Politics

[phgreek]

Low-Information Leadership - Peggy Noonan's Blog - WSJ

Not always a fan of Noonan, but thought this was interesting.

Ouch...that one hit home !

 

[ACamp1900]

From what I have seen the administration is full of young people who’ve seen the movie but not read the book.

That's pretty much the entire movement, voters included... in one simple statement.
Anyway, overall, I don't think I've read a political piece I have found myself nodding my head to more so than that one in a LONG time...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Martin Bashir exits MSNBC in wake of Sarah Palin outburst - latimes.com


I now have a tiny shred of respect for MSLSD. Bashir is a disgusting human being.

 

[phgreek]

Martin Bashir exits MSNBC in wake of Sarah Palin outburst - latimes.com


I now have a tiny shred of respect for MSLSD. Bashir is a disgusting human being.

just so long as we all understand he got punted because of ratings and/or direct input from advertisers...not based on some dedication to journalistic integrity...

Guy was/is/always will be feces...ironic his reference of it got him canned...

 

[connor_in]

Martin Bashir exits MSNBC in wake of Sarah Palin outburst - latimes.com


I now have a tiny shred of respect for MSLSD. Bashir is a disgusting human being.

Note: per the article, "he officially resigned " there is nothing saying the network forced him out/fired him...I bring this up only to point out that we have not seen anything official that he was ever punished in any shape or form by MSNBC/NBC/ComCast for the Palin incident...in fact, we never heard a peep from any female at the network on this, and this is the same network that had wall to wall coverage of Sandra Fluke just a year or so ago...the only person tied to the network that I heard anything from on the incident (aside from Bashir's own apology) was Alec Baldwin and that was more a sour grapes comment as he was already suspended himself for a comment he himself had made

I guess it really does matter who says what about whom, huh?

Imagine Beck/Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly/Dennis Miller/Greg Gutfield making the same comment about HRC/Ferraro/the new native american female Sen. for MA

 

[ACamp1900]

Note: per the article, "he officially resigned " there is nothing saying the network forced him out/fired him...I bring this up only to point out that we have not seen anything official that he was ever punished in any shape or form by MSNBC/NBC/ComCast for the Palin incident...in fact, we never heard a peep from any female at the network on this, and this is the same network that had wall to wall coverage of Sandra Fluke just a year or so ago...the only person tied to the network that I heard anything from on the incident (aside from Bashir's own apology) was Alec Baldwin and that was more a sour grapes comment as he was already suspended himself for a comment he himself had made

I guess it really does matter who says what about whom, huh?

Imagine Beck/Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly/Dennis Miller/Greg Gutfield making the same comment about HRC/Ferraro/the new native american female Sen. for MA

Because when your whole agenda rides on emotional responses you are often forced to simplify things to “good guy/bad guy”… Their message is never a logical one, “Here is their idea, I think ours is better and here’s why,” it’s always, “They hate women, they want blacks hanging from trees!!” With that type of game plan they are forced to scream from the roofs tops when a ‘bad guy’ says something stupid… when a ‘good guy’ does, well that would ruin the simplistic contrast they fought so hard to concoct, so they ignore it. It’s not about differing ideas from a bunch of equally flawed people… it’s an obvious choice of good over evil, because that's what works with the "seen the movie but haven't read the book" types...

 

[NDFan4Life]

Some Reid staffers exempt from Obamacare exchanges

Washington (CNN) -- Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of Obamacare's architects and staunchest supporters, is also the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the law's new exchanges.

Reid is the exception among the other top congressional leaders. GOP House Speaker John Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have all directed their staffs to join the exchange, their aides said.

In the charged atmosphere surrounding Obamacare, Reid's decision only gives Republicans more ammo to attack Democrats already suffering politically from the law's botched rollout.

In September, Reid told reporters, "Let's stop these really juvenile political games -- the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."

That's true. Reid and his personal staff will buy insurance through the exchange.

But it's also true that the law lets lawmakers decide if their committee and leadership staffers hold on to their federal employee insurance plans, an option Reid has exercised.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson emphasized, "We are just following the law."

"I'm sure that regular Americans who just lost their insurance will feel comforted to know that Senator Reid's staff gets to keep their government plan," a senior GOP Senate aide said.

Former Reid staffer Jim Manley defended his old boss, arguing that "the only people hypocritical here are Republicans, who made this an issue in the first place."

And all four House and Senate leaders are required to relinquish their federal employee insurance plans next year and are choosing to enroll in the exchanges.

Some Reid staffers exempt from Obamacare exchanges - CNN.com

 

[Catholics_Rule]

Some Reid staffers exempt from Obamacare exchanges

Washington (CNN) -- Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of Obamacare's architects and staunchest supporters, is also the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the law's new exchanges.

Reid is the exception among the other top congressional leaders. GOP House Speaker John Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have all directed their staffs to join the exchange, their aides said.

In the charged atmosphere surrounding Obamacare, Reid's decision only gives Republicans more ammo to attack Democrats already suffering politically from the law's botched rollout.

In September, Reid told reporters, "Let's stop these really juvenile political games -- the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."

That's true. Reid and his personal staff will buy insurance through the exchange.

But it's also true that the law lets lawmakers decide if their committee and leadership staffers hold on to their federal employee insurance plans, an option Reid has exercised.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson emphasized, "We are just following the law."

"I'm sure that regular Americans who just lost their insurance will feel comforted to know that Senator Reid's staff gets to keep their government plan," a senior GOP Senate aide said.

Former Reid staffer Jim Manley defended his old boss, arguing that "the only people hypocritical here are Republicans, who made this an issue in the first place."

And all four House and Senate leaders are required to relinquish their federal employee insurance plans next year and are choosing to enroll in the exchanges.

Some Reid staffers exempt from Obamacare exchanges - CNN.com

I read that today. It just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Note: per the article, "he officially resigned " there is nothing saying the network forced him out/fired him...I bring this up only to point out that we have not seen anything official that he was ever punished in any shape or form by MSNBC/NBC/ComCast for the Palin incident...in fact, we never heard a peep from any female at the network on this, and this is the same network that had wall to wall coverage of Sandra Fluke just a year or so ago...the only person tied to the network that I heard anything from on the incident (aside from Bashir's own apology) was Alec Baldwin and that was more a sour grapes comment as he was already suspended himself for a comment he himself had made

I guess it really does matter who says what about whom, huh?

Imagine Beck/Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly/Dennis Miller/Greg Gutfield making the same comment about HRC/Ferraro/the new native american female Sen. for MA

Bingo. Progressives and leftists aren't bothered by racism/ sexism/ whatever "ism" if the perceived victim has an "R" behind his/ her name.

 

[Bluto]

Interesting article. Touches on some of Busters posts/points about automation.

Silicon Chasm | The Weekly Standard

 

[phgreek]

Note: per the article, "he officially resigned " there is nothing saying the network forced him out/fired him...I bring this up only to point out that we have not seen anything official that he was ever punished in any shape or form by MSNBC/NBC/ComCast for the Palin incident...in fact, we never heard a peep from any female at the network on this, and this is the same network that had wall to wall coverage of Sandra Fluke just a year or so ago...the only person tied to the network that I heard anything from on the incident (aside from Bashir's own apology) was Alec Baldwin and that was more a sour grapes comment as he was already suspended himself for a comment he himself had made

I guess it really does matter who says what about whom, huh?

Imagine Beck/Hannity/Rush/O'Reilly/Dennis Miller/Greg Gutfield making the same comment about HRC/Ferraro/the new native american female Sen. for MA

I think he was issued an ultimatum.... I think he resigned instead of being fired...

The guy is known for saying incendiary crap, so this issue gave him a conscience all of the sudden...I don't know...

I will say though that others on that network called women names before and weren't canned. I think his was premeditated...not just an overly emotional rant...and I'd point to that as the deciding factor...

 

[phgreek]

Some Reid staffers exempt from Obamacare exchanges

Washington (CNN) -- Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of Obamacare's architects and staunchest supporters, is also the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the law's new exchanges.

Reid is the exception among the other top congressional leaders. GOP House Speaker John Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have all directed their staffs to join the exchange, their aides said.

In the charged atmosphere surrounding Obamacare, Reid's decision only gives Republicans more ammo to attack Democrats already suffering politically from the law's botched rollout.

In September, Reid told reporters, "Let's stop these really juvenile political games -- the one dealing with health care for senators and House members and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's what the law says and we'll be part of that."

That's true. Reid and his personal staff will buy insurance through the exchange.

But it's also true that the law lets lawmakers decide if their committee and leadership staffers hold on to their federal employee insurance plans, an option Reid has exercised.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson emphasized, "We are just following the law."

"I'm sure that regular Americans who just lost their insurance will feel comforted to know that Senator Reid's staff gets to keep their government plan," a senior GOP Senate aide said.

Former Reid staffer Jim Manley defended his old boss, arguing that "the only people hypocritical here are Republicans, who made this an issue in the first place."

And all four House and Senate leaders are required to relinquish their federal employee insurance plans next year and are choosing to enroll in the exchanges.

Some Reid staffers exempt from Obamacare exchanges - CNN.com

the man is nothing w/o eye poking hypocrisy...he finds a new way nearly weekly to cram a thumb in the eye of conservatives...he's not good for the future of this nation...

 

[connor_in]

I think he was issued an ultimatum.... I think he resigned instead of being fired...

The guy is known for saying incendiary crap, so this issue gave him a conscience all of the sudden...I don't know...

I will say though that others on that network called women names before and weren't canned. I think his was premeditated...not just an overly emotional rant...and I'd point to that as the deciding factor...

While I don't necessarily doubt that there may have been an ultimatum or at least discussions behind closed doors, the fact that the network itself never said anything one way or another publicly (not even an anonymous leak), speaks volumes.. As I had said, MSNBC went all out on the Sandra Fluke thing over her being called a name. Heck she still comes on there periodically when they want to discuss a women's issue. They even chastised Ed when he called Luara Ingraham a name. But nothing publicly on this? And possibly even worse, no women from the channel said anything. You want to guess that they won't yell sexism for any criticism of HRC when she runs for office in '16? (FYI...see :Liberal Cartoonist: If Hillary Is Nominee in 2016 ‘Sexism Will Be The New Racism’ | NewsBusters )

By the way I agree with you on the premedidated thing... its was obviously on the teleprompter so others knew it was coming too and you don't remember the full obscure reference and exactly where it came from just off the top of your head without researching it first. Its not like he was throwing out a popular reference and he doesn't do it all the time like a Dennis Miller does.

I just get a bit angry that I think I know what's coming soon with HRC and yet when they so obviously engage in it and have previously especially concerning Palin and Condoleeza Rice and other women and minorities just because they don't the same political ideals...SMDH (unfortunately, I find myself doing the SMDH thing more and more)

 

[BobD]

More Obamacare enrollees in two days than all of October: sources

 

[GoIrish41]

the man is nothing w/o eye poking hypocrisy...he finds a new way nearly weekly to cram a thumb in the eye of conservatives...he's not good for the future of this nation...

Is he a Kenyan, Muslim, socialist who got into office on the backs of minorities by offering them handouts? Conservatives should be careful about throwing stones at Dems for poking their political opponents in the eye. It smacks of the very hypocrisy that you are saying disappoints you.

 

[connor_in]

More Obamacare enrollees in two days than all of October: sources

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobD
Just checking out my new avatar and Sig.

Oh yeah and the ACA site is working

Yeah...it's wonderful...


No security ever built into Obamacare site: Hacker

The ObamaCare PR Reset Won’t Work « Commentary Magazine

This week’s proclamation from the White House that the website is now functional was another easily disproved assertion since its back end—the element that allows people to actually purchase the insurance—is still a work in progress.

New Obamacare Headache: Is Your Enrollment Real? - ABC News

Bob Shlora of Alpharetta, Ga., was supposed to be a belated Obamacare success story. After weeks of trying, the 61-year-old told ABC News he fully enrolled in a new health insurance plan through the federal marketplace over the weekend, and received a Humana policy ID number to prove it.

But two days later, his insurer has no record of the transaction, Shlora said, even though his account on the government website indicates that he has a plan.

“I feel like this: My application was taken … by a bureaucrat, it was put on a conveyor belt and it’s still going around, and it’s never going to leave the building,” he said. “I’ve lost hope. If it happens, great.”

Obama administration officials acknowledged today that some of the roughly 126,000 Americans who completed the torturous online enrollment process in October and November might not be officially signed up with their selected issuer, even if the website has told them they are.

Technical problems surrounding the transfer of an applicant’s personal information from the federal marketplace to the selected insurance company have plagued the system since its launch, making it difficult for insurers to finalize some enrollments. The 834 forms that issuers receive from the system have been riddled with errors, including often duplicate or incomplete information.

While the front-end of the website has been vastly improved, the back-end glitches remain a serious concern, IT experts and industry officials say.

“Until the enrollment process is working from end-to-end, many consumers will not be able to enroll in coverage,” said Karen Ignani, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans. “In addition to fixing the technical problems with healthcare.gov, the significant ‘backend’ issues must also be resolved to ensure that coverage can begin on Jan. 1, 2014.”

Meanwhile for consumers, it’s all turning out to be a giant headache. Shlora, who currently pays $2,800 a month for health care, told ABC News the “false braggadocio” coming from the White House is making it worse.

“The White House announced that they have met their goal,” he said of the much-touted improvements to the website. “They are taking applications but they aren’t going anywhere. What kind of goal is that?”

Our View | Obamacare - Delay individual mandate because of the rollout mess

Healthcare.gov is working better, but the Obama administration should not declare victory just yet.

Even after several weeks of intense work, the federal government's health care website remains glitchy. The consumer experience may have improved, but insurers still complain they aren't always getting accurate information. And with less than 30 days to go before coverage under these new policies is supposed to begin, that's a huge problem.
.....
And it appears that a huge chunk of the insurance marketplace is still being built. Henry Chao, the chief digital architect for the federal website, estimated that 30% to 40% of the site still isn't done. He told Congress last month that "the back-office systems, the accounting systems, the payment systems" weren't ready.

Zients claims the the latest software repairs should improve the "the back end of the system" as well as the consumer experience.

But insurers are right to be concerned. They need to be paid or else claims won't be settled.

 

[connor_in]

Is he a Kenyan, Muslim, socialist who got into office on the backs of minorities by offering them handouts? Conservatives should be careful about throwing stones at Dems for poking their political opponents in the eye. It smacks of the very hypocrisy that you are saying disappoints you.

1) Not every conservative or Republican or Tea Perty person believes that stuff just like all liberals or Democrats or Progressives are 9/11 truthers

2) I believe the hypocrisy he was speaking about was pushing for Obamacareto go thru, making sure none of the repeal efforts did anything after passage and then finding anyway possible for it not to effect him and his people (NIMBY or good enough for thee but not for me types of mentality)

3) Political leaders on both sides can be eyegougers Newt and Tip come to mind first for me along with Pelosi and Delay

 

[connor_in]

http://http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/4/mission-accomplished-obamacare/?page=all#pagebreak

The Obama administration this week rolled out its revamped Obamacare website, and right away, traffic picked up — the site was able to handle a whopping 50,000 at the same time (about .00000000001 percent of what Amazon or Google can handle during this holiday season, but not bad for government work).
..............
Meanwhile, Gallup put out a slew of polls that showed just how dismal the vaunted rollout had become. Just 9 percent said the new law has helped them; just 40 percent approve; and 1 in 4 of those uninsured said they’ll pay the fine and not sign up after all. What’s more, the pollster found that the more people know about Obamacare, the less they like it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

AmCon's Pat Deenen just published an awesome article on the American right's reaction to Pope Francis:

Since the release of Evangelii Gaudium there have been countless articles and commentary about the economic portions of Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation. Some of the commentary has been downright bizarre, such as Rush Limbaugh denouncing the Pope as a Marxist, or Stuart Varney accusing Francis of being a neo-socialist. American conservatives grumbled but dutifully denounced a distorting media when Pope Francis seemed to go wobbly on homosexuality, but his criticisms of capitalism have crossed the line, and we now see the Pope being criticized and even denounced from nearly every rightward-leaning media pulpit in the land.

Not far below the surface of many of these critiques one hears the following refrain: why can’t the Pope just go back to talking about abortion? Why can’t we return the good old days of Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI and talk 24/7/365 about sex? Why doesn’t Francis have the decency to limit himself to talking about Jesus and gays, while avoiding the rudeness of discussing economics in mixed company, an issue about which he has no expertise or competence?

There are subtle and brash versions of this plea. At “The Catholic Thing,” Hadley Arkes has penned a characteristically elegant essay in which he notes that Francis is generally correct on teachings about marriage and abortion, but touches on these subjects too briefly, cursorily and with unwelcome caveats of sorts. At the same time, Francis goes on at length about the inequalities and harm caused by free market economies, which moves Hadley to counsel the Pope to consult next time with Michael Novak. The upshot—be as brief as the Gettysburg Address in matters pertaining to economics, and loquacious as Edward Everett when it comes to erotics.

On the brash side there is Larry Kudlow, who nearly hyperventilates when it comes to his disagreement with Pope Francis, accusing him of harboring sympathies with Communist Russia and not sufficiently appreciating Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. (R. R. Reno, who is briefly allowed to get a word in edgewise, wisely counseled Kudlow not to fight the last war—or, the one fought three wars ago, for that matter.) Revealingly, Kudlow counsels the Pope to concentrate on “moral and religious reform,” and that he should “harp” instead on “morality, spiritualism and religiosity,” while ceasing to speak about matters economic. Similarly, Judge Napolitano, responding to a challenge from Stuart Varney on why the Pope is talking about economics, responded: “I wish he would stick to faith and morals, on which he is very sound and traditional.”

These commentators all but come and out say: we embrace Catholic teaching when it concerns itself with “faith and morals”—when it denounces abortion, opposes gay marriage, and urges personal charity. This is the Catholicism that has been acceptable in polite conversation. This is a stripped-down Catholicism that doesn’t challenge fundamental articles of economic faith.

And it turns out that this version of Catholicism is a useful tool. It is precisely this portion of Catholicism that is acceptable to those who control the right narrative because it doesn’t truly endanger what’s most important to those who steer the Republic: maintaining an economic system premised upon limitless extraction, fostering of endless desires, and creating a widening gap between winners and losers that is papered over by mantras about favoring equality of opportunity. A massive funding apparatus supports conservative Catholic causes supporting a host of causes—so long as they focus exclusively on issues touching on human sexuality, whether abortion, gay marriage, or religious liberty (which, to be frank, is intimately bound up in its current form with concerns about abortion). It turns out that these funds are a good investment: “faith and morals” allow us to assume the moral high ground and preoccupy the social conservatives while we laugh all the way to the bank bailout.

The right’s contretemps with Pope Francis has brought out into the open what is rarely mentioned in polite company: most visible and famous Catholics who fight on behalf of Catholic causes in America focus almost exclusively on sexual issues (as Pope Francis himself seemed to be pointing out, and chastising, in his America interview), but have been generally silent regarding a century-old tradition of Catholic social and economic teaching. The meritocracy and economic elite have been a main beneficiary of this silence: those most serious about Catholicism—and thus who could have brought to bear a powerful tradition of thinking about economics that avoids both the radical individualistic presuppositions of capitalism as well as the collectivism of socialism—have spent their energies fighting the sexual/culture wars, even while Republican-Democratic ruling machine has merely changed driver seat in a limousine that delivers them to ever-more exclusive zip codes.

In the past several months, when discussing Pope Francis, the left press has at every opportunity advanced a “narrative of rupture,” claiming that Francis essentially is repudiating nearly everything that Popes JPII and Benedict XVI stood for. The left press and commentariat has celebrated Francis as the anti-Benedict following his impromptu airplane interview (“who am I to judge?”) and lengthy interview with the Jesuit magazine America. However, in these more recent reactions to Francis by the right press and commentariat, we witness extensive agreement by many Catholics regarding the “narrative of rupture,” wishing for the good old days of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

But there has been no rupture—neither the one wished for by the left nor feared by the right. Pope Francis has been entirely consistent with those previous two Popes who are today alternatively hated or loved, for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke with equal force and power against the depredations of capitalism. (JPII in the encyclical Centesimus Annus and Benedict XVI in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate.) But these encyclicals—more authoritative than an Apostolic Exhortation—did not provoke the same reaction as Francis’s critiques of capitalism. This is because the dominant narrative about John Paul II and Benedict XVI had them pegged them as, well, Republicans. For the left, they were old conservatives who obsessed with sexual matters; for the right, solid traditionalists who cared about Catholicism’s core moral teachings. Both largely ignored their social and economic teachings, so focused were they on their emphasis on “faith and morals.” All overlooked that, for Catholics, economics is a branch of moral philosophy.

I think it is because of the left’s “narrative of disruption” that the right is panicked over Francis’s critiques of capitalism. These Vatican criticisms—suddenly salient in ways they weren’t when uttered by JPII and Benedict—need to be nipped in the bud before they do any damage. Of course, all along Catholic teaching has seen a strong tie between the radical individualism and selfishness at the heart of capitalism and liberationist sexual practices, understanding them to be premised on the same anthropological assumptions. (If you don’t believe Catholics about this, just read Ayn Rand.) While Hadley Arkes laments that Pope Francis did not speak at more length on sexual matters, if one reads his criticisms of the depredations of capitalism with care, one notices that he uses the same phrases with which he criticized abortion—namely, that abortion is but one manifestation of “a throw-away culture,” a phrase as well as in Evangelii Gaudium in his critique of capitalism (Section 53). If one attends carefully to Francis’s criticisms of the economy’s effects on the weak and helpless, one can’t help but perceive there also that he is speaking of the unborn as much as those who are “losers” in an economy that favors the strong. Like John Paul and Benedict before him, Francis discerns the continuity between a “throw-away” economy and a “throw-away” view of human life. He sees the deep underlying connection between an economy that highlights autonomy, infinite choice, loose connections, constant titillation, utilitarianism and hedonism, and a sexual culture that condones random hook-ups, abortion, divorce and the redefinition of marriage based on sentiment, and in which the weak—children, in this case, and those in the lower socio-economic scale who are suffering a complete devastation of the family—are an afterthought.

The division of the fullness of Catholic thought in America has rendered it largely tractable in a nation that was always suspicious of Catholics. Lockean America tamed Catholicism not by oppression (as Locke thought would be necessary), but by dividing and conquering—permitting and even encouraging promotion of its sexual teachings, albeit shorn of its broader social teachings. This co-opted the full power of those teachings, directing the energy of social conservatives exclusively into the sexual-culture wars while leaving largely untouched a rapacious economy that daily creates few winners and more losers while supporting a culture of sexual license and “throw-away” children. Without minimizing the seriousness with which we need to take issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty, these are discrete aspects of an overarching “globalization of indifference” described by Francis. However, we have been trained to treat them as a set of autonomous political issues that can be solved by one or two appointments on the Supreme Court. Francis—like JPII and BXVI before him—has upset the “arrangement.” Rush and the gang are not about to go down without a fight. If only they could get that damn Marxist to talk about sex.

As an aside, if you're at all interested in the intersection of Christianity and American politics/ culture, you've got to be reading Pat Deenen and Rod Dreher.

 

[Bluto]

AmCon's Pat Deenen just published an awesome article on the American right's reaction to Pope Francis:



As an aside, if you're at all interested in the intersection of Christianity and American politics/ culture, you've got to be reading Pat Deenen and Rod Dreher.

Good article. This current Pope is something else.

 

[ACamp1900]

Liberal law professor: Obama is the danger

 

[connor_in]

While I don't necessarily doubt that there may have been an ultimatum or at least discussions behind closed doors, the fact that the network itself never said anything one way or another publicly (not even an anonymous leak), speaks volumes.. As I had said, MSNBC went all out on the Sandra Fluke thing over her being called a name. Heck she still comes on there periodically when they want to discuss a women's issue. They even chastised Ed when he called Luara Ingraham a name. But nothing publicly on this? And possibly even worse, no women from the channel said anything. You want to guess that they won't yell sexism for any criticism of HRC when she runs for office in '16? (FYI...see :Liberal Cartoonist: If Hillary Is Nominee in 2016 ‘Sexism Will Be The New Racism’ | NewsBusters )

By the way I agree with you on the premedidated thing... its was obviously on the teleprompter so others knew it was coming too and you don't remember the full obscure reference and exactly where it came from just off the top of your head without researching it first. Its not like he was throwing out a popular reference and he doesn't do it all the time like a Dennis Miller does.

I just get a bit angry that I think I know what's coming soon with HRC and yet when they so obviously engage in it and have previously especially concerning Palin and Condoleeza Rice and other women and minorities just because they don't the same political ideals...SMDH (unfortunately, I find myself doing the SMDH thing more and more)

 

[ab2cmiller]

Somehow Obama has now gone from stating that he never met his uncle to now admitting that he lived with him for three weeks and saw him every few months after that while in law school.

I can't tell you how shocked I am.

President Obama acknowledges having lived with his uncle - Metro - The Boston Globe

 

[connor_in]

‘HAHAHAHA!’ #Pivot: Obama vows Obamacare laser focus; Swiftly spots Squirrel | Twitchy

#Pivot

 

[Black Irish]

Great article, Whiskey. Pope Francis doesn't bother me like he does other Catholics. Sure, he is saying some stuff that makes traditionalists uncomfortable, and that's OK because maybe it'll make people stop and look at things more closely. But I don't see the Pope as some neo-marxist. When it comes down to it, he'll be right on board with the teachings of the Church.

I think it's good that the Pope is pointing out the problems of economic inequality. I don't think he is necessarily attacking the system itself, but rather the negative consequences that many people are not doing enough to fix.

 

[phgreek]

Is he a Kenyan, Muslim, socialist who got into office on the backs of minorities by offering them handouts? Conservatives should be careful about throwing stones at Dems for poking their political opponents in the eye. It smacks of the very hypocrisy that you are saying disappoints you.

are you being serious...we are talking about actions that actually impact the country not political convulsions in an election...very much not comparable.

 

[connor_in]

HHS Scrambles to Defend Against Obama-Sebelius Meetings Revelation

 

[marv81s]

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

A very liberal friend of mine just tried telling me on facebook that Obama's approval rating is at 55%. Only in liberal land or MSLSD is his approval at 55%. Unreal...just completely removed from reality.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

A very liberal friend of mine just tried telling me on facebook that Obama's approval rating is at 55%. Only in liberal land or MSLSD is his approval at 55%. Unreal...just completely removed from reality.

As a very liberal person, I agree that your friend is not correct.