Judge Sumi Strikes down Governor Walker’s collective bargaining law
And really, who didn't expect that this was coming given Judge Sumi's willingness to entertain the Dane County DA's motions regarding how the rapid passage of this bill in the legislature during the "Fleebagging" sessions, the period where the Senate Democrat's left the state in order to avoid having to, you know, do the job they were elected to do and take a vote on the budget bill this provision was originally included in, violated Wisconsin's open meeting law.
In a 33-page decision issued Thursday, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said she would freeze the legislation because GOP lawmakers on a committee broke the state's open meetings law in passing it March 9.
"It's what we were looking for," said Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat.
Ozanne sued to block the law after Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) filed a complaint saying that GOP legislative leaders had not given proper notice in convening a conference committee of lawmakers from both houses to approve Walker's budget-repair bill.
Now, the Judge telegraphed her intent to block the legislation a while back, when after staying it's implementation she publicly opined that Ozanne would probably succeed based on the merits of his motion. But with all due respect to Judge Sumi, not only did the notice of the impending vote satisfy the 24 hour requirement, but more importantly many hold that the open meeting law is a parlaimentary rule in the legislative assemblies alone, and as such means that she and the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter; and can only have their say regarding the legitimacy of the legislation following it's codification. So really, she's making new law from the bench, as well as establishing the dangerous precedent that the Wisconsin judiciary can set the rules for business in the legislature; de facto upsetting the inherent checks and balances of the system...
But, another day, another partisan judge attempting to legislate from the bench; effectively usurping the rights of the people's representatives and placing the right to make law into the hands of a few privileged individuals.
Because let's be very clear. This is a poltically motivated act, designed to "keep the furor alive!" through the recall elections scheduled for this summer. It's a cheap political ploy that, hopefully, will be overturned in the WI supreme court. The court has promised to take up this matter very quickly.
All I can say is thank God that the Prosser managed to avoid having the election stolen by Kloppenburg.
[UPDATE]: Cap'n Ed at HotAir weighs in, concurring with my assessment in part:
The legislature was in special session, which changes the requirements under the open-meeting law, so they claim that the violation was moot. This is disturbing in another sense, which is that the legislature sets its own rules as an independent branch of government. The judiciary should not intrude on their prerogative to set rules for their own operation, within the confines of the state and federal constitutions.
Sumi’s issuance of a temporary injunction on this basis gave a large hint to today’s decision, so no one should be stunned by her ruling. The case will quickly go to the Supreme Court, which will have to determine whether to allow district courts to dictate legislative rules.
[emphasis mine]
Indeed, let's hope the court rules quickly.
[UPDATE II]: As is often the case, our pal Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom characterizes Judge Sumi's ruling in his own inimitable way:
I didn’t become a judge to protect the status quo. Being a liberal judge means protecting the people, and in this case, it means protecting the people — who accidentally installed a conservative into the statehouse — from themselves. Or, to put it another way, THE LAW BELONGS TO ME!
So suck it bitchez!
Post-Partisan Paragons of Perfidy shape “The Narrative”
More follow up to the earlier posts regarding Democrat efforts to "own" the revocation of ObL's respiration rights. From Politico:
Just one day after the Navy SEALs’ daring raid, Democrats were already outlining plans to seize the opportunity to portray President Barack Obama as a decisive leader who should get full acclaim for green-lighting the assault that brought down bin Laden.
The subtle but unmistakable jockeying provided a revealing glimpse into how official Washington thinks: Even in a rare moment of national unity, the political stakes provide a temptation – and even an imperative – for the parties to jostle for maximum advantage.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday that once Obama took office, “he made sure that we would revitalize our focus on Osama bin Laden and the hunt for him.”
But a former top intelligence officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, asserted that Bush routinely asked him about bin Laden during Thursday morning briefings about CIA operations.
“I’d walk in there and he would just say, ‘So where are we on bin Laden?’” the official said. “He was very focused on it – this was always a top priority. I’d think, ‘Oh, hell – he asked me that again.’”
And dozens of statements Monday from Republican officeholders mentioned Bush’s role after 9/11 – with several even quoting Bush as saying, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”
But one Democratic communications hand sent advice to a slew of other Democratic operatives in the wake of the announcement hammering on the need to make sure Obama comes out on top .
“In your day jobs, do not let Republicans turn this into continuing the Bush legacy. This has to be about Obama’s decisive leadership,” the guidance said. “He is the one who oversaw bringing bin Laden to justice, much like how Bush failed to do so at Tora Bora and then claimed Osama wasn’t a priority.”
[emphasis-ed.]
Gee, so that's why they all seemed like they were on the same page with this; they were! It was written in the memo...
It makes me wonder if Barney Frank isn't slipping a bit. I mean, was he freelancing, or had he already received the talking points?
In the end though, as I've said before, it won't matter; the truth will come out. In fact, ACE has an excellent, detailed, time-line of the events over the years that culminated in the successful SEAL team raid this past Sunday. I'd suggest that you check it if only for your own edification. And especially so if you live in a "deep blue" state like myself, and anticipate that this will be a hot topic on the summer barbecue/drinking circuit.
Because facts are stubborn things; and the facts are that it was a long way to Abbottabad. And the very measures and actors that the aces of agitprop vilified for years are the same ones they are hailing today. Indeed, our pal Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has a set of clips posted which illustrate how the Make-Believe-Media used to engage in moral posturing, vis-a-vis "torture", which they are suddenly very quiet about in the wake of Sunday's announcement. What a difference having a Democrat in the White House makes...
A trenchant observation on Dan’s earlier question; Who owns bin Laden’s death
Provided by our Pal Carin, in a comment thread over at Protein Wisdom that is part of a post by Darleen Click on Obama's impending "Victory Lap", paraphrased, it goes something like this:
Economy still sputtering after two plus years in office, trillions of dollars spent, and socialist tinkering? Yeah, it’s Bush’s mess...
But Osama Bin Laden killed in a raid that was facilitated by intelligence gathered beginning in 2005? Why clearly that is Obama's doing alone!
Sadly, this has largely been the response of the cognoscenti and punditry on the left. Instead of celebrating the moment together, a sweet victory that should be larger than politics, they are instead using the opportunity to try and re-affirm their "official" Narrative™ of the last 8 years; that Bush willfully dithered on a neo-con adventure when he could have quickly gotten Bin Laden the whole time. It's only been a little more than 24 hours, and yet, if I had a nickel for every comment about Obama's ability to nab ObL, "zOMG! In Just 2 Years!11!1!", I'd be a wealthy man indeed.
By this twisted logic, FDR wouldn't receive any honorable mention, since Truman was the President when WWII came to an end! This thought experiment demonstrates the ridiculousness of their attempts to rehabilitate Mr. Obama's failed foreign policy via this one event, and I encourage our readers to avail themselves of it rhetorically.
And to our ideological opponents I offer a word of caution. The American people are not stupid, and your 5th column in the 4th estate is no longer the gatekeeper of information in our society. Your attempts to over-reach will be seen for what they are, and you will suffer instead of gain from the charade. Most folks join me in fairly giving credit to Mr. Obama for green-lighting the raid on Bin Laden's compond in Pakistan, but will reject the fatuous notion that the credit is his alone.
The real heroes of the day are the SEALs who put it on the line, and suggest that our friends across the aisle act accordingly, and quit trying to frame it as being an outgrowth of Mr. Obama's actions alone...
And make a point of savoring more of Carin's unique wit and insights at her own site, you won't be sorry that you did.
Wolly and the New Tone
One can always count on the progressive left to never let a crisis go to waste. Rahm would surely be proud...
The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.
Did you get that? This is the gaia bringing down her righteous rath on the eeeeeevvollll DENIALISTS!, like it's the secular-humanist-radical-environmentalist analogue to Sodom and Gommorah.
CIVILITY NOW!
Speaking of the wrath of gaia, our old pal Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom brings us one of Wolcott's latest hits where the cetaceous-like-homunculus in the silk smoking jacket attempts ghoulishly muses:
I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong–Mother Nature’s fist of fury, Gaia’s stern rebuke. Considering the havoc mankind has wreaked upon nature with deforesting, stripmining, and the destruction of animal habitat, it only seems fair that nature get some of its own back and teach us that there are forces greater than our own.
How empathetic ... More like pathetic, in my humble opinion. To which Jeff replies:
Were Wolcott, by some grand cosmic irony, forced to live in a land fully forested, its coal and ore unsullied by the touch of human hands, he’d last precisely fifteen minutes before the wails of complaint he levied at some soggy log for its conspiracy to cause chafing to his ample buttocks resulted in a cougar attack, and a mess of silk and elastic and butterfat.
Along with some other characteristically delicious stuff. Read the whole thing; Jeff linked to Wolly, so we don't have to. And in his comment thread you'll find several links to statements by actual meteorologists who make it very clear that this is simply a natural phenomenon, and not the result of "climate change".
Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: "Actually what we're seeing is springtime," he said.
Quote via Jammie Wearing Fool.
ACE sums up all of the reprehensible attempts pretty succinctly:
As has been said many times before -- The Left loves "the masses;" they hate actual people. Along the lines of Lenin's famous quip about tragedy and statistics, humans only count to the extent they can be reduced to symbols and abstract political impulses.
Whereas most would say human lives are each precious, the nastiest of the left must always add a caveat: * For some definitions of human life.
Remember this next time someone in your circle is hand-wringing about the lack of civility on the part of conservatives. Also, measure how long it takes President Obama and other prominent progressives to call out these folks for their violent and hateful rhetoric; but don't hold your breath. Just hold the memory, and act on it next time you're in the voting booth.
Ecce Doofus [UPDATED]
Tavis the Twit
There's a lot of stupidity that flows from Lawrence O'Donnell, both his person and his television show. But this particular episode has got to be right up near the height of lows. Behold, as Tavis the race baiter tosses his pearls before all of us, well, you know :
"I said over a year ago that this was going to be, this presidential race, Lawrence, was going to be the ugliest, the nastiest, the most divisive, and the most racist in the history of this Republic"...
And so it will be as you say, Mr. Smiley; especially if professional griefers like yourself are playing the race card pre-emptively. I wonder how long until he gets his invitiation for a hard hitting Q&A from the ladies of "The View"?
Look, I get that Democrats resent guys like Trump pandering to the birthers; they're wringing their hands over what they see as the "otherization" of O!. I would have to ask them though, why the secrecy? Forget about the birth certificate for the moment; why the secrecy regarding his academics, the deliberate lack of paper-trail from the Illinois senate, and the impenetrable "omerta" of all parties regarding the Chicago Annenberg challenge-specifically his close involvement with Billy "guilty as sin, and free as a bird" Ayers? Why Tavis, is it racist to insist that this President make such records open and available to the public, as every President of the modern era has had to; why the special set of rules? If there's nothing to hide, well, why not walk the "transparency" that Obama's always blathering on about? Release the records, Mr. President.
The race-card-playing is starting early because O! is struggling, things aren't going his way with regards to the economy as well as domestic and foreign policy. Simply put, folks are having serious reservations about giving Obama a second term, so expect the race-hustlers like Smiley to chalk it all up to racism; going to the well of race-guilt one more time in order to shore up some of the mushy-middlers who can be convinced that their "unconscious racism" is really why they're unhappy with the President. I mean, surely there's no policy-based grounds for opposition, amIright?
No Tavis, 2012 will not be the most racist election, EVAR!, unless you consider the race-card-players such as yourself, the blatant tribal appeal of the identity politics playing Democrats, or, you know, the inconvenient truth that black Americans voted for Obama by a nearly 19 to 1 margin.
But I'm sure you'd tell me that none of these factors are racist whatsoever, and that I'm a horrible, horrible, race-traitor and racist h8ter for even pointing such things out.
If you can stomach it, watch the whole video-it's short-in order to fully get your righteous indignation on.
[UPDATE]: Well, it seems Trump's hammering, and the polls recently indicating a public uncertainty of Obama's origin have convinced the White House to release Obama's long form birth certificate. As I've mentioned, I never doubted his naissance, personally, but only thought the public had a right to see all of the usual and customary life history paper trail of their President. It's a good start. Now let's see the rest of the documents, so we can know the rest of the story ...
Stossel’s variation on the question, “What if Bush did [X]“
Comes in the form of the question, "Where did all the Anti-War Protesters Go?":
The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war ... they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009.
… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.
… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped [...] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.
Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.
The protesters have remained silent over Libya.
And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.
Now, full disclosure; these are my fave-oh-rite kind of questions to ask when trying to bring out, in a Socratic fashion, full-throated liberal hypocrisy. Especially here in New York City. Ever since the ascendancy of Captain Kickazz I've been exploding heads at cocktail parties and backyard barbeques whenever the subject turns to national politics, and one of my usual questions is "where have all the code-Pinkos gone?"; although I generally don't stoop to the exact term of derision.
Contra their demonstrative claims of opposition based on principle, this phenomenon, or lack thereof, underscores the cynical use of the issue for cheap political gain by the Democrats since 2004. Indeed, it was most shamefully demonstrated during the run-up to the 2008 election, when now VP Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama never missed an opportunity to proclaim that, "The War! is Lost!" and "The Surge isn't working!", all while our warriors were in the field.
The now almost non-existent protests and nightly hand-wringing session provided by the MBM prove that, like any most of their other "causes", the port side of the American political spectrum was more than willing to utilize any group and demagogue any issue in order to vilify their political opponents. In the great tradition of Ted Kennedy and his attempts to ally with the Soviets against Reagan, and the Vietnam war, they were willing to lose the fight and set back American foreign policy in order to win an election. By.Any.Means.Necessary...
In Our Next Installment: How suddenly the MBM is convinced that the President has no control over gas prices, now that W. Bush is once again a private citizen.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
Koran Burning Tool Convicted of Something
After reading the article, I'm still unsure what the conviction was for. Did he actually begin the protest and get arrested for that, or did they arrest him in a pre-emptive strike? No one has claimed that he was going to actually incite violence; only that he was going to be the victim of violence because others would be so incensed with his words (he wasn't even going to be burning the Koran from what I understand).
If his conviction was for unlawful assembly, then I'm less inclined to be upset with it. You can argue with the local police chief's decision, but he has the right to make it. That said, it looks like Jones is going to be returning to Dearborn to protest at the Court House next week; in a way calling the bluff of the local authorities who have stated he can protest there. Was it really the location they were concerned with?
Allahpundit's thoughts seem well reasoned, but based on the premise that he was convicted for intending to commit a crime. I think we're all considerably uncomfortable with the idea that the potential reaction of others to your words can allow law enforcement to punish you for them. I'm even more disturbed by the idea that such potential would allow the government to actually prevent you from speaking.
What happens when a group of Muslims decide that it's "fighting words" for Franklin Graham to declare Jesus is the Messiah? Is that really so unlikely that they'd take that mile now that we're giving them this inch? To be clear, I think Jones is a tool (Fred Phelps Light with a more palatable cause) and is unnecessarily provocative. But it shouldn't be illegal for him to speak his mind, let alone for him to intend to speak his mind.
I have to wonder, how would governments react if a group of Tea Party activists decided that a speech in Austin, TX, suggesting we raise taxes was sufficient provocation to resort to violence. Let's assume they had demonstrated that intent by killing liberals in Canada. Would Austin take the pre-emptive step of silencing the speakers in their jurisdiction to ensure their public safety? Call me skeptical.
So, just what is a reduction in tax code spending?
Would you believe..?
During Mr. Obama's decidedly lackluster and unimpressive speech yesterday I found myself puzzled by a few things; maybe our kind readers can do a brother a solid and put me some knowledge.
1) Why on earth did he ask the co-chairs of his phony-baloney deficit commission to attend since he wasn't planning on acknowledging them or even talking up any of the commission's ideas in his speech ! Can you imagine how much of a chump they must have felt like? It seemed to me that they were merely props for him to use, or not. Which, you know, seems to me to be an apt metaphor for the commission as a whole...
2) Why would he invite Paul Ryan to this event only to openly disparage him, his plan, and assert that Ryan wished death, suffering, and all manner of hardship on children, the poor, and old people? Was it motivated by some Chicago style, "in your face", expression of machismo that I'm unfamiliar with? Was it like a jungle primate, demonstratively acting out to intimidate his competition (I know, I know, I'm a terrible RAAAAAAACIST! for using such a comparison-whatever...)? Or was it simply part of Obama's culture, as the multi-culti-identity-politics-apologists often say. Did Obama do it just so that in barbershops across the nation folks could wildly exclaim, "OOOOOOOOH, Obama done served that muthaf@&ker!"
Or, you know, maybe it's some of that "New Kind of Politics" that he always droned on about during the 2008 campaign, and I just don't recognize the "new tone" or "CIVILITY NOW!" style of expression...
3) And seriously, what is up with making up yet another po-mo euphemism; just what exactly is a "reduction in tax code spending"? Sounds an awful lot like a tax increase to me. And here I thought the official code words for that in Democrat lexicon was "investments". I wonder when the Democrat's guide to lying style guide officially stopped recommending Mr. Clinton's favorite characterization...
But then, maybe Obama needed to be able to talk about reducing some kind of spending, other than defense spending that is, in order to get the point across to all the rubes that he, Captain Kickazz, was the true-blue deficit busting budget hawk. 'Cuz he used the word "reduction"...
Of course, it's more of the same old BS he's always been full of. Dan linked to many reactions earlier, but I'll add a couple of notable ones; the editors of the WSJ characterized the speech as the most dishonest in decades, and Krauthammer used just about every synonym for "lie" that he could, without saying so directly. The speech was all about optics, and devoid of substance. It was a rehashing of all of the platitudes we've heard, ad nauseam.
Obamacare is going to save the government money...Right.
We have to further cut back our defense spending (Surprise! Gates!, and you thought the cuts you'd made so far were impressive).
We have to spend more, to save...
Oh, and his old favorite, "we have to raise taxes on the rich!".
The last one makes me laugh especially; here's why. I've been crunching some IRS supplied numbers lately, to consider this argument fairly (more on that to come). It turns out that his critics are correct, that all of the taxable income of those who make more than 200k/yr in our nation, not including dividends and capital gains, amounts to approximately 1.2 trillion dollars. Presumably, we already receive about 1/3 of that as revenue, so even of the government seized all income in excess of 200k/yr there would still remain a deficit of 1/2 to 3/4 of a trillion dollars! So where do you think they'd have to go to get that?
This reveals the larger lie behind all of Obama's class warfare rhetoric. There is simply not enough money to seize from the rich alone to balance the budget, no matter what Michael Moore says. That will have to come on the backs of the middle class. Which brings me to a perhaps even more disturbing, underlying, mindset that Obama's newest euphemism reveals; the assumption that all GDP belongs to the government a priori, and they benevolently decide how much to let you keep. I can't reason out any other way to interpret the association of "spending" with lowering tax rates, although I've heard too often the excuse that it's a benign, wonkish, accounting expression. No, it either refers to the disturbing idea I referred to, or, Obama's willfully lying to suit his purposes. Either way, I'm not satisfied.
What do you think, kind reader?
On the latest O!-bloviation
I've kept my trap shut on the Libya action, in general, because I believe that partisan politics end at the water's edge in time of armed conflict, and I don't want to engage in the same petty behavior I've spent the last 8 years criticizing; namely, using foreign conflicts as a cudgel to unfairly bash the President. But that's a two-way street.
Click to Enlarge
There are some folks swooning this morning over Obama's speech, and recounting how it was chock full of memorable explanation, rhetorical nuance, heartfelt genuineness, emphasized the moral authority of multilateral-ism, and clearly explained "The Obama doctrine!". They must have watched a different channel than I, or than AP fact check. I found it to be disjointed, filled with misleading half-truths, and an overall lackluster delivery by an obviously uncomfortable Obama; in short, completely and utterly forgettable. This very cheerleading, though, has crystallized into a "Popeye moment" for this old salt; I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!
This entire speech made my guts grind. In the first part, he essentially patted himself on the back for “taking the lead”; He must truly think that we’re all idiots and don’t remember it was Sarkozy who first called for action, or that, in the usual and customary way, if the Sorelian "Big Lie" is repeated enough that it will somehow become truth. Then, in the middle, he contradicted himself by going on about letting “our partners” in this vast international coalition “bear the burden of responsibility”. And in the last part, he patted himself on the back some more, for being such a great humanitarian and, of course, for being the anti-Boooooosh!, as well as for his promise not actually expiring, as is usually the case; that promise being that the entire operation would be handed off to NATO; MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
I've been on the pointy end of a few of these kind of operations in my time, and I can assure you that there is little difference between a US military action with allied participation and a NATO action; save for the decisions being made by committees that include folks that may despise, or be jealous of, the US military, I might add, which is unusual outside of certain Congressional caucus meetings...
But don't take my word for this, here's the NY Times revealing this inconvenient truth:
In his speech on Monday night, Mr. Obama, as he has in the past, portrayed the mission as a limited one, and described the United States’ role as “supporting.”
But interviews in recent days offer a fuller picture of American involvement, and show that it is far deeper than discussed in public and more instrumental to the fight than was previously known.
From the air, the United States is supplying much more firepower than any other country. The allies have fired nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the campaign started on March 19, all but 7 from the United States. The United States has flown about 370 attack missions, and its allied partners have flown a similar number, but the Americans have dropped 455 precision-guided munitions compared with 147 from other coalition members.
So it's not just me wallowing in ODS driven hateful wingnuttery when I say that we should all count on US forces continuing to provide an inordinately high percentage of the precision strike sorties and TLAM attacks; that is, "inordinate" in light of Obama's pronouncement that we've turned the operation over to our allies. Indeed, Cap'n Ed has coined an amusing acronym for this; "NINO"-NATO In Name Only.
Oh, and not forget the strong implication and ersatz justification that he needn’t consult with Congress since, you know, he had such an awesome international consensus and UN mandate-something he still hasn't felt the need to do...
CHANGE!
Let me be very clear about this. I have no problem going after K'Daffy. But let's not act like there's some formidable coalition of Extraordinary Magnitude! assembled here, the likes of the world has never seen, because it's just not true. And I want to see the US President get approval from Congress before embarking on such an undertaking, especially considering all of the previous sanctimonious, and now patently hypocritical, statements made by Mr. Obama and other national level Democrats regarding the need for such approval; and not imply that a UN resolution is a reasonable facsimile. While he's at it, I'd also like to see an oval office address to the public, you know, a good old school one like Presidents used to give, in order to explain to the American people what's going on in their name at the time hostilities commence or as soon as reasonably possible (hint-not 10 days later). And once engaged, I'd like to see the most overwhelming firepower possible brought to bear in order to bring about a swift end to the fighting as well as prevent casualties amongst our warriors to as great an extent as possible.
I fear that something entirely different is going on here, and I call upon the self-proclaimed, "Most Transparent Administration EVAH!", to be honest with the public, not politicize this action, be aggressive with our adversaries, and mindful of our warriors in harms way. May God bless them, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.
President In Over His Head
The Coast Guard has quietly posted their after-action report on the big oil spill from last year, and it's not exactly flattering to the CIC. The criticisms seem mainly to be about the PR disaster, which is amazing considering the White House seemed to be solely focussed on the PR aspects:
Asked about the report, sources with knowledge of White House and DHS involvement went even further, saying the administration "looked at this as a political problem, not an operational problem."
I have to admit, this isn’t so much surprising as merely evidence of what we’ve all felt from the beginning. Really, most of us here knew this before he was even elected, but this administration has repeatedly shown themselves to be amateurs. The presidency is almost always a learning experience, even for the most seasoned executives who take the office; but Obama has shown a complete inability to even keep his head above water. From the simplest events (hosting dignitaries) to the most troubling (Libya), he gets caught off guard. Two weeks ago, John Podhoretz commented that,
We’re going on four weeks now, or more, that Barack Obama has been reading My Pet Goat.
Frankly, it seems to me to have been going on for two plus years.
The thing is, we expect a president to have to learn on the job; a little. But we also expect him to actually get it figured out at some point.
Follow Dan!
All the Kool Kidz are doing it...
Recent Grist
- St. Michael – Defend Us.
- Special Intentions for Monday
- Behold: The Unholy Family & the Meatitudes
- Happy Birthday, Abraham. Yours, Ba’al (D)
- Catholic Teachings Not Subject to Polls
- Wrong. Again. Educating the Educator (or, God is not fooled by Plausible Deniability).
Creature Commentariat
- A Summary of Planned Parenthood’s Frauds and Felonies in the Service of Ideology on The Wailing and Gnashing Over the Planned Parenthood Sting
- Public Pensions: Detroit Plans Scammed on Ratso Rizzo: public employee salaries run amok
- Scott on Ladd Ehlinger on Liberty, Serenity and Firefly
- Escort Online on Pritchard, Alabama and the Public Pensions Endgame
- Lzejjipq on Post-Partisan Paragons of Perfidy shape “The Narrative”
Categories
Feed the Kraken.
Sponsors
God Botherers
Blogroll
- A Voice from the Closet
- Ace of Spades HQ
- adeliemanchot
- American Power
- American Thinker
- Anchoress
- AnthropoCon
- Baby Troll Blog
- Backyard Conservative
- Bad Science
- Baldilocks
- Big Feed, The
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Big Journalism
- Bit Maelstrom
- Blackfive
- Blog Prof
- Blogshevik, The
- Bob Belvedere
- Bookworm Room
- Brussels Journal
- Catawissa Gazetteer
- Chap-O-Matic
- Chris Wysocki
- Christopher Taylor
- Classic Liberal, The
- Coach Is Right
- Coalition of the Swilling
- Conservatives4Pailin.com
- Coordinated Illumination
- Corner at NRO
- Cranky Conservative
- Cynthia Yockey
- Da Techguy
- Daily Caller, The
- Daily Mush, The
- David Thompson
- DC Trawler, The
- Don Surber
- Doug Ross @ Journal
- Dustbury
- Emerging Corruption
- Eye of Polyphemus
- Fausta's Blog
- Feed Your ADHD
- From the Right Lane
- Front Page Mag
- Gateway Pundit
- Goldfish and Clowns
- Grand Rants
- HAEMET
- Heartland Murmurs
- Hot Air
- I Own the World
- I Wish I Was a Geordie
- IMAO
- Iowahawk
- Is This Blog On?
- James Gunn
- James Joyner
- Jammie Wearing Fool
- Javelina Bomb
- Jawa Report
- Jennifer Townsend Photography
- Jimmie Bise
- Johanna Hopes
- John Hawks Weblog
- Jookoos News
- Just Russ
- Kathleen McKinley (Rightwingsparkle)
- Kill Truck
- King Shamus
- Knifework
- Lead and Gold
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty at Stake
- Liberty At Stake
- Lightning News, The
- Little Miss Attila
- Luminarium
- Maggie's Farm
- Man Pants (Ninnuh's blog)
- Mark Steyn
- Medary
- Meepbobeep's Journal
- Melanie Phillips
- memeorandum
- Mi Vida Loca
- Michael Yon
- Michelle Malkin
- Midnight Blue
- Mike Hendrix & Co.
- Mike in New Hampshire [RIP. Never forgotten]
- Mind Numbed Robot
- Miserable Donuts
- Moxie
- MsUnderestimated
- My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
- Naked Empress
- Natural Born Conservative
- Neo-neocon
- Newsbusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
- Nice Deb
- No Sheeples Here
- Oatmeal, The
- Obi's Sister
- Old Grouch
- Once Upon a Time in the Webs
- Opera Rat: The Blog
- Paco Enterprises
- Pal 2 Pal
- Paragraph Farmer, The
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Phelony Jones
- Pixie Place II
- POH Diaries, The
- Pool Bar, The
- Potluck
- Power Line
- Public Secrets
- Pundit & Pundette
- pw
- Q and O
- Question Obama
- Radical Middle
- Redstate – Conservative News and Community
- Renner's Here
- Rhetorican
- Rhymes with Right
- Ric's Rulez
- Richard Fernandez
- RightNetwork
- Ruby Slippers
- Salty Droid
- Sanity Inspector, The
- Scott Effin' Burgess
- Serr8d's Cutting Edge
- Seven Deadly Sins
- Sissy Willis
- Six Meat Buffet
- Snark. And Boobs.
- Sono Annoiato
- South Texian
- Stop the ACLU
- Sultan Knish
- Supply Side Politics 2.0
- That Mr. G Guy's Blog
- That's Right
- The B-Cast
- The Blago Files
- The College Politico
- The Conservatory
- The H2 – New Location, Same Retardation
- The Hayride
- The Other McCain and Smitty
- The Rude News
- The Trogolopundit
- Theo Spark
- Three Beers Later
- Tigerhawk
- Tim Blair
- Trevor Loudon
- Unreligious Right, The
- Useful Info Nation
- Useful Info Nation Blog
- Vally of the Shadow
- Vanderleun
- Verum Serum
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Vodkapundit
- Walking on Eggshells
- Washington Examiner
- Watts Up with That?
- Weasel Zippers
- Yid with Lid