Why Ask Bob Dole How to Fix GOP?

Why are we asking a failed presidential candidate how to “fix” the GOP? And, of course, I’m speaking of Bob Dole who went on FOX News to say that the GOP should put a sign out, “Closed for Repairs.” His point was the party had moved too far to the right.

Say what?

What have the last 20 years taught the GOP? Apparently it hasn’t taught them that every time they put up a squishy moderate, including Bob Dole, they get soundly trounced by the democrats. The last two primaries were engineered by the GOP to allow the selection of their preferred, moderate candidates, Sen. John McCain and former Mass Gov. Mitt Romney! The party machine kept the more conservative states, especially large ones like Texas, from voting in the primaries until most, if not all, the other candidates have been forced out when their fundraising dries up.

As far back as the 1980s, George Bush Sr. was elected off the coattails of successful and popular (except to the media) terms of President Ronald Reagan. However, with the exception of the first war in Iraq, he governed moderately and was easily trounced by a more charismatic Bill Clinton (with the help of Bush enemy, Ross Perot running as a spoiler, independent party candidate.) Even though his son, another fiscal moderate, Bush “43” was able to sustain winning two elections, both were by the barest of margins. It’s doubtful that he would have had a second term had the people not felt more comfortable keeping Bush in after the September 11th attacks and resulting war against terror.

Ironically, the press portrays any GOP candidate as radically conservative. In the primaries, the candidate himself often runs to the right, though his record shows otherwise. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, you can put lipstick on a moderate, and call him conservative, but that doesn’t make it so. The people know the difference and every time a squishy GOP moderate is put up against a liberal democrat, the democrat is going to win. Conservatives were not enthusiastic about either Cain or Romney and certainly liberals would never vote for even a liberal Republican. It's become a track record where many have begun to wonder what side is the GOP on? The future of the GOP, if there is one, is NOT with political has beens like Bob Dole, but with an actual conservatives who can articulate what it means to be conservative over the media's minutia.

I am seeing a few glimmers of hope from a few tea-party supported candidates that aren’t afraid to butt heads with the senior bulls. Newly elected Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have both come out swinging and damn the proprieties of being freshman senators. They are quickly becoming wildly popular with the public outside their home states and are tipping the GOP RINOs, as well as battling democrats, enough for McCain to label the pair, along with Rep. Justin Amash, “wacko birds.” For the left wing of the GOP, who was as hopeful as the democrats that the tea party was a temporary aberration, they’d be wise to heed the saying on their adopted flag, “Don’t Tread On Me!”

Ann Coulter's Short-Sighted Vision

The only small mind in Ann Coulter's world is her own.

In her column last Wednesday, she blamed everyone in the conservative wing of the Republican Party for Romney's loss. One person she didn't blame was Romney.

Now let me be clear: This election was rife with fraud. The corrupt Chicago machine was at it again. There were enough statistics in key states pointing to voter fraud, either by human surrogates, machine tampering, or both. So much that there should have been a demand for a recount in some of the swing states. But of course there wasn't – the GOP is a squishy bunch – like Romney, they don't want controversy. And race was involved: They weren’t about to go against a black man and Obama knew it. Not a problem for the other side: It was all over the Twitter-verse before the election that there would be riots and violence should Romney win. And, anecdotally, since Romney and Ryan were playing to packed houses, while Obama was speaking to half-empty venues, it's highly suspicious regarding the numbers Obama pulled out of key states.

But Ann doesn't mention this either. No, she puts blame on exactly where it doesn't belong: the tea party and other conservatives who weren’t all-in with her political paramour.

Conservatives used to think Ann was conservative, but obviously she’s been drinking the water too long up in New York. (Remember when Arianna Huffington was a conservative?) Of course being a conservative can be lonely in places like New York and California. It will probably be just be a matter of time before she’s also a bitter, old former conservative writing a liberal blog. Unfortunately, we saw the beginning earlier this year. Not only was she head-over-heels for the moderate Gov. Romney, she campaigned to get the verbose, pro-gun control Gov. Christie for his running mate. She made vicious attacks on real conservative, Newt Gingrich, like a jealous ex-wife. Newt may not have been in a position to win and certainly had baggage, but no one could deny that he would have kicked the pants off Obama in the debates!

Romney is a nice man—I think most can at least concede that. He’d make a great neighbor. We know he was apparently a shrewd businessman. He is a hard-core moderate: Even after knowing the majority of people were against Obamacare and states were in rebellion, he promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. (No one said they wanted a replacement—just to get rid of the damn thing.) He wouldn't challenge the president enough, even on the campaign trail. There were a laundry list of topics he could have used to attack this administration that were left untouched. After a slam-dunk first debate, he turned into Mr. Nice Guy again, instead of pressing his advantage. He tried to moderate to fit his audience and that is a mistake—no one can trust you when they don’t know where you really stand. Not sure if that’s because he had bad advice or if he was just not up to laying waste to the unprepared president. We need a candidate that can overcome the fraud as well as the democrat candidate. In at least one way, Romney is exactly like McCain and Dole: He is a loser.

Massa, Lohen and Rather: The 'Moonbats' are Out!

Is there a full moon? The moonbats took flight recently.

Tickle Me Moonbat

Stimulus Package?

King of the moonbats was undoubtedly former representative Eric Massa. Massa appeared on the Glenn Beck TV show ostensibly to dish dirt on being forced out (his claim) from office because he wouldn't vote for the health care bill. Which on the face of it didn't make sense--Massa was in the Congress, not the more narrowly divided Senate. In fact, his leaving would mean Pelosi has a better chance of passing a health care bill if they went for the 51% reconciliation.

Massa changed stories faster than Rahm Emanuel can wrap a fish. Suddenly it was HIS idea to leave--he wasn't forced out. But despite the house probe (no pun intended), he said he didn't do anything illegal; it was all harmless fun. His idea of lighthearted fun--getting into tickle fights with young, male staffers on his fiftieth birthday. Obviously Massa has his own ideas about what constitutes a stimulus package: He also lived with several young, male staffers until he was advised this wasn't a good idea. One thing is pretty certain, Massa has been living in a pretty small closet for some time....

Luna Lindsey

Lindsey Lohen gets the moonbat nod for taking on the eTrade baby. The lawsuit involves a Super Bowl commercial where the eTrade baby is video conferencing with his girlfriend over his trading conquests. The girlfriend asks, "That milkaholic Lindsey, wasn't there, was she?" Baby Lindsey's head pops into the frame and says, "Milka-what?"



Lohen claims the video is based on her because she is known as "Lindsey" just like Prince or Madonna are known on a single name basis. eTrade denies the claim. It could be speculated that "Lindsey" is just is trying something outrageous to jump start her dying career. Or that she's actually got such a big ego that now everything must be about her! In fact, a search of IMDB database, for "Lindsey," Lohen doesn't appear at all, but a girl named Lindsey who was in a TV documentary called "Rehab." Now there's an idea, Ms. Lohen.

Lohen once said, "It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs." Does she now plan to track down this anonymous participant in the documentary and demand that she stop using her name?

Sheer Politics thinks that picking on a baby just makes Lohen a Mean Girl.

Moonstruck

Dan Rather (with BFF)

Dan Rather is always good for a moonbat report. It's no wonder most fellow liberals have stopped having him on TV. This time, even Chris Mathews couldn't talk over Dan fast enough to cover up Rather's latest foot-in-mouth. Dan Rather stated that Obama was so ineffective as a president he, "...couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

 Rather wrote an apology (of sorts) in the Huffington Post:

"It's an expression that stretches to my boyhood roots in Southeast Texas, when country highways were lined with stands manned by sellers of all races. Now of course watermelons have become a stereotype for African Americans and so my analogy entered a charged environment. I'm sorry people took offense."

Frankly, we're tired of his explanations that every gaffe he utters is some expression from his boyhood in Texas. Somehow, no one else has heard these "folksy" expressions before and Texans certainly are not living in the same time period that Rather apparently is.

Notice that he never really apologies: He says he's sorry, "people took offense" not that he said something offensive. That's a cop-out, non-apology.

Harry Reid Blames Domestic Violence on Lack of Job's Bill

Stand by for the next Harry Reid apology 3...2...1....

Apparently bored with making racist remarks, Reid's decide to make sexist ones now. Really? This is supposed to be the enlightened party?

"I have met some people while I was home, dealing with domestic abuse..."

Were they watching the Superbowl?

"Men, when they're out of work tend to become abusive." Harry also explained to the simple children that make up the American public that while women also don't have jobs, "women aren't abusive...most of the time."

I'm sure we all feel better that unemployed women are less violent when unemployed. {eye roll} While I'm sure he'll get another pass, this time by a supportive, liberal women's group, we may have to keep an eye on ol' Harry Reid in 2011. Chances are improving that he'll become one of those unemployed after November.

No Sheeples Here: Billboard Feevah

No Sheeples Here found another article about yet another anti-Obama billboard--this time in Oshkosh, (by gosh) Wisconsin.

The billboard was paid for through June, 2010 by an anonymous business that reads, "Impeach Obama: America's small businesses are failing; help us spread the message."

Representative of the business, attorney Tom Wroblewski, says the message the lessor wants to send is that Washington politics are bad for small businesses and is not suggesting Obama's actually committed an impeachable offense. Come on--that never stopped the impeach Bush crowd. Leave it to a lawyer to take all the fun out of protests!

Stuart Varney Tries to Teach Business to a Clueless Congresswoman

Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan tried to filibusterer Stuart Varney, who was subbing for Cavuto, on Friday. She came on after the previous guest, a small business man, who stated he would like to hire an additional 75 workers for his business, but couldn't if his taxes increased.

The interview was regarding the drop in unemployment from 10% to 9.7%. Democrats point to this as a sign the stimulus is working.

Kilpatrick said, "We [Michigan] got $220,000,000 dollars of stimulus grants...along with other grants...there was also a tax cut for 95% of middle Americans." But she agreed more help was needed.

Kilpatrick then touted the re-use of TARP dollars being repaid by banks for a federal slush fund where, instead of using that money to pay down the debt or giving it back to tax payers, it would go to...more government programs. She mentioned $30 billion scheduled to be given to community development financial institutions, which would then allegedly loan out the money to small businesses. It should be noted that loaning big banks tax dollars did nothing to increase loans to small businesses. They used the money to purchase risky MBSs (mortgage backed securities) and other asset-backed securities. Essentially, it was like loaning a gambler money for groceries or electric bill and then finding he went to play slot machines.

Varney pointed to the previous guest and said, [The previous guest said he would hire] "75 people for his small business if he could be assured his taxes would come down and he could afford to hire. Would you approve of such a plan to lower taxes for individuals?"



"95% of middle Americans got tax cuts for last year...," Kilpatrick interrupted.

"But he doesn't," Varney repeated several times, trying to get a word in. "He gets a tax increase."

Then the finger wagging started from Rep. Kilpatrick, "I can tell you how he can grow his business. How he can grow his business is America's put back to work."

Wait a minute--isn't that what this business owner was trying to do...put people to work? This from a woman who has been in the public sector all her life and has never tried to grow a business. But it gets worse....

Varney tried again, "Having listened to our last guest, who says he runs a small business, 'If you cut my taxes, I will hire people.' Are you still in favor of raising those taxes?"

Kilpatrick responded, "I'm in favor of helping that small business. If he says he can hire more people that's what this administration is going to do."

"Then he wants his taxes cut...," Varney countered.

"Taxes are being cut...," she insisted.

"Not for the upper-income people...."

Kilpatrick, looking visibly irritated, said, "Bush took care of upper-income people, which is some of the problem we have now. We're trying to give tax cuts to middle-income people today and provide jobs so that people work and have revenue and buy from this company and others."

Varney was shook his head in defeat, "Those are not small business owners...." He then asked Rep Kilpatrick for an explanation on how a tax on the top 1 or 2% top income earners was going to create jobs.

"I can't explain that, that's not my job to explain that," she said.

"But we're talking jobs and Americans...," Varney started

"And the way you get jobs is you put people back to work."

At this point, I wouldn't have been surprised if Mr. Varney's head had exploded--mine almost did. Honestly, he had an amazing amount of patience. 

Can you see the circular argument going on? This is not some slick politician trying to parse political language. This is a clearly clueless representative who thinks jobs are created by government, not the private sector. She doesn't even know that a small business person who has employees is not a middle class taxpayer and would have to be one the "rich" making over $250,000 in or to employ others. But those in the public sector think all that money is going into their pockets when it's actually going back into their business and enabling them to hire more workers. 

Perhaps if Rep. Kilpatrick would use her ears and listen instead of running her mouth to parrot the latest talking points, she could learn something. To her, the government needs to take money from the "rich," give it to the lower and middle classes (and other entitled groups) who can then use it to buy things. That is their "plan" to stimulate the economy.

This wins my first "Clueless Representative" award. This is an award for the Representative or Senator who is devoid of rational thought. If I can come up of an appropriate placard I'll post it.

Obama and Rahm Emanuel Attend Joe Biden School of Public Speaking

Viva Las Vegas: “Oops I did it again,” as the Britney Spears’ song goes. Obama stepped off into it, talking trash about Las Vegas…again. Mayor Oscar Goodman is fighting mad…again.

President Obama speaking before a New Hampshire town hall said, “When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you're trying to pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save on college. You prioritize, you make tough choices.”

Said Mayor Goodman, “I assure you, when he comes, I’ll do everything I can to give him the boot back to Washington to visit his failures back there.”

“This president is a real slow learner,” he added.



Previously, Obama got Oscar Goodman heated up when, commenting about business fat cats spending habits, said at another town hall, “You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you pay taxpayers back. You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime.”

After this latest gaff, Obama sent a letter to the embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “I hope you know that during my town hall today, I wasn't saying anything negative about Las Vegas.” Yeah, right....


Maybe Rahm Emanuel needs to direct any future R-comments to his boss…or the mirror.

Rahm-bo finally comes out of hiding only to skitter back down his hole faster than Punxsutawney Phil on a sunny day. Emanuel was reported as privately calling some liberal activists "f****ing retarded" because they were running ads attacking certain  Democrats.

Emanuel apologized to Timothy P. Shriver CEO and Chairman of the Special Olympics. Their “Spread the Word to End the Word” campaign is coming up on March 3rd.

Former Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has a developmentally disabled child, jumped in the fray on her Facebook page, she posted:

“As my friend in North Andover says, ‘This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency.’ I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better... Have you no sense of decency, sir?

Mr. President, you can do better, and our country deserves better.”

I can certainly see her and others’ anger at Emanuel’s crass statement, but I hope this doesn’t get drug out. Rahm “never let a crisis go to waste” Emanuel should be let go, but there are other, more important reasons for doing so.

Emanuel and Obama have been apparently attending the Joe Biden School of Public Speaking and Emanuel is quickly turning into a neutered pit bull, no longer the front man, speaking for the administration. It’s not the first time he’s “gone dark” and dropped out of site with this White House. Last time was when it hit the fan over the alleged selling of Obama’s senate seat.

When an enemy is harming himself, you just step back and let him. Republicans and conservatives are being drawn into too many battles over what someone is saying rather than what they are doing.

I Agree with Obama: I’d Rather Him Be a One-Term President Too! (Part 2)

Missed Part 1? Shame on you! Get caught up here.

On energy, Obama made some surprising statements about building more nuclear plants, opening offshore for oil and gas development and even investing in biofuel and clean coal development. But then he adds:

“And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

By making every other kind of energy hellishly expensive. He’s talking about the cap and trade bill. With all the recent talk of health care reform juggernaut, most citizens can be forgiven if they forgot about this one. It’s baaaack!



Don’t forget, after campaigning in coal states and talking about clean coal during the campaign, this statement, made to the San Francisco Chronicle (a quote they didn’t include in their article, but were outed about later), he said, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

He also said that, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."



So which to believe, the campaign Obama or the President Obama. Being that he’s still after “Cap and Tax” legislation, I don’t think we’ll see a jump in any solution that will be taxed out of business. So he can talk all about allowing offshore drilling and clean coal while making it too expensive to do either.

When it comes to healthcare, Obama thinks he just hasn’t explained it well enough. “Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.” No, the problem is YOU don’t listen—the people have told you they REJECT your plan.

Inserts mine:

“It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And…[after skewing the numbers so that you’re taxed for years before coverage phases in] our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.”

Do you really think this will be a money-making deal for the government that will bring down the deficit? If that were the case, Medicare would be rolling in dough!

“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

Republicans have been TRYING to let you know. It’s a bit hard when they are shut out of meetings. Of course, we don’t see that, (or the backroom deals with labor unions and holdout representatives and senators) since the health care reform has not been televised on C-Span as promised.

“Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.” [Even though the American people have rejected your plan!]

But then those in the White House don’t even think the Massachusetts populace voted for Scott Brown because he pledged to stop health care. On Fox News Sunday, Robert Gibbs, the administration’s press secretary claimed that the voter’s anger was similar to the anger that put Obama at office, not anger at Obama’s policies. Brown campaigned against the current health care plan, not trying terrorists in civilian courts and lowering taxes. In response Gibbs said, “That may be what he campaigned on, but that's not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington.”

But to people in the Obama administration, we’re just dull children who don’t understand that our wise father, Obama, just wants what’s best for us. Rubbish!

In the same interview, when asked about the latest Bin Laden tape, Gibbs called Bin Laden, “nothing but a cowardly, murderous thug and terrorist that will someday, hopefully soon, be brought to justice.”

And no doubt, if Obama has his way, it will be in a civilian court.

I Agree with Obama: I’d Rather Him Be a One-Term President Too! (Part 1)

I pledge a spirit of cooperation and bi-
partisanship, to reach across the aisle and
work with those despicable republicans who
are to blame for all the problems!

Prior to the State of the Union speech, Obama was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, (who had put her big girl panties on and was trying to sound like a tough reporter).

At one point Obama said, “The one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Are you kidding me? He thinks that pissing off the public to the extent that he ends up a one-term president equals success? Maybe he should talk to Jimmy Carter on how that feels in between their discussions on their respective Nobel Peace Prizes and how much they hate anyone named Bush. However, I do agree that I would prefer Obama be a one-term president!

When Sawyer asked if he would still be able to hold to his promise about not raising taxes on anyone making over $250K, he neatly sidestepped the question by saying, "I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak." Sawyer, of course, didn’t bother to challenge Obama about his non-answer.

It was the State of the Union address that was, “about as popular as a root canal.” Over seventy minutes long, Obama’s speech meandered through the blame Bush rhetoric to his plan to save taxpayer money by spending even more taxpayer monies.

Look, I know he’s not stupid, but he is arrogant. And arrogance can sometimes stand in for stupidity.

During the State of the Union, Obama demanded a spending freeze, but then said it wouldn’t take place until 2011. “That’s the way budgets work,” he ad-libbed after some rather loud laughter erupted from the gallery. (They weren’t laughing with him either.) But then he turned around and went through a laundry list of bills (and taxes) he wanted passed, including healthcare.

Only a week ago, most democrats were administering last rites to their health care bill after the election of Scott Brown as #41, giving republicans a crucial edge to stopping the Obama taxation express and striking true fear in the hearts of democrats up for election in November. After the Massachusetts election, most presidents would have stuck a conciliatory tone. Not this president—he continued to drive in the wedge and push his unpopular agenda. 

He was a cheerleader for “changing the tone in Washington.” The problem is the tone he changed it to was (still!) whining about the Bush administration!

“So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger.”

See, in the progressive mindset, spending our tax dollars helps not hurts (unless it’s being spent on the military or other conservative ideas.) It’s counter to what logic dictates: in a down economy, you STOP spending, not spend even more. That is because in their mind, government is the solver of problems, not the free market. We’re just imbeciles who would be sitting in a corner, sucking our thumb if the government wasn’t here to help. Meanwhile, we are hemorrhaging money in amounts that will keep generations in debt.

The first thing Obama suggested, was taxing banks.

“To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.”

Which they will pass on to us, the consumer, in the form of increased fees. I hated the Wall Street bonuses as much as anyone, but the banks shouldn’t have gotten our tax monies in the first place. It certainly didn’t stop a lot of smaller banks from going out of business (and the mega banks from snapping them up.) Now he wants to charge them a “fee” (read: tax). Businesses don’t pay tax. We pay the tax—when the cost of business goes up, they pass on the costs to all of us.

Inserts mine:

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. [Which will cause banks to cut back on making student loans.] Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years—and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. [Who’ll be paying those loans back…why WE will.] Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.”

Well, let’s just give everyone FREE tuition and be done with it. Unfortunately, students (and their parents) sometimes make bad choices. It does not make sense to take out massive loans if you’re not going into a career where you can make enough to pay them back! If you’re going to become an English, journalist (heh), social worker or basket weaving major, go to a smaller, public university and work your way through or plan to get a major scholarship.

“And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.” No, you just snuck it into the withholding tables. Did you notice the take-home amount in your paycheck went down from last year? That’s because congress lowered the threshold, raising taxes on wages across the board. So we’re back to playing word games again—it depends on what the meaning of ‘raising income taxes’ is.

(Part 2 Tuesday: Energy, Heath Care (again!) and Why was Scott Brown elected? Hint: They know the reason better than the electorate!)

They’re Just Wild About Harry (Reid)

Turning on the TV or radio earlier this week, prior to the tragic earthquake in Haiti, only one topic took center stage. Not that a republican is poised to take a senate seat in a liberal democrat stronghold, or that Congress is trying to hurry up and finish shoving health care reform down our throats.

No…everyone only wanted to talk about Democrat darling, Sen. Harry Reid and his gaffe regarding Obama. Liberal democrats were trying to convince us that Reid was actually complimenting Obama. Even members of the alleged black leadership were tripping over themselves to accept Reid’s apology. On the other side, republicans complained that democrats were hypocrites for previously damning Trent Lott, while Reid gets a pass by democrats and the media. And that they were going to hold their breath until they turned blue! Okay I made the last up...but it got close to that!

My first thought was: So, what did you expect? My second thought was how it was republicans who ultimately gave the senate leader the heave-ho, not the democrats. Not that democrats didn't complain--oh, they complained loudly. The decried how Lott's toast to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, was a sign the Mississippi Senator was essentially sympathetic to the equivalent of American apartheid. They conveniently forgot that in the early days when Strom made a pro-segregationist presidential run, Strom was a democrat. Just as Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK. Democrats always conveniently forget which side their party was on when it came to slavery and later, "separate but equal" laws. After the 1948 election, Strom remained a democrat senator for 14 more years until switching to the Republican party in 1964.

But it was republicans who ousted Lott from his leadership position. They could have stood by him--just as democrats are supporting Reid, but they didn't. I have a strong hunch that most just didn't really care for Lott or had their own eyes on moving up the food chain to the speaker's seat.

Both Reid’s and Lotts’ statements were stupid and obviously not thought out. One could argue which statement was more damning: a toast made at a century-old senator's private birthday party or a comment made about then-candidate Obama on his electability based on his skin color and his dialect. Even worse Reid added he (Obama) could turn his dialect on and off to sound more or less black.

But my message to the republicans and conservatives is: Get over it. Let Reid's constituents decide in 2010. There are a LOT bigger fish to fry such as health care reform and cleaning both houses in 2010 and 2012. And don't forget we have cap and trade and immigration reform looming.

To the liberals and democrats who are trying to excuse Reid's remarks: Yeah, you're a bunch of hypocrites and you're not getting away with it as you have in the past. How any so-called member of the black leadership can say with a straight face that it's okay, because Reid was supporting Obama, or worse, that he was actually complimenting Obama--it's ludicrous. I suspect members of their respective communities are not quite so forgiving.

White House had October Briefing on Assassination Attempt Similar to Flight 253

Yesterday, I wrote how this administration seems to be more interested in trampling our last shred of dignity, by claiming scanners that show all our naughty bits would solve our security problems.

Now YID with LID publishes a report coming from Newsweek (hardly a conservative-leaning publication) that there was a White House briefing (no pun intended) in October on an attempted assassination. The target, Muhammad bin Nayef, Saudi's chief counterterrorism official, survived the attack. But it was believed this terrorist used the same underwear bombing technique as the attempt on Northwest Airlines flight 253.

What we have here is...failure to communicate:

In fact there were several briefings in those months, including a high-level briefing to Obama 3 days before the Christmas attempt. And, once again there was a breakdown in communication between the FBI and the CIA.

"When Abdulmutallab’s father visited the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, in November to report his concerns that his son might have been involved with Islamic extremists in Yemen, the FBI had no representative at the meeting; the FBI maintains an attaché only in Lagos on the southern coast, not in Abuja, the capital. But the CIA, which did have an officer present who wrote up a report on the meeting, never told the FBI about Abdulmutallab."

Of course the President immediately flew back to DC after the attempt.... No...wait...he stayed in Hawaii, although CBS news reporters fretted that the president was having to spend the vacation working rather than "recharging his batteries." (Hat tip to News Busters)  

Can you imagine the media brouhaha had Bush stayed on Christmas vacation?? I tweeted recently about the media complained on how long Bush stayed at the school after the September 11 attacks. Even though it clearly made more sense to both wait for further information and keep from panicking a roomful of children. No matter how he reacted he couldn't win with the media. Obama finally holds a press conference in an unbuttoned shirt, no tie, looking more tourist than presidential.

Read the full story: YID With LID: New Obama Security Oversight: White House Received October Briefing About Underwear Bombings