Archive for Politics

Ripe for Impeachment

I’m not saying it’ll happen: impeachment is more a political act than a legal one.

But Andy McCarthy makes the case:

I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.

By calling on Congress to pass a bill to his liking, Obama has admitted he doesn’t have the authority to do this on his own. He has said exactly that several times over the years, as captured in a video we posted yesterday. By issuing this fiat, therefore, he will exceed his authority—by his own admission and reasoning. Either the proposed amnesty will have no validity; or, if he attempts to enforce it, he will be violating the Constitution. Again, he says so.

That may seem like a political impossibility—I am far from prepared to issue one of my Thirstradamus predictions—but it may become more possible over time:

Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

Alas, that constitutional parry has already been disavowed by GOP congressional leadership.

Against this backdrop, I am gratified that Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and Charles Krauthammer have just given the topic of impeachment in the immigration context more of the serious consideration it deserves. Appearing on The Kelly File Thursday, Dr. Krauthammer asserted that the president’s anticipated amnesty decree for millions of illegal aliens “is an impeachable offense.”

He is plainly correct. As Faithless Execution elaborates, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution’s trigger for impeachment, is a term of art for abuses of power that violate the president’s fiduciary obligations to the American people he serves, the constitutional system he takes an oath to preserve, and the laws whose faithful execution is his core duty. High crimes and misdemeanors are not — or at least, not necessarily — the same as “crimes” and “misdemeanors” prosecutable in the courts. Impeachment is a political remedy (i.e., the removal of political authority), not a legal one (i.e., the removal of liberty after criminal indictment and conviction).

A sweeping amnesty for millions of unrepentant lawbreakers that punishes American workers, imposes crushing burdens on the states, and betrays law-abiding aliens who comply with our immigration rules is not an indictable offense. Yet it is obviously an impeachable one. So is the failure to enforce the immigration laws. And the effort to award by executive decree benefits that only Congress has the power to grant is patently lawless and thus just as clearly impeachable.

Exactly. And, not to be tiresome, but Obama, the ex-Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, has said so himself, repeatedly.

The argument goes on, but let me peel off here to discuss the politics. Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House, one I believe would pass easily. The case then is handed over to the Senate for “trial”. To convict, two-thirds (67) of the Senators need to vote in favor. When the new Congress is seated, there will be 54 Republicans, all of whom (let’s say) will vote for impeachment. Can they convince 13 Democrats to go against the party (and the country) to join them? Almost certainly not.

Obama’s proposed decree is politically unpopular, as is he, and a few Dems will vote to impeach. But not enough. As McCarthy says, impeachment is a political act more than a legal one. And there are more than enough political hacks among the Democrats in the Senate to spare The Nation’s First African American President™ from the humiliation of impeachment.

So, is it worth it to proceed? Democrat pollster Pat Caddell described Obama as a “raging narcissist”. Such people do not slink away with their tails between their legs. He’s not bluffing. He doesn’t have to: he can do the math as well as I can (both of us having gone to the same university). I’m not sure I see the point in pursuing a strategy that has almost no chance of success at the end, will leave the offending act unchanged, and may be political overkill.

And I’d vote to impeach him faster than you can say “undocumented citizens”.

But I wonder if wielding the power of the purse might not be a better option, even if it does lead to a shutdown. The GOP feels it took the brunt of criticism for the last “shutdown” (slowdown, barely), yet it just won an historic election. Unlike impeachment, cutting off funds is, as this administration likes to say, a “time-limited, scope-limited” action. A specific remedy to an unpopular act.

I’d also take my chances in the Supreme Court, however this issue might come before them. Even there, the issue would be as much political as it would be legal. But I think a majority of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy would rule that the Constitution is not the president’s napkin at a barbecue joint, to be soiled, wadded up, and thrown away whenever it suited him. On that, I would give my Thirstradamus guarantee.

Comments

Three Race-Card Monte

[Bleep] subtle.

What’s your point?

MO ELLEITHEE, DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I think, our continued outreach in the African-America community specifically–

CRAIG MELVIN [MSNBC]: Are those specific efforts appropriate?

ELLEITHEE: Look, do I think it is appropriate to constantly remind people how important it is to vote? How important it is to make your voice heard and remain engaged, and if you don’t you lose your voice…

MELVIN: Can you not do that without trotting out images of dead black teenagers?

ELLEITHEE: Look, I think there are a lot of important issues in the community that we are out there talking about. The DNC is running radio ads reminding people of the need to get behind the economic agenda that we’ve been pushing, so there are a lot of different mechanisms that we’re using out there.

“Mechanisms”. “Dead black teenagers” are “mechanisms”.

I understand wanting to win elections, but when you’ve sold your soul (pun very much intended), what do you have left?

Do we former Democrats have to be de-Democratized, as other monsters had to be deprogrammed before being released into society? I think Aggie and I are safe to be around, but there are some pretty unsavory types out there. You can spot them with their Elizabeth Warren bumper stickers.

PS: Or Landrieu:

“I’ll be very, very honest with you. The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans,” Landrieu said. “It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader.”

And Boston has? Howard Beach, Queens? What the hell is her point? You could throw a dart at a map of the US and hit a town that has known something like racism. Up to and including Harlem, I might add. It’s called being human.

PS: Besides, some racism is worse than others:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has sparked debate this week with remarks he made during an appearance at Florida’s Palm Beach Atlantic University, debate which Noah Rothman observed is sometimes one-sided. On Wednesday morning’s NewsOne Now, however, host Roland Martin devoted two segments to Justice Thomas’ comments about race, and even agreed with him on the subject of white liberal racism in the North.

“The soft bigotry of low expectations” strikes again.

PPS: And speaking of low:

“If they were to hit 30 percent of the vote being African-American, they’re in the game,” Ralph Reed, the Republican political operative in Atlanta and longtime Christian conservative activist, says of the Georgia Democrats. “Anything below that, and they’ll lose. Anything above that, and it’s probably too close to call.”

To reach that threshold, Democrats in the state have gone nasty in recent days: They are stirring up racial fears in the black community, outraging conservatives and talk radio hosts in the state who call it racial demagoguery at its worst.

“If you want to prevent another Ferguson in their future,” reads one inflammatory mailer sent to black residents in the state. “Vote.”

The flier references the events in Ferguson this summer where a white cop shot and killed a black man.

Showing a photo of two children holding “Don’t Shoot” signs, the flier says: “It’s up to you to make change happen.”

Like the shopkeeper made change for Michael Brown? Oh wait, he didn’t. Brown shoplifted and physically intimidated the guy.

Comments

BOO!!!

Gotcha, suckahs!

The GOP is outright fear-mongering over a handful of infections. Sadly, it’s working — and just before Election Day.

The GOP’s lack of interest in news must be the explanation for why they continue to whip up fears about Ebola, right? For example, during Thursday’s U.S. Senate debate in New Hampshire, Republican Scott Brown mentioned that, “There is a rational fear from citizens in New Hampshire” that “people with diseases are coming through our border.”

Of course, Brown didn’t cite even one example of an Ebola-infected person sneaking into the United States. But hey, facts don’t matter when scaring voters.

[W]hy are the Republicans continuing with their one-two punch of “Ebola is going to get you” and “Obama is failing to protect your family?” Simple. Fear is the GOP’s modus operandi. We have seen the GOP use it effectively in the past regarding gay marriage, Muslims, blacks and Latinos. They scare voters into voting for them because frankly it’s much simpler than discussing complex issues—like creating jobs, immigration reform, or health care.

And here’s the worst part: Two polls released this week indicate it’s working again. A Politico poll released Monday found that nearly one-third of respondents said they were either losing or have no confidence in the federal government’s handing of the Ebola outbreak.

Add to that a survey released Wednesday that finds that the GOP’s fear-mongering has taken hold of Americans. Almost 46 percent said they were deeply concerned Ebola would spread widely across the country despite the fact that only two people contracted the disease on U.S. soil.

This couldn’t have played out any better for the GOP. First, they scare everyone. Then they position themselves as the guardians of the galaxy who will save us all from this dastardly threat.

Guilty as charged. What gave us away?

Just one small correction for this liberal, elitist hater of Mr. and Mrs. America. They were already scared.

Those few of them who still believed anything this government said compared the reality in the news with the effluvium excreted in news conferences, and came to their own conclusions. They were just looking for someone to represent their views. Republicans dutifully stepped forward (joined by more than a few Democrats, it must be said).

I think we’ll probably survive Ebola as a nation. The Obama regime is a much dicier proposition.

Comments

“Albatross” is a Dog Whistle

Who’s more racist—the racist DEMOCRAT politicians who don’t want to stand next to TNFBP™ (The Nation’s First Black President), or the racist DEMOCRAT voters who can’t stand anyone who has anything to do with TNFBP™?

JAKE TAPPER: What Democrats told me today is that President Obama, however much they love him, he is an albatross around their necks right now. His poll numbers are so bad, people not feeling good about the state of the economy even if there economic indicators that things are getting better. Wages are stagnant.

This after the crowing and whooping over 248,000 new jobs. Even I, who can find the bad news lurking below even the bubbliest employment numbers, conceded that this was a good jobs report (with some disturbing trends—I’m not stupid).

Obama’s got a theory on that, too:

“Frankly, the press and Washington, all it does is feed cynicism,” he insisted, despite getting six years of favorable coverage from establishment newspapers and TV shows.

“Most of you don’t know the statistics I just gave you,” Obama said, after listing a series of cherry-picked data that ignored that roughly 10 million Americans who have given up looking for work, and the $7 trillion in added debt.

“The reason you don’t know [the favorable data] is because they elicit hope. They’re good news … and that’s not what we hear about,” he declared to the roughly 250 supporters who paid up to $1,000 to attend.

To the list of racist DEMOCRAT politicians, racist DEMOCRAT voters, let us add racist reporters (almost all DEMOCRATS).

Comments

At a Certain Point, You’ve Made Enough Money

There goes Obama again, bashing the Clintons:

The Clintons’ annual income easily puts them in the top 1% of Americans. But they may have reached the top 1% of the top 1%, according to publicly disclosed income data.

As we reported recently, according to their 2012 income disclosed in government forms, the Clintons made at least $16.7 million in income that year, largely from Bill Clinton‘s speeches. That total is based on income disclosed in forms that provide income ranges, and the $16.7 million total uses the minimum amount from each stated range.

The nationwide level to make the top 1% of households in 2012 was $567,719, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. And the level for the top 0.1% was about $2.9 million, a bar the Clintons easily surpassed.

The Tax Policy Center data stop there, at the top 0.1% — or the top 10% of the top 1% of Americans.

Did the Clintons reach the top 1% of the top 1%, based on their 2012 income? A different measure offers a strong clue. The Tax Policy Center says that IRS data for 2011, the most recent numbers available, show 11,500 total tax returns with adjusted gross income over $10 million that year, out of 145 million total returns. So a $10 million adjusted gross income puts one in the top 0.007% of all tax returns, and the Clintons’ income was well above that — likely putting it into the top 1% of the 1%.

Not bad for a couple who left office “dead broke”. Horatio Alger smiles down approvingly.

But not everyone does:

You are truly well-off by anyone’s definition of the term. And hard work is the guys tearing up my roof right now. It’s not flying by private jet to pick up a check for $200,000 to stand at a podium for an hour.

Which gets me to the second set of issues: how you’re continuing to ­vacuum up the money, and the aura of greediness it exudes. Madam Secretary, enough already. This behavior borders on compulsion, like refugees who once were starved and now hoard food. You’re rich beyond your wildest imaginings! You don’t need any more! Just. Stop. Speaking. For. Pay.

In the midst of a book tour (and with the ample cushion of a multimillion-dollar advance), you don’t need to be hustling for another $200,000 or so from the United Fresh Produce Association and Food Marketing Institute. On the verge of a potential presidential bid, please feel free to say yes to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas if you want to speak there. But you don’t have to hit its foundation up for a $225,000 fee, even one you plan to donate to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

What an effed-up world. The Clintons should be free to part fools from their money, and fools should be free to be parted from it for the “privilege” of hearing from them. Hillary should be free to run for President, and people should be free to vote for her (or not). There is no inherent value in poverty and no vice in wealth. It is for no one else to decide when you’ve made “enough money”.

And then there’s politics, where only appearance matters. It’s easy to see how Hillary’s “inartful” language hurst her politically. But hasn’t it always? Think of her comments over the years. On Bill’s affairs, she wasn’t “some little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette.”

On her life in public: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas…”.

On Bill’s candidacy, “Elect him, you get me.”

More on Bill’s affairs: “The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

On partisanship in politics: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'”

On her friends across the aisle: “I wonder if it’s possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time.”

On her trip to Bosnia: “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base…. There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. That is what happened.”

On the passing of Moammar Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”

On the passing of Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith: “What difference at this point does it make?”

It’s no wonder she’s mangled her book tour so completely. When it comes to politics, she’s deaf, dumb, and blind. And rich as Croesus, God bless her.

PS: Of course, my favorite Hillary Clinton quote is someone else’s. But it proves the same point:

Comments

Who Said It?

Oprah or Hillary?

Let’s play!

The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time. That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the f***ing tiller.

Obama has turned into a joke.

You can’t trust the motherf***er.

His word isn’t worth sh*t.

[E]ven when the Obamas think they are being charming, they hold you at arm’s length.

It slowly dawned on [her] that the Obamas had absolutely no intention of keeping their word and bringing her into their confidence. [... She] was hurt and angry and will never make up with the Obamas. [...] She knows how to hold a grudge.

Does it really matter? Either one said them all, according to Edward Klein’s new book.

Except for this. Bill said this:

I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived.

A rare moment of truth from 42.

Comments (1)

Conservatives Are Bad, But Did You Know We Were This Bad?

A little background, helpfully provided by James Taranto:

One explanation for this phenomenon comes from social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” Todd Zywicki, coincidentally on the same day Cuomo made his remark, summed up the relevant finding in a Volokh Conspiracy post:

Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt’s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards–or as a friend of mine once remarked, “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”–and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this.

How often have we said this ourselves? (Other than all the time?) It helps me, anyway, to have been a liberal for many years myself. I know the thought processes (to be generous), the denial, the sacrifice of reality for dogma. I consider my liberal self to be an unfinished version of my better self. I’m still not finished, mind you, nothing so smug and self-satisfied as that, but I could never go back—and it would be back—to modern American/Western liberalism.

But let’s look at a few less evolved people, shall we? Taranto names two:

[Mayor Bill] de Blasio launched an attack, or rather reinforced one, on a minority he can afford to alienate. Breitbart.com’s Kerry Picket reports the mayor “emphatically backed New [York] Governor Andrew Cuomo’s controversial remarks that ‘extreme’ conservatives . . . ‘have no place in the state of New York.’ ”

“I stand by that 100%,” said the mayor.

[Cuomo said:] “Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay–if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Cuomo’s statement was a gaffe, though one suspects it was a Kinsley gaffe, an inadvertent disclosure of his true feelings. De Blasio’s endorsement of it, by contrast, was unquestionably purposeful. “I agree with Gov. Cuomo’s remarks,” he said. “I interpret his remarks to say that an extremist attitude that continues the reality of violence in our communities or an extremist attitude that denies the rights of women does not represent the views of New York state.”

These were no pissant pipsqueaks, but the Mayor and Governor of New York City and State. Conservatives are not only demonized (anti-gay, pro assault weapons, holders of “extremist attitudes” that perpetuate violence and subjugate women), but as such, they cannot live among decent people. Would you want to live next to Charles Manson?

But Cuomo and de Blasio are pissant pipsqueaks next to the President of the United States:

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president.”

Says the recently reelected Barack Obama. America as a whole seems to like the idea of a black president. Or, to give America more credit than it deserves, it likes the idea of Barack Obama as president. (He wasn’t the first black candidate, just the first successful black candidate.) Still, there’s no denying that his race (the black half) was more responsible than anything else in putting him on the political map. Just about every white supporter I know has said it.

Even Obama acknowledges it:

“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,”

Maybe? Did you think it was your effervescent personality? Your sharp wit? Your uncanny ability at bird calls? “Maybe some white folks…” No [bleep], Sherlock.

And you know who it is poisoning the minds of those “folks” who don’t like him. Why, none other than:

“Another way of putting it, I guess, is that the issue has been the inability of my message to penetrate the Republican base so that they feel persuaded that I’m not the caricature that you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but I’m somebody who is interested in solving problems and is pretty practical, and that, actually, a lot of the things that we’ve put in place worked better than people might think. And as long as there’s that gap between perceptions of me within the average Republican primary voter and the reality, it’s hard for folks like John Boehner to move too far in my direction.”

Got that, “average Republican primary voter”? (Is that a synonym for “typical white person”? A cousin of a “bitter clinger” to guns and religion?) You don’t see “reality”, but a shucking and jiving “caricature” depicted by Rush Limbaugh (pbuh) and Roger Ailes. Maybe you’re not so bad, after all. Just incredibly stupid. So there’s hope.

Oh wait. Maybe not:

RUSH: … So yesterday the New Yorker releases more pages from their interview with Obama in which Obama blames me and Fox News for the fact that he is not as popular as he used to be.

And then later that same day, Chuck-U Schumer heads out to the Center for American Progress to make a speech, and he mentioned me and Fox News five times. Here’s the first…

SCHUMER: What gives this group such undue power? The power of the message machine led by Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the Rush Limbaughs that can broadcast the same exaggerated and even false messages instantaneously are all means that the Tea Party has used to gain ascendancy.

The underlying unrest that allowed the movement to ascend can be found in economic as well as cultural and social forces that in combination have greatly unsettled the American psyche. The first and most important phenomena is a phenomena that Democrats have recently begun to address, the decline in middle class incomes. When the Tea Party elite came in and said, “Government is your problem,” we didn’t say, no, it’s part of the solution. The American people became frustrated, sour, and angry, and the Tea Party elites, unchallenged, tapped into that anger with their pied piper solutions.

Tea Party “elites”? Tea Party “ascendancy”? Who? Since when? Barack Obama is still president, Harry Reid still runs the Senate, and John Boehner, Republican, hates the Tea Party more than both of them put together!

Schumer is just making [bleep] up! And he wasn’t done:

SCHUMER: These people are wealthy, hard right, narrow, people who don’t want to pay taxes, people who say, “I created my business all by my myself. How dare your government tell me what to do with it?” Government paved the roads and built the airports so they can ship their products. Government educated the workers that make their companies run and purchase their products. They conveniently ignore these facts. Over the years, they built a powerful and successful message machine that amplified and sold this anti-government theory to their followers. The Rush Limbaughs, the Fox Newses agree with the plutocrats and spread their propaganda to the masses.

I’ve been wanting to make this point to the “you didn’t build that” crowd for a long time: Romania has paved roads and airpots; so does Zimbabwe. Where are their thriving economies? If that’s all it took, poor countries would become instantly rich with the application of tarmac and blacktop. Stop it.

You really have to hear the contempt, the loathing, dripping from Schumer’s voice. He echoes Obama, but without his “cleanliness” or his “optional Negro dialect” (™ Joe Biden and Harry Reid respectively). I can’t be certain that he and Obama and Cuomo and de Blasio (and Reid and Pelosi, et al) actually feel this much hatred for their conservative fellow citizens—I truly hope note—but their base does. We all know people who hate us this much; we’re related by blood to some. This is their red meat.

We just ticked over into an election year, so we should expect only more. What else do the Democrats have? Obamacare? Loser issue. Immigration? Loser issue. Economy? Loser issue. Peace and respect around the world. Major loser issue.

In politics as in law: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

That thumping you hear is the entire Democrat-Media Complex pounding the table. Get used to it.

Comments

Why, Exactly Why, Is Obama Such An Atrocious President?

Yes, he’s a dolt, yes, the economy is weak, our foreign policy is in shambles, the health care law will cost thousands their jobs and maybe America will end up with fewer Americans with health insurance, and he’s arrogant to boot. But to quote one of my kids, who got real persistent and particular one day: “Yes, Mommy, I understand there’s a sperm and an egg, but how, exactly how, do they get together???” In the spirit of that question, what, exactly what, makes this guy worse than so many others?

And I woke up this morning with the particulars:

Obama has a Nixonian respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. (I realize that this is unfair to Richard Nixon).

Obama has a Carteresque way with both foreign policy and the domestic economy, with quite a bit of Carter’s condescending arrogance thrown in.

Obama has a Kennedy era teeny-bop press, in love with his handsome features, lovely wife and daughters, his sexy golf moves, and his inspiring speeches. The Beatles didn’t have it this good.

As a result:

America has a lawless, arrogant, incompetent leader who has lowered our international standing, tortured our economy, and cheapened our culture. And we don’t have a media to help us to understand this.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Vote the John Not the Johnson

New York voters seem to forgive some of their reprobates but not others:

With no gender gap and a lead among black voters of more than 3-1, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer tops Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer 56 – 37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in the race for New York City comptroller, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

“Everyone seems to be against former Gov. Eliot Spitzer except the voters, especially black voters,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Again there is a measurable racial gap, but almost no gender gap. Spitzer’s behavior disqualifies him, 29 percent of white voters and 13 percent of black voters say.

I have no comment on the racial disparity, but I do wonder why Anthony Weiner can’t get the same love Spitzer gets. The Big Apple electorate prefers their pervs to use their bodily appendages for their intended purposes, and not as subjects of self-portraits. I guess I see their point.

Comments

Weiner Stands Alone…

Vows to come from behind: (Well, he does!)

As the field of candidates, which also included former City Comptroller Bill Thompson, debated local issues, Weiner stepped in to paint himself as an outsider.

“This is the problem: They all come from basically the same place. They’ve been part of municipal government for decades now,” he argued. “If you want someone truly independent, who’s going to stop this noise … you have a choice here.”

Turning to Weiner, Quinn begged to differ.

“Not for nothing, you were in government your whole career until you had to resign from government, so I’m not sure why you’re finger-pointing at people in government,” she said.

Tuesday’s debate came hours after a new poll showed a dramatic switch in the race. According to the Quinnipiac University survey, de Blasio jumped to the front of the pack with 30% of support among likely Democratic primary voters.

Quinn, the former front-runner, fell behind with 24% and Thompson came in at 22%, just four weeks before the September 10 primary. Weiner remained behind all three at 10%, while Liu had 6% support.

New York city and state politics steered me toward conservatism. Reading about these mental midgets, I can’t understand what took so long. Back in my day, it was Koch, Dinkins, Maloney, et al—plus the Donald Mannes-led menagerie of corrupt local pols, all Democrat. I left NYC before Giuliani ran, but had already committed to voting for him when he did. (And he’s hardly a Conservative with a capital C.)

But every clown show needs a top clown. And in Anthony Weiner the Democrats have the very reincarnations of Bozo, Emmett Kelly, and Bello Nock in one party member (pun very much intended).

Comments (2)

Justice Thomas Is Amusing

Watch to the end.

– Aggie

Comments

OMG

Very, very stupid antics in Oregon

Teachers were shocked and caught off guard when an Oregon school held a school shooting drill.

The Oregonian reports Pine Eagle Charter School in Halfway held the drill last Friday as children were home for an in-service day. Two masked “gunmen” burst into a meeting room holding 15 teachers firing blanks. Teachers only realized it wasn’t a real shooting when none of them were bleeding.

“There was some commotion,” school principal Cammie DeCastro told The Oregonian.

Teachers were frightened about what happened.

“I’ll tell you, the whole situation was horrible,” Morgan Gover told the paper. “I got a couple in the front and a couple in the back.”

The school held the unplanned drill in hopes to better educate teachers on how to deal with a school shooting. Of the 15 teachers in the room, only two would have survived.

“For us not to know how we were going to respond is leaving us open,” DeCastro told The Oregonian.

I’m surprised no one had a heart attack and I wonder if someone will sue. Astonishingly poor judgement.

And I wouldn’t be terribly shocked to learn that some nut has read about this and planned an attack, assuming that teachers will believe the bullets are blanks. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »