The Obama Campaign’s Bizarre, Dishonest GOP Debate Video

Watch this – I’m almost speechless:

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.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers


Victory! Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules In favor Of Scott Walker’s Labor Reforms

This good news come via John Hayward at Human Events(This is what Democracy looks like!):

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:


CNN Money Headline Calls Top Conservatives “Wingnuts”, Then Alters “Wingnuts” to “Goofy”

The “wingnuts” mentioned in this straight news piece  are none other than Newt Gingrich,  Sarah Palin, and  Marco Rubio.

Naturally, Newsbusters gets 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?




Confirmed: Guardian Reporter Lied About Margaret Thatcher Insulting Sarah Palin

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?

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

Linked by Legal Insurrection, thanks!


Video: Gary Johnson Excluded From CNN Debate – Why?

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 Sun examined 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 debate is open to unannounced potential candidates who have significant public support,” said Charlie Perkins of North Village Media, a debate organizer and former news executive at the New Hampshire Union Leader. “Therefore, invitations could not be based on restrictive polling that excluded those names.”

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.