Say It Ain't So, Joe...

In 2009, after the 2008 elections, although the Democrats found themselves with a huge majority in the United States Senate -- 59 out of 100 members -- they were still one vote short of the 60 necessary to overcome Republican filibusters.

As I pointed out in my Bad Year For Incumbents post, back in April of 2009, long-time RINO (Republican In Name Only) Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, reading the polls that showed him badly trailing former Representative Pat Toomey in the upcoming 2010 Republican primary, decided to switch political parties. Elected five times as a "Republican," and sensing certain defeat in that party's primary, Specter did what ANY career politician without a shred of decency would do -- in the fifth year of his fifth term as an elected Republican, he simply switched parties and became a Democrat.

His switch gave Obama a gift early in his Presidency -- the "Republican" Specter's party switch provided the 60th vote Obama needed to make the United States Senate "filibuster proof," at least until Scott Brown would be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts some nine months later.

The problem was that Democrat Congressional Representative Joe Sestak had already announced his intention of seeking the Democrat nomination for the Senate seat when Specter was still a Republican. Now that Specter was suddenly a Democrat, this presented a dilemma for the White House. The incentive to get Specter to switch parties (and give Obama that elusive 60th vote in the Senate) included the promise to quietly get Congressman Sestak to drop his bid for the Democrat nomination in the upcoming Senatorial race.

Compounding the problem -- Congressman Sestak wouldn't play along.

In an interview with Larry Kane on Comcast cable in Pennsylvania last February, and alluding to multiple sources revealing that the White House had been "dangling" a job in front of him -- as long as he would abandon his Senatorial aspirations -- Sestak was asked by Kane, "were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?"

Sestak's answer: "Yes."

He elaborated, "Let me just say that, both here in Pennsylvania and down there, I was called quite a few times. And all I said is, look, I felt when a deal was made, that it was hurting the democratic process. I got into this because I think that deal started getting us off the track where the Democratic Party should go. I would never get out for a deal."

After this, while acknowledging the veracity of his story in subsequent interviews and answering questions from reporters, and perhaps sensing that he had committed a major political faux pas, Sestak refused to expand upon his original reply to Kane.

It's been long-rumored/assumed that the "job" offered Sestak to entice him to abandon his Senate bid was either Secretary of the Navy -- probably a very good fit for Sestak, actually, as he is a retired Admiral, or Ambassador to Moscow, as he speaks Russian fluently.

The story remained on the back burner until Sestak defeated Specter in the Democrat primary last May 18. Then, it developed "legs" and moved front and center.

The original question, "what job was Sestak offered?" was joined by the question, "who offered it?" and, ultimately joined by the question, "what did Obama know, and when did he know it?"

It didn't help that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stonewalled for months when asked at press briefings about Sestak and "the job offer." As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak's primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque -- as Gibbs insisted just last weekend that "nothing inappropriate happened" but refused to engage in the more basic "what happened question."


Obama held his first press conference in over 300 days earlier this week and, unfortunately for him, the last question he took turned out to be about Sestak issue.

Obama's haltingly-delivered response -- ""I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."


Then, the White House spin doctors went into overdrive, with White House counsel (Obama's attorney), Bob Bauer (NO relation to Jack... ) assuming the role of "main man."  Bauer is the husband of former White House Communications Director (and Mao Tse-Tung admirer), Anita Dunn.

Sestak disclosed Thursday that White House officials contacted his brother in preparation for a response to allegations that Sestak was offered a job in the Obama administration as an enticement not to challenge incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter.


Once all of the players seemingly got their stories straight, "news" was released late Friday (Fridays are notoriously known as "document drop" days -- ESPECIALLY Fridays preceding long holiday weekends...) that Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel had contacted HIS old boss, former President Bill Clinton, and gotten Clinton to offer an "unpaid job" to Sestak on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

Oops.

Only "civilians" serve on that board and, as a sitting Member of the House of Representatives, Sestak didn't qualify. He would have to resign from his "paying" job in the U.S. House to take the "unpaid" job on the Intelligence Advisory Board.

Well... they DID only have a couple of days to get their story straight, after all...


This is NOT a case of "...nothing to see here, folks, move along" -- I refer you to 18 US Code, Section 600:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Attorney General Eric Holder needs to drop the partisan politics, appoint an independent counsel, and get to the bottom of this.

I think ultimately the question will be...

Will either Bill Clinton or Rahm Emanuel be "patsies," and take the fall for Barack Obama?

Stay tuned...

Skip

Harry Reid's Dingy Gambit

Written off as politically dead by the pundits mere months ago, the repugnant-yet-wily Senator from the state of Nevada, Harry Reid, may yet rise again, phoenix-like, from the perhaps-too-soon-imagined pile of ashes that Republican talking heads had consigned him to.

The two "mainstream" Repubicans vying for the opportunity to unseat "Dingy Harry" next November, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian, are joined in the Republican primary by "Tea Party candidate/ Republican," Sharron Angle who, until very recently, wasn't given the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Lowden, long the front-runner, seems to be succumbing to the relentless barrage of attack ads waged by the Reid campaign.

Democrat mouthpiece Keith Olbermann has been attacking  Lowden  mercilessly  (fast-forward to about the 2:10 mark in this third video), as well.  Luckily, almost no one watches MSNBC, so I don't think Edward R. Olbermann's naming Lowden "Worst Person In The Wooooorld" over and over and over again is having that much of an impact on the race.  I include the Olbermann reference here because his positions are indicative of MSNBC's overall stance while, with straight faces, their on-air "personalities" hilariously refer to the biased, all-white Obama-promoting-network as... "The Place For Politics." I occasionally force myself to watch MSNBC so that you won't have to.  Like Bill O'Reilly, I am only trying to look out for you.

Pundits have held for months that Reid's only chance to be elected would be if, somehow, Republicans were stupid enough to nominate the far-right Angle for the statewide general election instead of either of the other, much more mainstream candidates.  The Reid campaign was at a loss as to how ro bring this about.  Their only strategy seems to have been, "destroy Sue Lowden, destroy Sue Lowden;" I'm sure it became their mantra.   They seem to have never really worried about Tarkanian; it was Lowden that they needed to destroy in order to get Angle to begin rising in the polls.  Destroy one woman to get support to increase for the other woman in the race.

And...

Beginning to rise, she is, as she continues to chip away at Lowden's lead

Three weeks ago, EVERY poll (even the dubious left-wing nonsense commissioned by the Daily Kos) showed Lowden beating Reid in every matchup.

Reid's relentless hammering of attack ads are taking their toll -- Angle is, as noted, closing in on Lowden...

...just what Reid and the Democrats prayed for.

After remaining conspicuously silent about candidate Angle while aiming their big guns at Lowden, now that they believe Angle will win, they are ALREADY starting to attack her, calling her "extreme" and "outside the mainstream" of American politics.  They are criticizing the Angle website for being "...full of typos."  And, the coup de grace... hope you're sitting down... playing the RACE CARD (I'm shocked, just shocked!) because of Angle's tough stance on illegal "immigration" and her embrace of Arizona's new illegal alien legislation.

Hopefully, these pie-in-the-sky dreamers who are sure of Lowden's defeat and Angle's victory are starting their attacks on Angle too early.

I still believe that Sue Lowden will win, and I hope that I am right.  I was thinking about driving over to Las Vegas to vote for her illegally, but that would be too much like something ACORN would do! 

(just kidding about the illegally voting part, doncha know...)

Skip

So Many Dipsticks -- How To Choose, How To Choose?

It's been four days since I last posted.  I promised myself that I would post more frequently.  Certainly more frequently than this.  I've wanted to post new observations on the passing scene.  I really have.  It has just been so hard to choose from the plethora of negative stories which daily flood our news media a singular topic to comment upon.

Should I pick...

Obama & Company's continuing insult to the American public with both their blatant disregard for the rule of law and their naked political pandering to Hispanics in an attempt to garner their votes?  The self-righteous display of Democrat contempt for Arizona's new immigration law, and, by association, for the vast majority of both Arizonans and Americans, in general, who support it, reeks of elitism and race-card playing, no?

Or...

The embarrassment of having The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, attack Arizona's immigration law and question its Constitutionality only to later sheepishly admit that he hadn't even read the bill?

Or...

The embarrassment of witnessing the Head of the Department of Homeland Security, career-Democrat now turned hopelessly-incompetent-hapless-bureaucrat, Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano emulate Holder by bad-mouthing the Arizona law only to admit under Senate questioning that she, too, hadn't read the bill?

Or...

The even further embarrassment of seeing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mouthpiece, P.J. Crowley, after having ripped the new Arizona legislation, admit that he hadn't read the bill, either?

Or...

Having the "Founding Executive Director" of the George Soros-funded "Human Rights First" organization, far-left ideologue Michael Posner, appointed as an Assistant Secretary of State just last September, now apologizing on our behalf to China, of all places on this Earth, for the passage of Arizona's new immigration law?

Or...

Hearing the announcement by the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), career bureaucrat John Morton, that ICE "...will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials.”  The sheer audacity of an appointed bureaucrat stating that HE and "his" agency can pick and choose which States to "accept" illegal aliens from is simply... stunning.  Eh?

Or...

The disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that the Obami are surely secretly delighted about because it furthers their agenda of implementing/mandating the use of so-called "green" power, has effectively put a stop to Obama-promised new offshore oil drilling, and has breathed new life into the recently-revamped, just-renamed job-killing Global Warming Bill - er, Climate Change Bill - er, Cap and Trade Bill - er, "American Power Act." Same old wine in a brand new bottle. A vulgar analogy comes to mind here, as well.

Or...

The implosion of the Euro and potential beginning of the end for the European Union?  How the adoption of a common currency by sixteen disparate nations, all of which are socialist in varying degrees, was destined to fail from the beginning?

Or...

How those stubborn British proved to be so wise in refusing to abandon the British Pound despite former Prime Minister Brown's attempts to get the country to do so and adopt the now-failing Euro?

Or...

The disgusting spectacle of Mexican President Felipe Calderon addressing a joint session of the United States Congress, bashing our State of Arizona, and having nearly all the Democrats in the chamber rise as one to applaud his Arizona-bashing?  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden led the cheering.


Hmmm... based upon the above, I think I'll more than likely continue to concentrate on the disastrous consequences of our still unchecked illegal alien invasion, Arizona's attempt to deal with it, and the partisan attacks on Arizona by Democrat "leaders" and their enablers in the "mainstream" media for just a bit longer.

Skip

Bad Year For Incumbents?

It's funny watching the left-wing media spin both the results of yesterday's primary elections and Obama's opposite-of-Midas-touch... touch regarding elections in which The One has endorsed and campaigned for a candidate.

They are spinning that the electorate is fed up with politicians in general and, specifically, politicians in Washington, DC.  True.

They are spinning that it's a bad year for incumbents.  Partially true.

They are spinning that the Democrat victory in the special election in Pennsylvania's 12th District to replace the late John Murtha somehow rings the death-knell for Repubican political gains next November.  False.

Democrat Murtha was elected to the seat for 18 terms; his aide, Democrat Mark Critz, defeated Republican Tim Burns in that special election to finish out the remaining seven months of Murtha's final term.  The media would have us believe that a Congressional seat occupied by a Democrat for nearly 36 years staying in Democrat hands for seven more months is somehow BIG NEWS and means curtains for those eeeeevil Republicans and their eeeeevil aspirations nationwide this coming November.

Ahhh, those silly Obama-water-carriers in the media...


Meanwhile, back to Obama's "reverse-Midas-touch" (it seems that being touched politically by "The One" is analogous to having a reason to take kaopectate -- his endorsements seem to turn to s...).

Obama is 0 for 4 --

Late last year, Obama campaigned mightily for Democrat narcissist Jon Corzine to be re-elected Governor of the state of New Jersey.  The result?  Republican Chris Christie won an upset victory in the heavily Democratic state.

America 1, Obama 0.

In that same election cycle, Obama traveled to Virginia to campaign for Democrat Creigh Deeds in the race for Governor over Republican Bob McDonnell.  The result?  McDonnell wiped out Deeds by over 17%, leading a clean sweep of all statewide races and halting nearly a decade of Democrat gains in the state.

America 2, Obama 0.

In January of this year, Obama traveled to Massachusetts to campaign for presumed "shoo-in" winner of the "Ted Kennedy seat" in the United States Senate, Democrat Martha Coakley.  Coakley, who had been riding high in the polls for months, managed to parlay Obama's ringing endorsement with her own campaign's ineptitude and, stunningly, hand victory to Republican Scott Brown, who became the first Republican elected to the United States Senate from the Bay State since 1972.

America 3, Obama 0.

In April of 2009, long-time RINO Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, reading the polls that showed him trailing former Representative Pat Toomey badly in the upcoming 2010 Republican primary, decided to switch political parties.  Elected five times as a "Republican," and sensing certain defeat in that party's primary, Specter did what ANY self-respecting "ruler" of the "commoners" would do -- in the fifth year of his fifth term as an elected Republican, he simply switched parties and became a Democrat.

His switch gave Obama a gift early in his Presidency -- the "Republican" turncoat's party switch provided the 60th vote Obama needed to make the United States Senate "filibuster proof," at least until Scott Brown would be elected nine months later.

Obama was ecstatic and, in a public appearance with Specter, even announced "...I love Arlen Specter."

Fast-forward to May, 2010.  Seeing that Specter was doing badly in the polls as a newly-converted Democrat, and was apt to lose the Democrat primary, the White House began to distance itself from snarlin' Arlen.

No matter.  Obama had "loved" Arlen Specter, after all; Specter's political career ended at the hands of Democrat primary winner Joe Sestak last night.

America 4, Obama 0.


The media would have us believe that it's a lousy year to be an incumbent; I submit that they are wrong -- it's a lousy year to be a Democrat, or Obama.

Skip

On a Lighter Note...

What with Obama/Pelosi/Reid drivin' our beloved country off of a cliff, the European Union starting to implode monetarily, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, an avowed socialist nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, Attorney General Eric Holder condemning Arizona for a law that he (Holder) now admits he hasn't read, Keith Olbermann marrying Rachel Maddow, and Michael Moore losing weight (OK, OK... I made those last two up), I thought I should lighten things up with a piece I put together a couple of years ago, chronicling some of the time spent making music over the years.

The sound quality could be better -- I am thinking about re-doing the entire project.  Full-screen the video to eliminate those annoying black bars on the sides.  One bright note (no pun intended, haha) is that the video is available in HD -- just click on 720p on the bottom of the screen when the video is in full-screen mode.

Skip

Meanwhile, right here at UCSD...

This isn't "free speech" -- it's hate speech.

Is anyone else shocked and disgusted at the nonchalant way this young woman states that MSA (the Muslim Students Association) is hosting their "annual Hitler Youth Week?"  Or by the steely tone in her voice when she icily announces, regarding the terrorist organization Hamas, that she is "for it?"

If she, a student at UCSD, is here on a visa, it should be revoked immediately and her sorry ass should be sent packing.  And, if she is an American, I am simply ashamed.

Despite all of the hand-wringing of the politically-correct crowd (from Obama on down), Islam is NOT a "religion of peace."  They aim to eradicate Jews (and other "infidels") from the face of the Earth.

We need to thank David Horowitz for exposing this woman as the hater that she is and as a fine example of the garbage that our college campuses are capable of producing these days.

Religion of "peace?"  Their number one aim is, if they can't convert us, to kill us all.

No... it's not politically correct to mention or report these things about radical Islamists/Muslims.  But, those eeeeeeeevil Tea Partiers... now THAT'S another story!

Now... THEY are the REAL threat!  </sarcasm off > 

Skip

Update:  May 15, 2010 7:07am

Too bad that no search engines have found this little blog (despite Google's assurances that they would) -- I posted this story about the hateful Islamic student and her confrontation with David Horowitz a full 40+ hours before Hannity covered it.

I feel a little like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory when he tells Julia Roberts that he has five (I think it was five) subscribers to his newsletter.

Obama's Pick To Join The Supremes

I started a lengthy post Monday about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the now-90-year-old who was picked by President Gerald Ford for the post and who has held it for the past 35 years, turning ever more liberal with each passing year.

I just couldn't get excited about the topic, though...

It's just too analogous to one seeing headlines that read, "MSNBC Supports Democrat Agenda" or "Obama Is A Liberal."

Certainly no "Man Bites Dog" story, that's for sure.  Move along, people, nothing to see here.  Liberal President appoints liberal woman to replace retiring liberal on the Supreme Court.

Yet...

There are a couple of interesting backstories.

Elena Kagan has NO judicial experience; no wealth of judicial opinions from which to draw conclusions about her philosophy, or any possible future tendency to legislate from the bench.  Perhaps this, alone, was the main reason that she was selected.  After the Democrats' audacious and contentious push for, and passage of, so-called healthcare "reform" and, this being an election year in which the Democrats are almost certain to lose their majorities in both Houses of Congress, there seems to be little, if any political appetite on their part for yet another partisan battle on Capitol Hill, particularly over something like a Supreme Court nomination.  Especially when the Democrats, trying to enact as much of their socialist agenda as they can in the brief time they have left as the majority party, STILL want to push their Cap and Trade -- er, Cap and Tax -- bill and somehow try to grant amnesty to what they hope will become millions of grateful and thus obedient new little Democrat voters with enactment of their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" before this year's elections.

Since Kagan has no history (well some, but it's all political, not judicial...), maybe the Obami figure that pushing for quick Senate approval of their candidate for this lifetime position will be a cakewalk?  Even if hers is a "stealth" appointment of what may become the most liberal Justice in the history of the Republic, is it likely that she will sway -- indeed, induce the Court's four conservative members to change their minds on issues?  Rhetorical answer to rhetorical question:  No.

Any danger in her appointment lies not now, but in the future.  At 50 years of age, Kagan will become the youngest Justice on a bench with an average age just under 69 years, and may well be on the court for decades to come.  Should Obama get the opportunity to replace a conservative Justice with yet another activist liberal (in the vein of Sonia Sotomayor, for example), then the true impact of the Kagan appointment will be felt.


Then, there was there was her preposterous decision when she was Dean of Harvard Law School to ban military recruiters from Harvard because of the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military. The Pentagon took issue with her decision and challenged it by invoking the Solomon Amendment  (a 1996 law that requires universities that receive public funding to grant the military the same access to their campuses that they grant other organizations).

Kagan lost.

With Harvard's $400 MILLION in annual Federal grants at stake, Kagan was forced to capitulate.

(Question for another day: Why, on God's green Earth, does Harvard University, a private university that is charging (as of 2009) a base annual tuition of $33,696 for each student receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in "grants" each year? Ahhh, but I digress...)

Back on point --

Even though she was forced to cave in to the Pentagon after its invocation of the Solomon Amendment, which had been signed into law by a Democrat President (Clinton), she continued to fight. She, and 39 other Harvard Law professors, signed an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to invalidate Solomon. When the case ultimately wound up before the same Supreme Court that she's now been nominated to join, the Justices (including the four-member liberal bloc) were not impressed, issuing a unanimous (8-0) decision against Kagan and Harvard Law School in March, 2006. Despite the legal setback, Kagan has continued to advocate for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," saying, "I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy," going on to describe it as a “moral injustice of the first order."

Which allows me to seamlessly segue into...


The question of Kagan's sexuality.  Kagan may be the stuff that Rachel Maddow's dreams are made of, but I really don't care.  Still... the question makes interesting fodder for both the masses and the media alike.  CBS reported in a blog that, if confirmed, Kagan would become the first "openly 'gay'" Supreme Court justice.  The White House went nuts, attacking CBS and proclaiming through a spokesman that Kagan is "straight" (Lord forgive me, but for details, I am linking to the wretched Huffington Post -- story here).  CBS was pressured into removing the piece.  This disavowal of Kagan's homosexuality didn't set well with a prime Democrat support group -- the homosexuals, who saw the Obami's denial as sort of a "reverse homophobia," so the White House moved to tone down the rhetoric.  Pass the popcorn.


The bottom line?  The Republicans need to pick their battles, and opposing Kagan is not one of them.  If they fight the Kagan nomination because of politics alone, the left-wing, so-called "mainstream" media will use the fact to further brand Republicans as "the party of no."  The Republicans are poised to throw the socialists er... Democrats out of power this coming November unless they do what only they seem to be able to do so well...

...only if, through their own collective ineptitude, they once again manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Skip

Arizona's Governor Takes On Obama

We could sure use some leadership like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has displayed in Arizona over here in the Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia...

If it didn't get so hot over there, I'd move.

Skip

"Maroons" at Free Republic Just Don't Get It

They like to call those they disagree with or feel superior to "maroons."  Sorta "geek-speak" for "morons," I suppose.

Looks like they are the "maroons" these days...

Jim Robinson and his band of intolerant right-wing Kool-Aid drinkers at Free Republic are at it again.

Two years ago, he and his over-zealous "moderators" were banning anyone who dared to post positively about Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney.  You see, "JimRob" didn't like Giuliani because he thought him too liberal and he didn't like Romney because... well... because... shhhhhh... he is a Mormon.

Now, it's Sarah Palin's turn to feel the wrath of these short-sighted ideologues.

The "Freepers" are now denouncing Palin as a "RINO" -- Republican In Name Only -- because she DARED to endorse Carly Fiorina in next month's California Republican primary race for the United States Senate.

The fight for the Republican nomination is between three people -- Carly Fiorina, Tom Campbell, and Chuck DeVore.  Of the three, while DeVore is arguably the most conservative candidate in the field, he is also the least known and therefore the least electable Republican in a Statewide race.

Robinson and his minions at Free Republic want their man, DeVore, to be the nominee.  Never mind the fact that DeVore has NO statewide name recognition, has no money, and in a recent Los Angeles Times/USC poll (Rasmussen, April 12), he had the support of only 9 percent of likely GOP primary voters. 

Tom Campbell is the true "RINO" in this race -- he's pro-partial birth abortion, pro-same sex marriage, anti-gun, anti-Israel, and pro-Islamist (Google Sami Al-Arian).  He supports higher taxes.  In short, he is about as much of a "Republican" as Arnold Schwarzenegger is.  Campbell has spent his entire career either as a bureaucrat or a politician or a professor.  He also failed in his previous Senate bid in 2000, when he was crushed by incumbent Dianne Feinstein 55.8% to 36.6%.

Carly Fiorina is pro-life, pro-marriage, and a moderate conservative.  She was recently endorsed by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.  The description, "moderate," is required these days for any Republican to win statewide elective office in California, given the 21st Century demographics of the Golden State.

If the "maroons" at FreeRepublic have their way, DeVore will pull just enough votes from Fiorina to give RINO Campbell the nomination.

Ultra-liberal Senator Barbara Boxer is very vulnerable this time around; if Fiorina wins the primary, she will most likely go on to defeat Boxer next November.  If Campbell wins the primary, Boxer will almost assuredly win a fourth term in the Senate.

Regarding Sarah Palin's endorsement of Carly Fiorina, Allahpundit at HotAir observes:

[Palin's] base loves her practically unconditionally. See this post at Conservatives 4 Palin defending her endorsement as a master stroke. Palin’s problem isn’t her base, it’s centrist Republicans and independents, and today’s curveball will help her (very marginally) with that. Frankly, I like the fact that she showed some balls and jumped in on behalf of a candidate who might irk the grassroots. The rap on her is that she’s a wingnut robot, mindlessly supporting whoever the truest “true conservative” in the race might be. Not so. This required some calculation and some risk, and she’s willing and able to undertake both. Good.

Carly Fiorina certainly isn’t the perfect Republican candidate (is there such a thing?), but... she will be the most conservative U.S. Senator from California we've had in generations and she can beat Barbara Boxer.  That might just explain why a very shrewd Sarah Palin endorsed her.  

Ya think?
     

Skip

Attempted "man-made disaster" or terrorism?

(to be a purist, this was actually penned on May 4th, 2010)...

The majority of the talking heads as well as the left-wing politicians sooooooooooo wanted this to have been an act of "domestic terrorism" that they could somehow link to the "Tea Party" movement and, by association, those eeeeevil Republicans and somehow staunch the bloodletting that the Democrats are sure to experience this coming November.

Even that bloviating ass, Keith Olbermann, could hardly contain his glee, gloating just last night that authorities were seeking "...a white man, in his 40s."

Oops.

Turns out that the guy is 30 years old... and from Pakistan. He'd been granted a student visa in December of 1998, and recently became a naturalized (April, 2009) American citizen who returned just this past February from a trip to his native land, after having spent five months there, and who now has admitted to receiving bombmaking training in Waziristan, the lawless tribal region where the Pakistani Taliban operates with near impunity.


NBC's Contessa Brewer, in a phone interview with liberal radio-talker Stephanie Miller today, lamented the fact that the person arrested for the fizzled Times Square terror attack was a Pakistani-American. She complained, "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country."

She defensively mentioned members of a Michigan militia group arrested in March and asserted that they were "from far different backgrounds than what this guy is coming from." In the audio, when she referred to the Michigan militia folks that called themselves "Hutaree," it sounded like she called them "Atari."

Continuing to play armchair psychiatrist, she went on, "Were there failed family ties? Did he have a strong community network here in the United States? Did he feel isolated?" She opined that these types of terrorists are "guys who are, I don't know, isolated in some ways from their families."

Good Lord...


Mayor Nanny -- er, Bloomberg, of New York proved again that there are more horses' asses than there are horses; that having a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean you have a lot of brains. Speaking of money (nice segue, eh? ), here's the money quote:

"If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything."

Bloomberg is that most dangerous variety of idiot -- the idiot who believes himself to be the smartest person in the room.

And, when President Obama weighed in, there must have been a typo in his teleprompter. He said, "...once gain an attempted attack has been [awkward pause] failed."

Probably whoever wrote those words for him meant "foiled," eh? Reminds me of the thrice-spoken "navy corpse-man" in that speech a couple of months ago. Once could be an error but... three times???

Later in today's prepared remarks, desperate to portray the government as being in control of the situation, Obama added that the authorities "may have saved hundreds of lives."

While the feds and local law enforcement apparently did an excellent job of identifying, locating, and apprehending the suspect after his bomb fizzled, they did nothing to "fail" it, nor did they "save" any lives. Luckily for all involved, the radical Islamic Pakistani-turned-naturalized-American-citizen was an inept dope. Reminiscent of that idiot that lit his genitals on fire last Christmas in the skies over Detroit. I wonder how THAT'S workin' out for him... Probably gonna disappoint those 72 virgins he's been promised when he leaves this earthly plane...

Undeterred by facts, liberal Boston talking head Mike Barnicle spoke of the attack as "having been thwarted" by the authorities.

And now, thanks to a new book by a liberal columnist, it is revealed our thin-skinned name-caller-in chief has now lowered himself to the level that he lectures the rest of us on -- referring to members of the Tea Party by the loathsome term, "teabaggers." In Jonathan Alter’s new book, The Promise: President Obama, Year One, President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans against the stimulus bills "set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans."

The only thing more common these days than a liberal screeching about racism or Nazism is Obama spouting platitudes about civility without ever calling his side -- or himself -- onto the carpet. Now... that’s a nice gig if you can get it.

Skip