It quite apparent that President Fifty Seven States, b/k/a Barack Obama want current Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice to become the next Secretary of State. One Dana Milbank, Washington Post, thinks it is not going to happen:
Even in a town that rewards sharp elbows and brusque personalities, [Susan] Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies — on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad. Particularly in comparison with the other person often mentioned for the job, Sen. John Kerry, she can be a most undiplomatic diplomat, and there likely aren’t enough Republican or Democratic votes in the Senate to confirm her.
Obama has lost the liberal wing to the WaPo.
Addendum: How bad is it when Maureen Dowd takes you to the woodshed, from the New York Times:
An Africa expert, Rice should have realized that when a gang showed up with R.P.G.’s and mortars in a place known as a hotbed of Qaeda sympathizers and Islamic extremist training camps, it was not anger over a movie. She should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily Hillary was avoiding the talk shows.
The president’s fierce defense of Rice had virile flare. But he might have been better off leaving it to aides, so he did not end up going mano a mano with his nemesis John McCain on an appointment he hasn’t even made (though now Obama might feel compelled to, just to prove that he can’t be pushed around), and so he could focus on fiscal cliff bipartisanship.
His argument that Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” raises the question: Then why was she the point person?
Susan bend down and kiss your bun good bye.
Print This Post
As a public service, from USA Today:
It is the older, but wiser, Windows for me.
We now know who stuffed the sock puppet Susan Rice full of bull pokey, from Steve, Riehl World News, background:
“The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,” [Congressman Peter] King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague “inter-agency process.” [Emphasis mine.]
Analysis:
Someone re-wrote the CIA report(s). CIA reports that came not from some faceless analyst in a cubicle, but from the desk of the then-Director of Central Intelligence, David Petraeus. And this was part of a vague “inter-agency process.”
Let me explain what “inter-agency process” means in this instance
[…]
DNI James Clapper was responsible for editing and merging information and constructing a report to the president. That’s his job. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is, by the very definition of his job description, “inter-agency process.” He serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
Congress now needs to subpoena James Clapper. He works a 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Elections have consequences. Wonder Bread is no more, From, WHEC-TV, Rochester, NY:
Hostess Brands says it is going out of business, closing plants that make Twinkies and Wonder Bread and laying off all of its 18,500 workers.
The Irving, Texas, company says a nationwide worker strike crippled its ability to make and deliver its products at several locations.
I doubt that people will have any less bread, or that employment in the baking industry, overall, will be significantly impacted. However, the many former employees of Hostess should be wondering about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the decision to walk out.
As the Obama administration continues her war on business, more and more employees will become ex-employees. This will not be unexpected.
Addendum, (Eric) Twinkies were supposed to survive the apocalypse. Apparently what they couldn’t survive was the unions and Obama. in any event, we no longer need proof that parasites kill off the host. Or in this case the Hostess. The slogan for the next election will be:Lefitsts… More damaging than the apocalypse.
Feast on those words for a second: The U.N. Ambassador had “nothing to do with Benghazi.” At this point, the White House press corps should have flown into a frenzy, demanding to know why a person who had nothing to do with Benghazi was put on five Sunday talk shows as…the face of Benghazi!
The Snark of the Day from Kristen Powers, Fox News.
Powers evidently has more brains than the President and more balls than the entire White House press crope.
Dim Won, a/k/a President Fifty Seven States, b/k/a Barack Obama admitted today that in her now famous tour de farce of five Sunday talk shows, Rice was acting merely as a sock puppet, from Nice Deb:
But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.
So if Ambassador Rice knew nothing more than what she was told, and what she was told, which what she repeated on all five shows, was a pile of crap, who pumped Rice full of crap? In other words, who was the hand inside the Susan Rich sock puppet?
To echo Charles Krauthammer, why send a know nothing Rice out when both the Secretary of State, Mrs. B.J. Clinton, and the Director of the CIA, David Petraeus?
Microsoft’s new operating system, Windows 8, fizzles. The new version is a no starter, from Useless Toady:
6:29PM EST November 13. 2012 – The firing of Microsoft executive Steven Sinofsky, just 15 days after the launch of Windows 8, raises questions about whether there will be a return of the traditional Windows Start Menu.
I am just getting the hang of 7. One new operating system per decade is just fine by me.
Governor Moon Beam, b/l/a Jerry Brown, has gone Confederate. Governor Moon Beam is ranting like a southern governor in the antebellum South, from Zack Colman, Hill:
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said the federal government should let recently passed marijuana legalization laws stand in Colorado and Washington.
“It’s time for the Justice Department to recognize the sovereignty of the states,” Brown said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “I believe the president and the Department of Justice ought to respect the will of these states.”
Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana for recreational use through ballot measures last week.
But marijuana is still outlawed at the federal level, which likely foretells a legal battle over implementing the state laws.
Governor Moon Beam’s argument is not without merit. The federal government has no authority to regulate personal consumption of any drug. However either federal drug laws apply to all fifty-seven state, or they apply to none. The age of nullification has come and gone.
Of course, Governor Moon Beam wants the feds to respect California’s particular state laws, but does not expect Mexicans to respect our sovereign international borders.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson seems to think that blacks deserve extra credit for extra voting, from CBS Chicago:
CHICAGO (STMW) – The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Saturday said that President Obama’s reelection was “a great victory,” but that it would be incomplete with a reconstruction of urban America and an investment in the communities where the blacks who voted overwhelmingly for the president live.
“We’re happy and full of pride,” in the president’s reelection, Jackson told the crowd at the Saturday morning forum at Rainbow/PUSH headquarters, 930 E. 50th St., “but our houses remain raggedy … our schools remain closed.”
No Jesse you don’t deserve extra credit for extra voting. You, blacks live on your democrat plantations with your fatherless families, black on black crime, government sponsorship of killing unborn black babies and schools that do not teach. Mr. Jackson, for your safety, it might behoove you to move to Afghanistan, a far safer place than Mayor Emanuel’s gun free, and crime ridden Chicago. Your status quo stinks and you voted for it. Live with it, sucker.
If you plantation slaves want your master to take your demands seriously, the master have to believe that you, and your fellow plantation slaves, will not continue to blindly follow them. Mitt Romney proposed letting people have jobs. You settled for food stamps. Take your food stamps, shuffle black to your plantation and stay quite until your masters summons you.
The whites voters in Ohio are fickle. So the Obama administration pandered to them. Jesse, you best stick to shining y9ur master’s boots.
If anybody wants to start a fund to send Jesse back to Africa, count me in for a buck.
Addendum:
To be perfectly clear, imagine a world with neither a Jesse Jackson, Senior or Junior, via Ed Morrissey, Hot Air:
Jackson, Jr., the son of civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., and husband to Chicago Alderman Sandi Jackson, has not yet pleaded guilty to alleged misuse of campaign funds to decorate his house and purchase a $40,000 Rolex watch for a female friend. But CBS Chicago reports the congressman’s lawyer, white-collar criminal defense attorney Dan Webb, is negotiating with the federal government a plea bargain that will likely be reached by year’s end.
Look at the bright side, if JJ, Jr can will re-election from the Mayo Clinic, he can win election for a federal pen.
Twenty-three Years? Already?
Gee, she does look happy, doesn’t she?
Indeed. I couldn’t let this day pass without a comment on my own. My wife says on her site:
Twenty-three years ago today I married my best friend.
And yes, it’s been like that. Which is not to say we’ve not had some issues over the years… and most certainly she got a lot she didn’t really sign on for… most recently this driving job I have now, and as she says, the separation that it brings. It affects us both, but I suppose it does make us stronger.
I got her this T-shirt some weeks ago.
She objected, because I think she took it the wrong way. Every woman wants to be soft and very much the woman… and D certainly is that, as I told her. But there’s more than one kind of tough. It’s like Billy Joel wrote a few years ago:
It’s all about soul
It’s all about faith and a deeper devotion
It’s all about soul
‘Cause under the love is a stronger emotion
She’s got to be strong
‘Cause so many things getting out of control
Should drive her away, so why does she stay?
It’s all about soulShe turns to me sometimes
and she asks me what I’m dreaming
And I realize I must have gone a million miles away
And I ask her how she knew to reach out for me at that moment
And she smiles because it’s understood there are no words to sayIt’s all about soul
It’s all about knowing what someone is feeling
The woman’s got soul
The power of love and the power of healing
This life isn’t fair
It’s gonna get dark, it’s gonna get cold
You’ve got to get tough, but that ain’t enough
It’s all about soul….
It’s all about soul
It’s all about joy that comes out of sorrow
It’s all about soul
Who’s standing now and who’s standing tomorrow
You’ve got to be hard
As hard as the rock in that old rock’n’roll
But that’s only part, you know in your heart
It’s all about soul
Joel nails it, here. In ways, I think he wasn’t even aware of. It does take a toughness…a resolve… a commitment… to get through some of the times of our lives without running off, and abandoning the relationships we have, for whatever problems within them. I saw that kind of relationship crumble first hand on a few occasions, in my life. But in the end, I married a tough one. And she’s stayed.
So Happy Anniversary, Baby.
Hey… what are you doing the next 100 years, or so?
Editor’s note: This is a repost of one I put up in December of 2011. Remember, I said just the other day:
First, Obama won with a smaller number of voters than in 08. Indeed, Romney got fewer voters than McCain. Now, that should be no shock, since Romney, back in 08 was considered to be less conservative than McCain, himself being no conservative. That perception among conservative voters hasn’t changed with the passage of 4 years.
Clearly, the electorate of 2012 felt they had nobody to vote for. The problems with Romney as I list her in this bit from 2011, I more than suspect as being in the minds of conservative voters as they sat on their hands in even larger numbers in 2012 than they did in 2008. Had the GOP leadership heeded my call, we’d not have four more years of the Obama made disaster… a disaster I fear we may never fully recover from. The leadership of the GOP is unresponsive to the point of urgent need of finding replacement for the lot of them. It’s time to do that now. And yes, that means with the Tea Party folks. Because alas, I see no real conservatives elsewhere.
-=-
I have for a long time found Ann Coulter fascinating. Occasionally wrong, mostly correct. I have several of her books on my shelves here. I even carry one in the truck that I haven’t finished reading. That said, it fascinates me that Coulter who had nothing but derision for John McCain, thinks that Mitt Romney is the answer to this country’s problems. I have to wonder what is motivating this misdirected admiration for Romney. Seems to me that Ann has become far too enamored with the idea of being part of the GOP establishment. That’s dangerous territory, as far as I can see. Thing is, it’s the only plausible explanation for her recent writings.
To the main attraction; The difference between Romney and Obama right now is that Obama has a more solid record of consistency, in terms of their political leanings, than does Romney.
It should have surprised no one when Obama told us last week that he thinks the free market has never worked. I mean, hell, I warned of this the day the Democrats nominated him, that he actually thinks this way….(to the derision and catcalls of a lot of GOP loyalists and certainly the usual lefties) …but Romney has no such consistency. Granted, that the remainder of the Republican field at this point is looking less than perfect. But the fact that so much of the GOP rank and file is giving all those admittedly flawed people a serious look, should tell any observer that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with Romney among that rank and file. Romney and his record is why.
This apprehension is more than justified.
Romney is now supposedly a pro gun small government conservative who subscribes to the pro life way of thinking. This, given his history of left-leaning is about as convincing to me as OJ Simpson’s claim that he will search every golf course in the country until he finds his wife’s killer…. more or less. Even Polifact seems to agree on this point.
Romney has a governing record and for that matter a record of campaign rhetoric in Massachusetts that leans so far to the left that it’s difficult to distinguish between Romney and Obama. Look back, for example, at the rhetoric flying around the room when Romney ran against Ted Kennedy. There is some speculation, that Romney was simply saying that to get elected…. He was trying to trick the Liberal Massachusetts voter. Forgive me if I don’t find that overly impressive. Either he was saying anything he needed to say to get elected, or he really is that Liberal. Seems to me that neither one of those choices is very appetizing. Let’s look at a few other salient points that form the Romney record:
- Romney didn’t support Ronald Reagan. (As I’ve said in the past, the GOP establishment wasn’t too happy about Reagan running. Kinda tells you where Romney was and is, huh? Interesting fact about a man now trying to claim Ronald Reagan’s legacy.)
- Romney favored “Assault” Weapons Ban
- Romney Favors Waiting Periods to Buy Handguns
- Romney raised taxes on business by a total of $309 million
- Romney increased taxes on business property
- Romney joined a coalition lobbying congress to tax internet activity
- Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts while governor
- Romney refused to sign the No New Taxes pledge when campaigning for Governor
- Romney Balanced Budget with $500 Million in New Fees
- Romney imposed “socialized” health care on Massachusetts
- Romney supported abortion in general, and believes in sustaining Roe v. Wade.
- Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group
- Romney Approves of the Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486
- Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists
- Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics because of their Ban on Homosexual Scoutmasters
- Romney unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts
- Romney supported Racial preferences
- Romney believes in the hoax of anthropogenic global warming
- Romney supported the unconstitutional and wasteful “porkulus” spending
- Romney supported the unconstitutional bailouts of bad business
- Romney supported the assault weapons ban and Brady Bill
- Romney believes illegal aliens should be rewarded with citizenship after violating our borders and breaking our laws
I mean, exactly at what point did he turn away from being a big government type? The record above would seem to suggest he hasn’t…. Regardless of how much influence he’s tried to buy among conservatives.
Finally, we’re told that he is certain to overturn Obamacare. Yet, since he authored and pushed through the legislature in Massachusetts a scheme so similar to Obamacare that Obama cites Romney as an author of the thing, for fear of lawsuits over copyright infringement, how are we to believe that he will go to Washington and obliterate such a law? Yeah, right.
Yet we are supposed to believe the establishment GOP when they tell us now, that Romney is conservatism’s best hope? Sorry, I honestly don’t think he is the best choice. As a matter of fact, I think he will do more damage than good. Granted, that he could beat Obama. Then again, that’s not all that high a bar to jump. Any one of the current GOP candidates could beat Obama. A little referred to factoid from the 1980 election was that so many people were so disenchanted with Jimmy Carter that Ronald Reagan became the “none of the above” candidate. I say again, anyone can beat Obama. At this point, I suspect even Jimmy Carter could beat him.
And assuming that Romney wins over Obama, what have we won? The answer is nothing. If Romney wins the nomination, what we have is a GOP, the party of Reagan, become indistinguishable from the party of Obama. In a choice between Liberal, and Liberal light, guess which way the electorate is going to go? If you need a history check on that, one need look no further than McCain’s loss to Obama.
There are no perfect candidates. There never has been. Even Reagan had his issues. But even in the imperfect list of candidates that the Republicans are now fielding, any one of them would represent conservatism better than Romney ever could. That’s a message that needs to be sent, and pronto, to the GOP establishment.
Indeed, so obvious is this message that it seems logical to ask if the GOP establishment is at all interested in actually being conservative. But that is another post.
The case of Paula Broadwell is a distraction from The Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi. In short, the back alley deals with the administration has the press chasing squirrels.
DavidL puts forward a couple days ago, and correctly, I think, the double standard being applied:
The slut Sandra Fluke was paraded all over the country, and held out as an icon. So why has the Obama administration fired David Petraeus for carnal knowledge with a slut(?)
Why, indeed?
When the left in this country starts talking about morality, you can bet that there is an ulterior motive involved. That the Party of Bill “You better put some ice on that ” Clinton is worried about someone’s immorality on it’s own sake, strikes me as stretching credulity beyond all recovery. Indeed, given their lack of attention a morality under most situations it is the only way that the subject is going to come up. 
In this case, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that one of the principals involved in testifying before Congress as regards Benghazi is not liked very much by the administration… never has been. The left has been trying to oust the General for years, now. Does anyone, for example, remember back in 2007, “General betray us “, courtesy of MoveOn.org? Now seems a helpful time to attack the General, to discredit or perhaps outright cancel his congressional testimony, if you’re an administration that’s got more scandal than it can handle. A great distraction.
Granted, that the general opened him self up for this kind of ridicule. But the specter of someone with his military record and service to this country being ridiculed by the left as an immoral beast, the strikes me as being singularly monstrous. It also strikes me as being damned convenient.
This administration is desperate to keep its mishandling of Benghazi off the front burner. The administration has clearly, in Nixonian like fashion…. or perhaps in Soviet style fashion, been keeping information on Petraeus and other enemies for use at moments of need. Benghazi and the damage it can cause this administration is certainly one such moment. I note with interest that the hearings on the Benghazi matter are to recommence this coming week. and of course the speculation is that the General will not testify as a result of these matters. How very convenient. The pattern already is that anybody who is supposed to be testifying before the committee is getting their backside on the plane as fast as they can to get out of town. Hillary Clinton, for example.This too strikes me as an effort in stonewalling the process.
Are we really to believe that with the administration one gavel blow away from being nailed the wall on Benghazi, they’re not going do everything they can to distract the American people from their misdeeds in the matter?
And where is the press on these matters?
Chasing squirrels, of course.
Or perhaps more correctly, laying down cover fire for the administration.
Tags: Barack Obama, benghazi, Democrat, Democrats, White House
The Bitsblog Slut of the Day is Paula Broadwell.
And I thought liberals liked sluts. Being a slut has been celebrated The slut Sandra Fluke was paraded all over the country, and held out as an icon. So why has the Obama administration fired David Petraeus for carnal knowledge with a slut.
eax: RS McCain:
Let’s just go ahead and get this out of the way, eh? Aren’t feminists who embrace the “slut” label (e.g., “Slutwalk“) all about empowerment and liberation? And if you are an empowered liberated woman, what difference does it make if you’re married or your partner is married? All those silly vows — “Forsaking all others” and so forth — are just oppressive tools by which the patriarchy subjugates women, and anyone who buys into moral ideals of marital permanence and lifelong fidelity has succumbed to what the Marxists would call “false consciousness.”
When I read of Broadwells bio, I thought of her a maybe a real life Emma Peel. No such thing. Mrs. Peel had class.
More, Wall Street Journal:
Multiple officials familiar with the investigation identified the other woman as Paula Broadwell, a West Point graduate and the author of a biography on Petraeus titled “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.” Her representatives have yet to comment to the Journal. You can read the Journal’s story here.
Broadwell is familiar to viewers of “The Daily Show.” She appeared on the program in January-along with her husband-and participated in a push-up contest against host Jon Stewart for charity.
So did the Obama administration even vet David Petraeus, or how did the once competent FBI miss this affair?
Addendum: (Eric) I add my comments about this whole thing, here.
There’s a lot of charges flying around about the loss to Obama.
I see Rove complaining of voter suppression. Sorry, Karl, that may have been happening, but that’s not the issue. Doug Mataconis predictably wades in, but misses the mark, as he did once before.
In other words Karl, they won the election.
Actually, no… the election was the GOP’s to lose, and lose they did because they keep misplaying the thing.
Rove is addicted to the mythical center. He can’t admit what I said to Doug last April.
Of course this has been happening ever since Reagan…. where every candidate the GOP has been coming up with has been a weak-kneed centrist, like Romney. Bob Dole? Both Bushes? McCain? really? These are really the strongest proponents of conservatism the party can find?
Reagan’s winning, because of, not in spite of his very vocal social conservatism, you see, to today’s GOP leadership, is just an aberration. Forget that the same cries from the social liberals of that day were drowned out by the vast majority of voters. And remember, gang, the GOP establishment wasn’t happy, even back in the day, that Reagan won.
The establishment GOP keeps ignoring these facts, and they keep coming up with the same result. And it’s happening again.
The rank and file knows it, and so do the independent voters. YOU don’t. At least, you can’t bring yourself to admit it.
Congrats, centrists. You’ve done it yet again.
Instead of coming out strongly with the social conservative values of mainstream America, your pre-annointed boy backed away trying to save the mythical center, when the liberal media, in the form of Clintonita George Stephanopoulos, started playing the birth control game. To his credit, Romeny’s people identified the attack…. at least by the next debate.
…
thing is, the response, while correctly programmed, was far too late to do much about it. That’s what happens when you have someone like Romney who speaks conservatism as a second language, and even then not very well. Stephy should have been called down then and there. Romney couldn’t find it in himself to do it.
The stupidity, Doug, is not recognizing that voters know.. and dislike it… when the candidates biggest talents are playing both sides against the middle. And that’s all the GOP’s been able to do since the 80?s. And if they can’t do better than that, they deserve to lose.
Rove has been part of the problem, of course. He’s a talented, likeable sort, but far too addicted to centrism to see the truth of the matter.
But let’s look at a couple points Rove along with the left, simply can’t handle:
First, Obama won with a smaller number of voters than in 08. Indeed, Romney got fewer voters than McCain. Now, that should be no shock, since Romney, back in 08 was considered to be less conservative than McCain, himself being no conservative. That perception among conservative voters hasn’t changed with the passage of 4 years.
Secondly, notice that if you add Gary Johnson’s numbers from Florida and Ohio, to Romney numbers, it would have been more than enough for Romney to win in both those states. Clearly, a candidate that speaks conservatism as something other than a second language, would have been helpful… such a person would have won those states…. and I suppose the effect wouldn’t have been limited to that.
All that was needed was a real conservative in the lead role. Ryan leaps to mind. Palin. Cain. People like Rove worked to drive such conservative people out of the lead roles in the party. And then wonders why the GOP he misleads, loses.
And I say again, I’ve been saying this all along.
Mind, this is not to lay the blame for this loss at the feet of Rove alone. Rather, the point is we got here by following the mindset as regards the center, and the GOP devotion to that myth. This defeat is a wake up call. The only way we’re going to win elections is to actually BE conservative. If the current leadership cannot deal with that, it’s time to replace them.
Addendum: (DavidL)
Mitt Romney lost the get of the vote effort, fairly or unfairly. The last time the ‘pubs one the White House, in 2004, Karl Rove had a great get on the vote campaign.
What I propose right now is that Newt Gingrich open a media relations school for are republican candidates We need to starting making going Juan Williams standard treatment for all the Candy Crowleys’s in the media We tried being nice. We lost.
Reach out to Hispanics and use the blacks for sport. They like the plantation life.
Romney was the perfect candidate, and he was the president this country needed right now. It’s less disheartening that a president who wrecked American health care, quadrupled gas prices, added $6 trillion to the national debt and gave us an 8 percent unemployment rate can squeak out re-election than that America will never have Romney as our president.
I don’t agree with Blondie with respect to Romney. She is dead on with respect to President Petty, b/k/a Barack Obama
