the myth that fracking is letting dangerous chemicals run free into the entire nation’s water supply. This has already been debunked several times, but the anti-fracking loons haven’t let that slow them down.
What makes this interesting is that President Obama is now trying to make his environmental/climate change hysteria “accomplishments” the cornerstone of his legacy. This study doesn’t really dovetail with the goals of his big money green supporters. While they are the people who have motivated him to try to destroy the coal industry, they are also the ones who have tried to destroy the natural gas industry, which makes the implication that Obama is “helping” the latter patently absurd.
There is a lot of money behind the greenies, and this administration has given it even more. They’ll keep spreading lies.
In this case, simply point them to this study and say, “The Obama administration doesn’t agree with you.”
Via Stars and Stripes:
The Department of Veterans Affairs will open a transitional housing facility for veterans on Thursday and launch a planning process later in June for the redevelopment of its 387-acre West Los Angeles VA Medical Center campus, just six months after settling a 2011 lawsuit that accused the VA of misusing the land and discriminating against homeless vets.
VA Secretary Bob McDonald will be there to mark the first step in the transformation: a 60-bed housing and work therapy facility for homeless veterans. In a symbolic gesture, he will open the gates to the property’s grand lawn, closed for decades.
This is something that should have been done decades ago. I live less than a block from this sprawling campus and see firsthand every day the homeless vets wandering around. Some of the more “lucky” ones are staying in hotels that would have to undergo improvements to become crack houses. The VA has been sitting on hundreds of some of the most prime real estate in all of Los Angeles and doing almost nothing with most of it.
It is unconscionable that situations have to reach crisis points at these various facilities before we begin giving even the bare minimum treatment to those who fought for this country.
Hillary Clinton will call for at least 20 days of early voting in all U.S. states in a speech in Texas on Thursday, her campaign said.
Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, will criticize restrictive voting laws passed in some states, and argue that expanding the early voting period would make it easier for working Americans to cast their ballots, the campaign said.
In whatever universe the Democrats are inhabiting, the two most difficult things to do seem to be getting an ID or reading a calendar to plan for 30 minutes at the polls. While I don’t think it helps much to immediately dismiss people on the other side of the political aisle as stupid, the Democrats keep asking us to treat them that way.
The notion that current early voting laws are “restrictive” is laughable. When I was first eligible to vote, one had to order an absentee ballot with enough time to receive it and get it back to the county registrar by election day if one couldn’t get to the polls. If you were out of the city for the entire process, all of this was at the mercy of the U.S. Postal Service.
This is all arbitrary, of course. A couple of extra days of early voting are more than sufficient — there is no rational reason that ten is better than five or twenty is better than ten. Once they’ve gotten it to twenty, you’ll hear them clamoring for thirty.
“Working Americans” managed to figure out a way to vote on election DAY for a very long time.
I could speculate about why they really want more time to get people who aren’t required to show ID to polling places, but that’s a story that pretty much tells itself.
The Obama administration is set to announce that it will require new rules to cut emissions from airplanes, expanding a quest to tackle climate change that has included a string of significant regulations on cars, trucks and power plants.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to report as early as Friday its conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes endanger human health because they significantly contribute to global warming, although people familiar with the agency’s plans said the announcement could slip into next week.
That announcement, known in legal parlance as an endangerment finding, will prompt a requirement under the Clean Air Act for the agency to issue new regulations to reduce airplane emissions. The agency is expected to limit the rule to commercial aircraft, leaving out small craft and military planes.
Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, the federal government is required to regulate all pollutants that are found to endanger human health. The E.P.A. put forth similar endangerment findings on emissions from vehicles and power plants before issuing new regulations on them, and those findings have held up in court.
The new rules, which have been furiously opposed by regulated industries and Republicans, have emerged as a hallmark of President Obama’s environmental legacy. Republicans have called the new rules an example of government overreach that will cost jobs and stifle the economy.
These enviro-hippies are getting expensive. As with so many things leftists are fond of, this is another step towards some international regulatory kumbaya:
The E.P.A.’s finding would lay the groundwork for the United States to adopt the emissions standard being negotiated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. That group aims by next year to set new emissions standards for airlines, which have said that national rules would do little to curb emissions, given the industry’s global reach.
Expect Obama to get hyperactive about overreaching on climate hysteria and his anti-Second Amendment plans for the remainder of his term. Hopefully, much of it will eventually not withstand various legal challenges.
The Republicans certainly aren’t doing much to slow him down.
“When the only thing going up for you is your unfavorability rating, that’s not a good thing for somebody who so many people already know.”
Also note that Big Ed plays the Fauxcahontas card to kick it off.
Weakening ratings for Hillary Clinton present opportunities for her potential Republican opponents, even as their own contest morphs into an all-out free-for-all, with Jeb Bush surrendering his frontrunner status in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
While still far ahead for her party’s nomination, Clinton faces challenges. She’s slipped underwater in personal favorability for the first time since her unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008. She’s deeper in the hole for honesty and trustworthiness – down 5 points in just two months and 12 points in the last year. And Americans by 17- to 24-point margins disapprove of her handling of recent questions on her use of personal e-mail while secretary of state, her handling of the Benghazi attack in Libya and fundraising by her family’s foundation.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.
Indeed, while Bush has lost ground in the contest for the GOP nomination, Clinton does less well against him in a head-to-head matchup. The gap between them has closed from 12 points to three – 47-44 percent, Clinton-Bush, among registered voters, vs. 53-41 percent two months ago.
Bush, at the same time, has even greater difficulties with personal favorability than Clinton, and a far weaker home base. He’s lost 11 points in support for the nomination among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who are registered to vote, from a front-running 21 percent in March to 10 percent now
There are many qualities these candidates share, like a sense of entitlement when it comes to the presidency, or the imperious, condescending manner in which they deal with, well, anyone who isn’t them. It would be quite fitting to see them both sputter and fail at the same time, but I am getting way ahead of things.
One thing that I and many others have noticed is that neither of these people seems to really want to run for president right now, despite the fact that they have been presumptive front runners since last year (be sure to read Roger L. Simon’s “Do Jeb and Hillary Really Want to Be President?“). Both just want it handed to them and aren’t big fans of dealing with the public lately.
The public seems to be picking up on that.
This week’s CNN poll sheds a bright light on the fact that while most Americans seemed to like “Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator” and “Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State,” they really don’t seem to like “Hillary Clinton, Candidate.”
In the most recent national polling data from CNN, Secretary Clinton’s image has moved underwater, with 50% of Americans viewing her unfavorably and 46% saying they view her favorably. That’s a net 15 point shift AWAY from Clinton since March of this year.
Looking back over time, it’s pretty clear that when Clinton is a candidate, or even during her husband’s campaigns, her negatives have climbed significantly.
There is the story of Hillary Clinton, and the reality of Hillary Clinton. The former is a narrative that plays with some of the public as long as Mrs. Bill isn’t in front of them, which is why they are so tightly controlling her availability to the public. It is also why the Democrats are limiting the number of primary debates. Hillary Clinton is one of the few people who can seem more deranged than Bernie Sanders in front of a crowd.
Everyone around her knows that.
Her handlers have painful memories of her inevitability being thrown in the garbage as soon as a younger, less unpleasant candidate with little name recognition showed up in 2008. Now they’ve got another one in Martin O’Malley. There is talk that O’Malley’s less than stellar record in Maryland will not allow him to get any traction, but when have the Democrats ever cared about real achievement?
As we have seen in recent days, the older, crankier, and even more entitled Hillary Clinton can’t take even the briefest exposure to the public without letting her hideous nature pop to the surface. We’re getting to the part of the primary season where they won’t be able to let her rest in the vault while the friendlies in the media keep telling sweet grandma stories about her.
Tougher gun laws? CHECK.
Progressive mayor who won’t back police? CHECK.
Sharp rise in gun violence? CHECK.
Shootings in New York City have been rising for two straight years, the first time that has happened since the end of the 1990s, when the city was still in the early years of a remarkable downturn in crime.
Homicides by gunfire, seen as a key measure of preventable violence, are up steeply this year. Of the 135 killings through May, 98 involved a gun, up from 69 such killings at this point in 2013 and in 2014.
Taken together, the trends raise concern heading into the summer months, when street violence is often most pronounced. So far this year, there have been 439 shootings, 20 percent higher than the historic low in 2013, though well under the more than 2,000 logged two decades ago.
What happened after the “historic low” mentioned above? Gov. Andrew Cuomo capped the year by pressuring the passage of the SAFE Act, which he said would stop criminals from buying guns.
That was mixed with Mayor Bill de Blasio’s rollback of “stop and frisk,” which a recent victim’s family begged him to bring back.
Gosh, it seems that criminals don’t pay much attention to gun laws and are more likely to act if they know the cops are a bit hamstrung in identifying them. Who’d have seen that coming?!?!?
Like almost (I’m feeling generous today) all liberal pet issues, the logic they use for guns and crime is nonexistent. You and I know that. What America needs are the non-lunatics from the other side to be able to coherently pick apart the glaring weaknesses of the liberal positions. Is that too much to ask?
Check the current White House occupant and let me know.
While we should rightly be skeptical of polls (especially after 2012), it is fun to see where Jebster shows up in some of these early ones. It’s probably safe to say that a dead heat tie for fourth place with Huckabee isn’t where the little prince’s team wants him to be.
There is a lot to pick through in this poll but if this next bit is at all true I may not completely abandon hope:
There is one overwhelming goal for Republicans. The GOP has lost the last two presidential elections to Barack Obama, and that frustration is clear when they are asked whether they would rather their party nominate a person who agreed with them on every important issue, or a candidate who can win, even if they may not agree with the respondent on every issue that mattered. They overwhelmingly choose the latter.
CBS’ Bob Schieffer says that perhaps reporters in the media “were not skeptical enough” of President Barack Obama as a presidential candidate in 2008, telling Fox News’ Howard Kurtz that the whole political world was struck by the sudden rise of the senator from Illinois.
This isn’t some revelation that Schieffer just had. It’s certainly been kicking around in the heads of veteran media types since early ’09 when it became rather apparent that Barack Obama was more of a bumbler than the suave, professorial wunderkind the MSM droolers made him out to be.
Schieffer is leaving his post on Face the Nation so he can now speak freely. He’s trying to retroactively give himself some journalistic credibility by pretending this idea is just now coming to him. If he really wants to act like a journalist on his way out the door he could be exhorting the MSM to be more skeptical of Mrs. Bill.
It turns out that the harsh winter and a growing trade deficit made a bigger dent in the U.S. economy in the first three months of the year than previously thought — with revised first-quarter GDP actually shrinking by 0.7 percent, according to the Commerce Department.
Commerce had earlier estimated output growing by 0.2 percent. The contraction announced Friday is the first since the first quarter of 2014.
That’s right, this booming Obama recovery is such a house of cards that it can be undone by a white Christmas.
Of course, this “shocker” is part of a Friday news dump so it can get as little attention as possible. That’s been the m.o. for six years: a big happy dance if there is the slightest uptick in any economic indicator, then some subdued whispers about bad news being “unexpected”, if it is noticed at all.
The upside is that the next president is being set up even better than this one to keep saying, “…the failed policies of the previous administration.”
Sleep well tonight knowing that each little change for the worse in the weather gets us one step closer to our Chinese debt overlords foreclosing.
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee will officially enter the presidential race on June 3, a source with knowledge of his plans told POLITICO.
He’ll make the announcement in a speech he’s scheduled to deliver next Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. at the George Mason Center for Politics & Foreign Relations in Arlington, Virginia.
Following the announcement, Chafee will travel to New Hampshire on June 4 for a previously scheduled event with local Democrats in Grafton County.
Chafee, who became a Democrat in 2013, has made Hillary Clinton’s support for the invasion of Iraq the chief rationale for his primary challenge to her. As a senator and member of the Republican Party in 2002, Chafee voted against authorizing the war.
Good news for the Democrats: at sixty-two years of age, Chafee is practically a baby compared to Mrs. Bill and Che Sanders, so he can go after that coveted youth demographic that never really shows up to vote anyway.
You just read the one big accomplishment upon which Chafee will be running: he was a Republican who voted like a Democrat on the Iraq war and believes he can beat the Democrat who voted like a Republican on the same issue.
The working campaign slogan so far?
“Hey, It Worked For Obama”
The path toward passage of Los Angeles’ landmark minimum wage increase took a rocky detour Wednesday, as business and elected officials reacted harshly to a last-minute push by labor leaders to create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.
Union officials have been among the most ardent backers of the plan approved by the L.A. City Council last week to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. But some labor leaders who opposed loopholes for small businesses and restaurants now argue that unionized companies should have leeway to negotiate lower pay rates with their employees.
This is akin to the climate doomsayers flying all over the planet screaming about the dangers of fossil fuels. And it is most reminiscent of the great fight Big Labor fought for the passage of Obamacare, from which they immediately sought exemptions.
Why are they so eager to avoid having to participate in all the laws they champion?
A prominent labor fan on the L.A. City Council isn’t on board with the request:
Even some who fought side-by-side with union activists for the wage increase said they were uncomfortable adopting the proposed exemption without further study.
“For me, the point of the minimum wage in Los Angeles was to raise wages and lift people out of poverty,” said Councilman Mike Bonin, a champion of the ordinance and frequent labor ally on the council. The pay hike should apply for “everyone,” he said, including “employees of big businesses and small businesses, of nonprofits and for-profits, people who are members of unions and people who are not.”
As a resident of Los Angeles, I can wholehearted assure you that the only way $15 an hour will lift anyone out of poverty is if one of those dollars happens to buy a winning Powerball ticket. However, sticking with that line of reasoning, Labor leaders must be asked why they think it’s all right to doom their people to poverty.
If I were a political Dr. Frankenstein and plucking ideas from each GOP candidate to build my unstoppable presidency-winning monster, here’s one I would take from Senator Paul. This is an issue that Democrats obfuscate with their emotional tripe very effectively. There is so much evidence to support nuking the DoE that even a kid educated in an American public school in the last twenty years could easily understand it.
(VIDEO) ‘Morning Joe’ Panel Breathlessly Speculates About Hillary’s Coattails and 2016 Dem Landslide
It’s never out of the realm of possibility that Scarborough’s entire panel on any given day is concussed. The new theory: Mrs. Bill’s “historic” candidacy is helping to recruit top-notch candidates that will lead to a big election for Democrats next year. Side note: why do most MSNBC panelists look like creepers in an elevator?
Official Democratic Party Twitter Account Commemorates Memorial Day with Pic of Obama Eating Ice Cream
Happy Memorial Day weekend, everyone! pic.twitter.com/TMBSu187Pb
— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) May 22, 2015
Here are a couple of responses:
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 23, 2015
Your party commemorates Memorial Day with a guy who never served eating ice cream? What the hell is wrong with you? https://t.co/GYARQQ7Woo
— jon gabriel (@exjon) May 23, 2015
Top aides to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fretted over how she would be portrayed after the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, emails released on Friday showed.
The emails also showed Clinton received information on her personal email account about the Benghazi attacks that was classified “secret” by the FBI just prior to their release.
OK, it was her staff expressing concern in the emails, but after two decades of watching this woman in action, I think it is probably safe to infer that they were reflecting the boss’s angst.
The excuses du jour for the classified items are that it was “only a couple of sentences” and it wasn’t classified at the time, neither of which mean anything. The point is that she shouldn’t have been using a private server anyway.
The Clintons are so practiced at not getting caught when violating the law (think Al Capone with a better accountant) that I have no doubt that anything remotely incriminating was long ago removed from the emails by Mrs. Bill’s little “fixers”.
The best hope for the future of the Republic is that the press gets angry enough at being shut out that Team Hillary will give her a little more face time with the public, which rarely works out well for the Missus.
Trial campaign slogan: “Why Not?”
Former New York Governor George Pataki indicated on Wednesday that he would announce his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination next week in New Hampshire.
Last week, Pataki said he would be in Exeter, the New Hampshire town known as the birthplace of the Republican Party, on May 28 to announce whether he would be a candidate. In an interview on CNN on Wednesday he joked about his trip to the state, which plays a key role in determining presidential nominees.
“There are some things going on in New Hampshire,” he said. “I think it’s called a primary, something like that, first in the nation.”
While stopping short of announcing plans to run, Pataki said he thought conditions had gotten worse globally. “If you have an ability to lead and you sit it out, shame on you.”
As a long time political activist and observer, the “no-shot” candidates who enter big presidential primary fields have always amused me. These candidacies are usually propelled by a big ego and one or two long-time supporters who have deep pockets with some gambling money.
Many believe most fringe candidates are jockeying for Cabinet positions should their side win the White House. That seems plausible if Pataki does run. After all, it’s been almost a decade since he was last in office and he needs to refresh some memories.
Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, is simply a lunatic who thinks he can win.
One of the authors of a recent study which claimed that short conversations with gay people could change minds on same-sex marriage has retracted it.
The retraction this week of the popular article published in a December issue of the Science academic journal follows revelations that his co-author allegedly faked data for the study, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support of gay marriage.”
According to academic watchdog Retraction Watch, Columbia University political science professor Donald Green published a retraction of the paper on Tuesday after confronting co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate assistant at UCLA.
The study received widespread media coverage from The New York Times, Vox, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and others, when it was released in December.
The news here isn’t that study data was fabricated to fit the pre-determined narrative’s conclusion, it’s that they were caught and are retracting it.
Progressives in academia don’t dismiss opposing points of view merely because they are generally intolerant people(they most definitely are), they also can’t believe any other conclusion but their own to be true. This is a condition that has gotten worse in recent years as the progressive hijacking of academia has taken firmer hold.
It would be at all surprising to me if younger academic wannabes make the “square peg/round hole” approach more commonplace and begin “adjusting” facts whenever they believe they can get away with it. Perhaps they already are and this story is an anomaly.
Maybe we should give them a “safe space” to talk about the abandonment of ethics.
With Hillary Clinton rapidly approaching a month since she answered a question from a reporter, her allies are working to push back on the idea that she is ducking the press.
“PUTTING THE VOTERS FIRST, HILLARY ASKS THE QUESTIONS THAT REALLY MATTER,” read the subject line of an e-mail — ALL CAPS in the original! — that arrived in my inbox this morning courtesy of Correct The Record, a pro-Clinton super PAC directly coordinating with the presidential campaign on rapid response.
The missive lays out the facts aimed at putting lie to the “she won’t answer questions” narrative.
First, Correct The Record notes that Clinton has answered 20 questions from “everyday Americans”: seven during her first trip to Iowa (she’s back in the state today), five during her New Hampshire excursion and a whopping eight when she visited Nevada.
Cillizza (with whom I often don’t agree) then proceeds to expose just how awfully lame this little story by Team Mrs. Bill is. A sampling:
It makes zero difference how many questions Clinton has asked average Americans. Like, none. If those people were running for president, then I would be super-interested to know how they responded to some (or maybe all) of Clinton’s 117 questions. But, they aren’t. She is. Citing the number of questions Clinton has asked of people to rebut the idea that she isn’t taking enough (or any) questions from reporters is sort of like saying you aced a job interview because you answered every question asked of you with another question. That wouldn’t make sense, would it?
It may not be anything that Hillary Clinton does that derails her inevitability parade, but what she doesn’t do. The same media types who are completely incurious about her various legally questionable activities are also upset that Grandma isn’t giving them any cookies.
This makes two things very clear:
1) Her staff knows she’s horrible when interacting with people and are keeping her distant and in controlled situations.
2) The Clintons haven’t entirely grasped the overwhelming changes in media since the 1990s or even since 2008.
When Hillary’s meal ticket was POTUS, the media were at the beginning of their evolutionary leap from journalists to ego-centric personalities. Yes, they are all leftists willing to play along for the agenda but the emotional little dears simply will not be ignored.
There is a growing feeling that the MSM is along for the ride because this is the only train running right now but they can’t wait for the next Barack Obama to show up out of practically nowhere so they can ditch the imperious Mrs. C. for someone who doesn’t scare the crap out of them.
Meanwhile, the Granny probably thinks she can get away with this for another year and a half.
What I meant by the headline is that this latest incident isn’t really anomalous for Rep. Sanchez, she’s just kind of like this. In the apology video here, the Sacramento CBS affiliate speculates that Sanchez not only nuked her Senate bid, but may have jeopardized her House seat as well.