White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.
Daley couldn’t answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room. The business leaders even applauded each other’s criticism of the administration. “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress,’” wrote Peter Wallsten and Jia Lynn Yang in the Washington Post.
Americans for Limited Government Communications Director and former Labor Department Public Affairs Chief of Staff Rick Manning told The Daily Caller that Daley’s inability to defend Obama’s regulations is an indication that the administration’s plans aren’t working. Manning also points out that Daley’s meeting may have large political implications.
“Business community to William Daley, your Jedi tricks don’t work on us,” Manning said in an email. “The chickens are coming home to roost from the wholesale assault by Obama on the free enterprise system and the private job creators who make it run. The meeting itself is incredible in that it demonstrates just how vulnerable Obama feels in 2012.”
In perhaps related news,D.C. insider recently spoke of a number of Democratic Party operatives who were joining with Republicans to ensure Barack Obama is a one-term president.
Rep. King’s amendment failed – here’s the roll call vote. Every Democrat voted against it – but it lost because 78 Republicans also went against stopping over a billion dollars in money being paid out for fraud. Two votes jumped out at me.
West voted with the Congressional Black Caucus.
Issa also voted to continue the Pigford fraud that is costing tax payers billions, even though he should be investigating Pigford.
Stranahan provided Issa’s office phone number in Washington: 202-225-3906 in case you want to give him a piece of your mind.
That’s where I’m at, in case you were wondering about the dearth of posts, yesterday. It’s about a seven hour trip from KC to Minneapolis by car. That’s seven hours of talk radio hosts giggling about Weiner being heckled at his resignation announcement press conference. Hannity must have played back the “Bye-bye pervert!” jeer fifty time on his show, Thursday. (By the way — didn’t I tell you that he wouldn’t survive this?) Yes, I believe I said it several times.
A couple of interesting program notes:
1. We will get to see a preview of Sarah Palin’s movie, The Undefeated!
2. Daily Kos’ Nutroots Nation is being held this same weekend in Minneapolis {{{at the same hotel!}}}
“I don’t know why I was turned back,” Ayers said in an interview this morning from Chicago. “I got off the plane like everyone else and I was asked to come over to the other side. The border guards reviewed some stuff and said I wasn’t going to be allowed into Canada. To me it seems quite bureaucratic and not at all interesting … If it were me I would have let me in. I couldn’t possibly be a threat to Canada.”…
Bill Ayers has put a lot of effort into rehabilitating his reputation over the years, but it’s hard for some people to forget the “Days of Rage”, bombings and cop killings of the sixties and seventies. Maybe, just maybe, Canadian authorities have read Ayer’ forgotten manifesto, Prairie Fire which lays out his plan to “seize power” in a violent communist takeover of the United States. The fact that to this day he’s unrepentant speaks volumes.
For the record, Ayers was slated to deliver the keynote address to the Worldview Conference on Media and Higher Education. The group hosting the event, Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA), is not very pleased with that officials turned their Keynote speaker away, but Canadian Law clearly forbids entry into the country to persons involved:
“in criminal activity, in human rights violations or in organized crime.”
The conference organizer and President of the OCUFA, Mark Langer, delivered the best quote related to the story as he compared an admitted terrorist bomber to America’s most successful Domestic Designer:
“I am disturbed by the apparent inconsistency in the enforcement of Canada’s border, in the past, we have admitted Martha Stewart, a convicted felon.”
As of this writing, Mr. Ayers has reportedly hired attorneys on both sides of the border between Canada and America, in hopes of breaking through the legal impasse in time to deliver tomorrow’s keynote address.
I don’t think anything Martha Stewart did can compare to what Larry Grathwohl, an FBI eyewitness informant who attended meetings of the Weather Underground,claimed Ayers was involved in back in the day. In the video, “No Place To Hide”, he described Ayers’ idea of “social justice”.
Lest we forget:
Grathwohl: I brought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people? The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education in the Southwest where we would take all of the people who needed to be re‑educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re‑educate, that are die-hard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re‑education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.
Bill Ayers is our problem. No other country should be asked to abide the man’s noxious, “small c” communist views.
How embarrassing for the liberal hacks at The Guardian. Today, yet another dent was dealt this dud of a story, which it now seems was invented out of whole cloth by The Guardian’s Nicholas Watt.
The purpose of his smear was to characterize Palin as so unpopular in Britain, even the staunchly conservative former Prime Minister, and close Reagan ally, Margaret Thatcher couldn’t stand her:
It appears that the former prime minister has no intention of meeting the darling of the Tea Party movement. Andy McSmith reported in the Independent this morning that Palin is likely to be “thwarted” on the grounds that Thatcher, 86, rarely makes public appearances.
It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher’s frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:
Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.
Thatcher will show the level she punches at when she attends the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square on Independence day on 4 July. This is what her ally told me:
Margaret is focusing on Ronald Reagan and will attend the unveiling of the statue. That is her level.
Nile Gardiner of The Telegraph spoke with Lady Thatcher’s Private Office regarding the story, and posted yesterday that the attack on Sarah Palin definitely did not come from her office, and in no way reflected her views.
Today, Rich Lowery of National Review contacted former editor John O’Sullivan, who was once a Thatcher aide, himself. He writes:
Rich, Curious about this report, I contacted old colleagues in the Thatcher office and got the following denial: “We didn’t say this; we didn’t authorize anyone else to say this; and it doesn’t represent Lady Thatcher’s opinion of Governor Palin.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the two ladies will meet. Lady Thatcher has retired from active public life for health reasons and sees very few people outside her circle of friends. My guess is that any final decision would be made on health grounds shortly before such a meeting. But I’m not even sure Governor Palin’s office has approached Lady Thatcher about one.
The bottom line, though, is that Lady Thatcher certainly doesn’t think Sarah Palin is “nuts.” And given the inaccurate abuse she herself has received over the years, the accusation may even recommend the Governor to her.
The Thatcher ally quoted in my original blog told me on Wednesday that members of her circle were standing by their decision after the description of Palin as “nuts” was reported in the US. This is what the ally told me on Wednesday:
Margaret will not be meeting Sarah Palin. If necessary we will make sure that Margaret has an off day when Palin is in London.
I think maybe we’ve reached the point where Watt’s anonymous Thatcher “allies” and “members of her inner circle” need to go on the record with their assertions.
But something tells me, that will never happen…
Ob/Gyn to the stars, Andrew Sullivan, also weighed in on the “controversy”, last week, at The Daily Douche:
As usual, the tired old bigoted comedian Rush Limbaugh took offense that anyone could call Sarah Palin “nuts,” even though she is quite obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and her grip on reality is, shall we say, tenuous. And as usual, Limbaugh blamed it on the left, i.e. the Guardian’s Wintour/Watt blog. What he doesn’t understand is that Palin’s nutsiness is not a partisan matter in Britain, or anywhere else in the world. It is an obvious truth marveled at by all. Palin’s emergence as a serious figure in American politics has made the country a laughing stock across the world. The idea that a stateswoman like Thatcher, in advanced dementia, would be used by such a crackpot is simply unseemly.
Yes, if you’re wondering – Watt linked to that.
PDS can be soooooo embarrassing —especially now that we know that Thatcher has agreed to meet with Palin, as UNSEEMLY as that is!
Her representatives approached Margaret Thatcher to ask for a meeting as part of a bid to enhance her claim to be the ‘heir to Ronald Reagan’ and prepare to challenge Mr Obama.
And Lady Thatcher has agreed to see Mrs Palin, who stood as the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008. A spokesman said: ‘We had an informal approach asking if Lady Thatcher would meet Mrs Palin if she comes to Britain and we said yes.’
Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) opening statement at today’s explosive Oversight hearing on the Obama Administration’s deadly program that let thousands of high-powered weapons fall into drug smugglers’ hands. Oversight released a scathing report w/ all the tragic facts about the Obama Administration’s deadly mistake of a program, Operation Fast and Furious. Read the report here: http://1.usa.gov/mySoTv
Issa on the CBS Early Show asked a good question: Since the president said “something may have gone wrong”, why have months have gone by, and no one has lost their jobs?
On Fox News William La Jeunesse said sources told him that this disaster was “not a mistake, it was a deliberate strategy approved by the Justice Dept and carried out by the ATF over the strenuous objections of multiple agents and dealers. From what I’ve been told, Mexico is going to be livid, outraged when they see the congressional report that shows that US officials could have cared less when guns they intentionally sent south, killed people in Mexico – not just drug dealers, but innocent victims and cops.”
Statement of John Dodson to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform June 15, 2011.
Dodson is the first whistleblower to come forth in public after Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with guns “walked” by ATF.
I have never heard an explanation from anyone involved in Operation Fast and Furious that I believe would justify what we did. The ATF is supposed to be a guardian of our citizens. To paraphrase the analogy of Army LTC Dave Grossman, ATF is supposed to be the sheepdog that protects against the wolves that prey upon our southern border. But rather than meet the wolf head-on, we sharpened its teeth and added number to its claws, all the while we sat idly by watching, tracking, and noting as it became a more efficient killer.
Prior to my coming to the Phoenix Field Division, I had never been involved in or even heard of an operation in which law enforcement officers let guns walk. The very idea of letting guns walk is unthinkable to most law enforcement. I and other field agents involved in the operation repeatedly raised these concerns with our supervisors. In response, we were told that we simply did not understand the plan. However, the numerous guns we let walk have yet to be recovered. Those that have been, were only recovered after the last time they were used in a crime. I cannot begin to think of how the risk of letting guns fall into the hands of known criminals could possibly advance any legitimate law enforcement interest. I hope the Committee will receive a better explanation than I ever did.
Read full statement at link.
This whole debacle begs the question: How could top officials at the DOJ have been this criminally, insanely, impossibly incompetent?
In the past,the Obama Administration and the Department of Homeland Security had implied that the violence in Mexico was the fault of the Second Amendment — law abiding gun shop owners who sold to cartel members.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven and heads should roll.
The higher up – the better.
Would that we were through with Weinergate. Every other day we have to endure another photo dump.The only reason this continues to drag on and on is because the title character in this little psychodrama defiantly refuses to do the obvious thing. And I know I don’t have to remind you that if this were a Republican scandal, it would already be last month’s news. Literally.
Also, it’s a little hard to ignore the scandal when Gloria Allred is holding press conferences on behalf of a porn star who wants to discuss dozens of messages from Weiner. The big news from the presser was that Ginger Lee alleges that Weiner asked her to lie, and often talked about his “package” in his e-mails. The result? The porn star no longer has much confidence in him and he should resign:
Ginger Lee, flanked by her celebrity attorney Gloria Allred, told a news conference in New York, that Weiner “asked me to lie” about their interchanges which included about 100 emails as well as messages over Twitter.
Lee, a stripper, said her relationship began with the Democratic lawmaker from New York over political issues such as a woman’s right to choose abortion, and health care, but that Weiner kept trying to turn the conversation sexual.
She said she never reciprocated his lewd messages, which were often about “his package.”
“I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied. He lied to the public and the press for more than a week,” she said. “If he lied about this, I can’t have much faith in him about anything else.”
Gloria Allred? Yeah, that strategy of ignoring the story is totally going to work now.
The House Ethics Committee is now reportedly probing into Twitter-holic Democratic New York Rep. Anthony Weiner’s possible abuse of government resources while sending pervy messages and photos to young women across the country. The latest batch of Weiner’s leaked social-media self-portraits — more cheesecake than beefcake — showed him in various states of undress at the congressional gym. From what other public buildings has Ick-arus tweeted his junk? And how much time on the public’s dime did his government staff spend coaching Weiner girls to assist with damage control?
Don’t expect an answer from the House ethics watchdogs until after Weiner’s first child enters kindergarten. The wheels of justice grind more slowly there than a dial-up modem.
Weiner’s dirty laundry is just the latest addition to a teeming heap of scandal. To wit: The committee still hasn’t issued a final report into last year’s reckless Capitol Hill predator du jour, former Democratic New York Rep. Eric Massa. He’s the notorious creep who serially groped male staffers and subjected interns to “tickle fights” for months while then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi looked the other way.
Then there’s Beltway swamp queen Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters. Last summer, after a yearlong investigation, the House Ethics Committee charged her with three violations related to her crony intervention on behalf of minority-owned OneUnited Bank in Los Angeles. The panel accused Waters of bringing discredit to the House for using her influence to seek and secure taxpayer-subsidized special favors for the failing financial institution. Her Democratic guardians have successfully delayed a trial for 10 months.
The LA Times covers the outrage of federal ATF agents rebuffed by their superiors over the fatal consequences of the program:
Federal gun agents in Arizona — convinced that “someone was going to die” when their agency allowed weapons sales to suspected Mexican drug traffickers — made anguished pleas to be permitted to make arrests but were rebuffed, according to a new congressional report on the controversial law enforcement probe.
Agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told congressional investigators that there was “a state of panic” that the guns used in the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in January and two U.S. agents in Mexico a month later might have been sold under the U.S. surveillance operation.
“I used the word anxiety. The term I used amongst my peers is pucker factor,” Larry Alt, special agent with ATF’s Phoenix field division, told investigators preparing a joint staff report for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The report will be released Wednesday in Washington, D.C.
Neither of those shootings was ultimately linked to the “Fast and Furious” probe, though two weapons sold to a suspect under surveillance were found at the scene of the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry near Nogales, Ariz., in December.
“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).
They specifically challenge this idea that a foreign treaty organization may substitute for Congress in the war-declaration procedure, a bad idea that was dumb when it was first floated, what? In 1950? In 1946? There was a debate on this in Congress, during the United Nations creation/treaty discussion, as to whether US troops would come with their Declarations of War pre-authorized by creation of a UN now authorized to command them into war.
***
I don’t have to remind you that many of us tried to warn voters about Obama’s radical associations before the election, but it fell on deaf ears.
Hatem Abudayyeh is the executive director of the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). Hatem Abudayyeh has been with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) since 1999, and was appointed Executive Director in 2003. The Arab American Action Network was founded by former PLO operative and close Obama family friend Rashid Khalidi. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund from 1994 through 2001, when the board approved a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network.
In 2003 Barack Obama was an honored guest at a dinner sponsored by the AAAN for former PLO-operative Rashid Khalidi. During the dinner a video was taken that shows Barack Obama celebrating with members of this Palestinian group who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gave a toast to a Rashid Khalidi at this going away party. The LA Times will not release the video from this Jew-bashing dinner.
Keep reading.
Now might be a good time to revisit Sean Hannity’s groundbreaking: History of Radicalism six part series.
Tempers flared in the wake of the WI Supreme Court ruling in favor of Governor Walker’s collective bargaining law, and when a MacIver intern, there to film the protest, answered the question “Who are you with?”, things got ugly.
The following is raw, unedited footage of the incident at the Wisconsin State Capitol, 6/14/2011: (Watch video at site.)
President Obama made me very sad. He said during a fundraiser last night in Miami that it was over between him and people like me.
If you’re looking for just a bunch of partisan rhetoric, I’m probably not your guy.
And I thought, gosh, what will I do? I’m looking for a bunch of partisan rhetoric, but the president is above that sort of thing, and now I got nothing. He’s cerebral, hopeful, changeful, and that kind of good stuff, not a like a politician at all.
I was concerned I might have to start hanging out Nancy Pelosi or Tom DeLay, people who aren’t afraid to step on the pedal and rev up the partisan rhetoric a bit.
But then I got me to thinking, and it occurred to me, there really isn’t a problem! There’s no daylight at all between my desire for mindless partisan rhetoric and President Obama. In fact, he’s spoken lots of it himself!
Don’t worry, Mr. President, it’s going to be okay. Speaking for myself and all the other vitriolic, thoughtless partisans out there, I want to tell you: You’re still our guy!
Here’s a sample of some of the things the president has said, just to show you why I feel so much better. I’m mean, there’s so much there that will bind us together: (Keep reading at link as Koffler lists the many ways Obama doesn’t disappoint.)
On Thursday, June 16th, Growth, Capital Access and Taxes Subcommittee Chairman Joe Walsh (R-IL) will hold a hearing entitled, The Dodd-Frank Act: Impact on Small Business Lending.
Small community banks and credit unions are traditionally the number one lender to small businesses. But they are being prevented from granting new loans to small businesses due to burdensome financial regulations, specifically the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Without this traditional way of accessing capital, small businesses are unable to grow and create jobs. This hearing will examine these regulations as witnesses will discuss the direct impact of the new Dodd-Frank law on their ability to lend to small businesses.
Along with Dodd-Frank, many financial institutions are facing increasing pressure from federal regulators concerned about additional bank failures. This increased pressure is hampering small business lending since regulations fall disproportionately strongly on small businesses. Witnesses will discuss this disproportionate burden and further regulatory uncertainty and offer solutions to minimize the burdens.
Wow…more Dem legislation that is having a deleterious effect on the economy. Who could have predicted it?
Just don’t read John’s commentary: “Is this fair”?…
Are you freaking kidding me, John? You are too nice, mister. Too, too nice. Everything this President has done has been bad for the economy. His disastrous, wasteful spending is driving us to bankruptcy. His drilling moratorium killed thousands of jobs… increased regulations, along with the horrifying prospects of whatever else he has planned, have made businesses too freaked out to hire.
Michelle Obama said at a California fundraiser, Monday, that the job of being president is hard on Barack - what with him having to to get up early, work hard, feel worried about things, read memos in their entirety while taking notes, etc.
It’s just not clear to me anymore that the $400,000 a year salary, the chauffeured limousine, the free mansion, the catered meals, and the opportunity to be the most powerful man in the world is enough compensation for what he has to go through. Gosh, all of you out there who are unemployed, count your blessings that you don’t have to work like this.
Granny Jan created this video to illustrate this sad reality:
Don’t let that “Granny Jan” monicker fool you. This lady is a hardcore battleaxe who knows how to go for the jugular, and she does so on a regular basis at her website, Granny Jan and Jihad Kitty.
So they’re asking people to believe that the Republican candidates chose on their own accord to talk about divisive issues all night long…? They don’t care about the issues Americans care about…they just want to concentrate on GAY MARRIAGE and SHARIA LAW?
I called this “bizarre” because most 10 year olds could rebut this absurd propaganda:
“but mommie, weren’t they just answering the questions the nice man asked them?
(Eyes rolling) – Yes dear, during political debates, especially those held on liberal media outlets, conservative candidates will always be asked a number of questions on what we call, “wedge issues”:
Political parties are usually fairly diverse groups though they will always try to project a united front. A wedge issue may often be a point of internal dissent within the opposing party, which that party tries to suppress or ignore talking about because it divides “the base.” Such issues are typically a cultural or populist issue, relating to matters such as crime, national security, sexuality (e.g. gay marriage), or race. Another party may exploit this dissent by publicly supporting the issue, and in effect align itself with the dissenting faction of the opposing party.
….Or another party may cynically package a bunch of comments on wedge issues (Tim Pawlenty thinks Sarah Palin is qualified to be President! Uh-oh! lots of independents don’t like Sarah Palin!) - in a campaign video designed to mislead people.
What in the world are they talking about???
Do they think the American voter is that stupid??? (Okay many of them are, but they have their votes already).
Do they think independents are going to be fooled by the spooky piano music and selective editing from a two hour debate?
Even ABC is calling them out for the B.S.:
(ABC News) — At last night’s Republican debate, the seven candidates talked about unemployment, taxes, regulations, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s talk of a goal of 5% GDP growth, the individual mandate in the health care bill, the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, welfare reform, the Tea Party, currency policy, the National Labor Relations Board, Boeing, TARP, the auto bailout, Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal, former Gov. Mitt Romney’s health care program in Massachusetts, raising the debt ceiling, raising the retirement age for Social Security, the role of religion in public life, the 10th amendment, Libya, Afghanistan, and so on.
But President Obama’s 2012 campaign is sending out a DNC video suggesting the candidates spoke only about sharia law, an anti-gay-marriage amendment, repealing health care, Sarah Palin, and the space program. . . .
If this is the best the Obama campaign can do, they are getting off to a shaky start. This reeks of desperation.
The Associated Press is reporting that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has overruled Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi, and allowed Republican Governor Scott Walker’s labor reforms to go into effect.
“In a 4-3 decision, the court said Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said Republican lawmakers violated the state’s opening meetings statutes in the run-up to passage and declared the union rights law void,” the AP reports.
The Wall Street Journal quotes some tough language from the ruling: “One of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature.”
Judge Sumi hardest hit.
Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald discussed the state budget following the Supreme Court ruling:
John Stossel did a great job recently, describing the unholy alliance between the Dems and unions and how collective bargaining benefits the power structure while bankrupting the state:
The “wingnuts” mentioned in this straight news piece are none other than Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Marco Rubio.
Naturally, Newsbustersgets the credit for catching this egregious example of bias in the media.
The next time one of your liberal friends tells you there isn’t any bias in the media, show him or her the following headline published Tuesday by CNN Money’s senior writer Jeanne Sahadi.
“Wingnut Debt Ceiling Demands” was actually placed directly above a picture of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, and Florida senator Marco Rubio:
Noel Shepphard takes the liberty of defining the term “wingnuts” for those who don’t know.
For those unfamiliar with the word “wingnut,” it is a highly-derogatory term created by the far-left to disparage conservatives. Wikipedia even considers it an epithet:
“Wingnut” (sometimes “wing-nut”) is used in United States politics as a political epithet referring to a person who holds extreme political views. According to Merriam-Webster, it is analogous with the word “radical.”[1] In American politics, the term is more often aimed at members of the political right than those of the political left.[2] The New York Times’ David M. Herszenhorn has defined a “wing nut” as “a loud darling of cable television and talk radio whose remarks are outrageous but often serious enough not to be dismissed entirely.”[3]
The term is generally considered disparaging.
Here are some of the debt ceiling demands that Sahadi found so goofy and wingnutty:
Stiff the NLRB: [yes, please!] The mostly staff-free GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said recently he thinks lawmakers should insist in the debt ceiling talks that funding be cut for the National Labor Relations Board.
The move would be a smack against NLRB for filing a complaint against Boeing, charging that it broke the law when it moved production of its Dreamliner jet to a South Carolina factory from its union-represented plant in Washington state.
Boeing (BA, Fortune 500) opened the new factory after failing to win a non-strike promise from the International Association of Machinists union, which most recently struck against Boeing for 58 days in 2008.
Gingrich hit the ball out of the park when he called for defunding the NLRB. I think a lot of mainstream Americans (who don’t consider themselves goofy at all) also feel that an American business should have the right to relocate anywhere the hell it likes. Some of us think it’s kind of nutty to argue otherwise.
Then there’s this:
Overhaul the regulatory structure: Freshman GOP Sen. Marco Rubio proffered a long list of demands that he wants met before he would support a debt ceiling increase.
Writing in a Wall Street Journal opinion article this spring, Rubio’s list included several demands pertaining to the budget: entitlement reform, tax reform, discretionary spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment.
Putting aside for the moment that realistically speaking such a list is too large to be accomplished in a few months, Rubio then added an entirely extraneous demand: overhaul the regulatory structure.
Putting aside for a moment, that Rubio obviously doesn’t expect that these goals would all be completely met in the short term — what in the heck is the matter with any of those ideas? She doesn’t say. She simply implies that they’ll take too long to do. Like drilling for oil – (another nutty idea!) because it takes 10 whole years before the oil reaches the market. Those wacky wingnuts and their goofy wingnutty ideas! Hah!
At some point, CNN, noticing the extreme bias, changed the word “wingnut” to the *less* insulting “goofy”. Er….thanks?
Last week,Nicholas Watt of The Guardian wrote a story about Sarah Palin that sought to characterize her as so unpopular in Britain, that even the staunchly conservative former Prime Minister, and close Reagan ally, Margaret Thatcher couldn’t abide her:
It appears that the former prime minister has no intention of meeting the darling of the Tea Party movement. Andy McSmith reported in the Independent this morning that Palin is likely to be “thwarted” on the grounds that Thatcher, 86, rarely makes public appearances.
It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher’s frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:
Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.
Thatcher will show the level she punches at when she attends the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square on Independence day on 4 July. This is what her ally told me:
Margaret is focusing on Ronald Reagan and will attend the unveiling of the statue. That is her level.
This inspired widespread skepticism that the grand dame would ever think or say such a thing. After all, Palin is cut from the same cloth as Ronald Reagan.
Over the weekend, Gateway Pundit posted a response from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation to the dubious assertions that only increased skepticism that the report was true.
Today, Nile Gardiner at The Telegraph deals the final blow :
I have spoken to Lady Thatcher’s Private Office regarding the story, and they confirm that the attack on Sarah Palin definitely did not come from her office, and in no way reflects her views. As a former aide to Margaret Thatcher myself, I can attest that this kind of thinking is entirely alien to her, and that such remarks would never be made by her office. She has always warmly welcomed like-minded figures in the United States, and has in the past met with numerous US presidential candidates and political dignitaries when they have visited London. But at the age of 85 she is now able to receive very few visitors at all.
There was never any snub of Sarah Palin by Lady Thatcher’s office. However, there has been a great deal of mischief-making and unpleasantness in a vain and futile attempt to use Margaret Thatcher’s name to smear a major US politician.
I wonder – Does Nicholas Watt still stand by his report?
This really doesn’t make sense. Gary Johnson, a former 2-term governor of New Mexico, is a serious candidate, but he just got a raw deal from CNN. I had the opportunity to meet Gary Johnson, last year at SRLC. He’s a smart, competent, affable guy, which you can see in this interview he did with FTR Radio. His 2010 CPAC speech is here. His 2011 CPAC speech is here. The guy is a playa. So what’s the problem?
Johnson has a solid track record of saying no to big government, but has taken an unpopular (with conservatives) pro legalization stance on marijuana. He’s polling at only 2% in his best polls, but The Baltimore Sunexamined the criteria for being in the debate, and found that Johnson met the CNN’s standards :
But it’s not just the fact that Johnson has more top executive experience than any other GOP candidate (or his success in the very-difficult art of actually limiting government) that makes his exclusion strange. He also qualifies for inclusion in the debate based on CNN’s own criteria.
CNN’s criterion No. 2 states that any candidate who demonstrates the following will be included in the debate: “A candidate must have received an average of at least 2.00 % in at least three national polls released between May 1 and May 31 that were conducted by the following: ABC, AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, FOX, Gallup, Los Angeles Times, Marist, McClatchy, NBC, Newsweek, Pew, Quinnipiac, Reuters, USA Today and Time.”
The Johnson campaign quickly jumped on this criterion and produced required three polls (by CNN, Gallup and Quinnipiac) whose average puts Johnson squarely at 2 percent.
The debate organizers responded: Those polls aren’t good enough. Those polls were “restrictive” polls and we only count “unrestrictive” polls, they now say.
The problem, however, is that stated criteria do not prohibit the inclusion of “restrictive” polls, as Perkins states. (You can view the criteria here.) Nowhere do the rules state that only “unrestrictive polls” can be counted. Therefore, this last-minute alteration of the criteria is akin to that most-hated sports analogy: Changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Judge Napolitano interviewed Johnson for his Fox show, Freedomwatch about the slight:
Look, I understand he’s not one of the top tier candidates, but it’s early yet. Name recognition is a big part of the game, and he can’t get any if he’s excluded from major exposure like this debate. CNN really treated Johnson badly, here.
Quotes of the Day at Hot Airdeal with TPaw whimping out on the ObamneyCare question. Why was he not better prepared for that question? Why the whiff? Someone who is already considered to be a bit of a wimp needed a strong, decisive answer on that one.
___
The candidates participating in the debate: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul.
I liked Ron Paul’s answer to the question – “Has President Obama done anything right on the economy”. “That’s a tough question.” He couldn’t think of any. Honest answer.
Mitt is asked about Obamneycare criticism. He says if elected, he would work to repeal Obamacare. Talks about the differences in his state health ins plan, and Obamacare. TPaw is getting slammed by moderator, John King, for calling it “ObamneyCare”. You can tell who the MSM favorite is. “Mainstream” (read moderate) Republican asks Santorum how he would be able to bring all factions together. Santorum doesn’t take King’s bait to disparage the teaparty. Neither does Michele Bachmann, obviously.
Bachmann announces that Obama will. be. a . one. term. president.
Herman Cain says he will use his business acumen to get America on its feet, again. Says he’ll do what’s right – not necessarily what is politically right.
Bachmann wants to pass the “mother of all repeal bills”.
Pawlenty supports “right to work” legislation.
Gingrich wants to eliminate the NLRB.
Cain also believes in “right to work”.
Frivolous questions coming up to give viewers an idea about their personalities:
Santorum is asked, Leno or Conan? I think. Santorum stumbles a little - Says probably Leno, but he really doesn’t know because watches neither. Pretty much what I would say.
A consensus forming that John King is being obnoxious with his constant interruptions. Maybe he read Twitter during the break because he’s doing better, now.
Gingrich is answering the question about his Road To Prosperity budget plan. Makes the point again that he didn’t want to see Republicans passing legislation in a hasty manner when the American people are not behind it, (like Obama did). Talks about where he differs with Ryan on the budget.
Santorum “wholeheartedly supports” the Ryan plan. Says he wouldn’t slow down…something needs to be done now.
Cain: “We don’t need to slow down”. Supports the Paul Ryan plan.
Gingrich is the odd man out, here.
Mitt asked about raising the debt ceiling, and says that the president needs to lay out a plan to rein in spending before debt ceiling is raised. Asks good question why the president isn’t leading?
Bachmann says she has already voted to not raise the debt ceiling and will do it again without serious spending cuts.
A “separation of church and state” question from (most likely a lib). TPaw is hitting it out of the park. Says the phrase was meant to keep the state out of the private worship of citizens.
Paul notes that the Constitution says nothing about “church and state”. A lot of liberal heads are exploding, they’ve never heard that before.
Cain makes the distinction that he would not have a radical Muslim on his staff. King twists his position as a “litmus test”.
Mitt Romney is giving a bland PC answer about everyone having equal rights, etc.
Gingrich jumps in and says there’s nothing wrong with asking a potential employee where his allegiance lies. If you cannot be loyal to the United States you cannot be in my administration, period.
JasonMattera on Twitter: Are you committed to the Constitution? Yeah, what a litmus test! #cnndebate
Cain prefers deep dish to thin crust pizza. I can live with that.
daveweigel on Twitter:BREAKING: Cain surges to first place in poll of fat people
A gay marriage question: states rights vs. conservative views on marriage.
Michelle Bachmann doesn’t see it as the role of the President of the United States to go into states and change laws.
Santorum and Gingrich and Bachmann support a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
All of the candidates are against the overturning of “don’t ask don’t tell”.
Bachmann: I stand for life from conception until death.
Santorum now talking up his solid pro-life credentials.
A legal immigrant asks about illegal immigration:
Santorum says he consistently voted against giving benefits to illegals.
Paul says we need to protect our borders, not those of Iraq and Afghanistan, (to tepid applause).
Gingrich hits this one out of the park. Ends with:There are humane, practical steps that can be taken if we can get politicians to deal with the problem honestly.
I will say this: Gingrich is resurrecting his campaign, tonight. He is sounding very strong.
RT @STU_GBP on twitter: In case you were interested, if all you watched was this debate, I don’t think you’d know we were at war. #CNNdebate
Finally a foreign policy question: When should we leave Afghanistan?
Mitt Romney would get us out asap but would defer to the generals on the ground.
Ron Paul would immediately get us out of every war zone.
Pawlenty sounds very much like a hawk.
Bachmann: Gates could not identify a national interest in Libya. As commander in chief, I would not “lead from behind”. We to this day, do not know exactly who is behind these rebel fighters.
Gingrich agrees with Bachmann, and sees a massive failure of American intelligence in Libya.
Mr Cain says before we engage in military action we have to understand the problem, see if its in our interests, and rely on commanders on the field.
A lefty asks about the US being the “policemen of the world” and spending us into oblivion.
Santorum hits Obama for turning his back on our allies., and says because of the Obama administration’s fecklessness, an even bigger presence is going to be needed in the future.
dickmorristweet #CNNDebate So far the big winner is Gringrich. Head and shoulders above the others in the specificity and innovative nature of his comment
A question about polls:
Cain says it’s still very early in the process. Says when people get to know folks more, they won’t think it’s a weak field.
Santorum: Biden has been wrong about every single foreign policy question he’s weighed in on.
Says Sarah Palin is qualified to be president.
I think all of them did well, even Paul, even though I totally disagree with him on foreign policy. But Gingrich really shined tonight.
