If you opened up this site or various pages on this site today, you may have been treated to a cacophony of videos playing all at once. The problem was at Breitbart.com; something about an issue with the third party that houses their player. Anyway, after Machinist informed me of the problem, I wrote Meredith Dake, and the problem has been fixed. Apologies for the noisy mess. Don’t let it drive you away. It’s fixed now.
It sounds like a joke until you see it. Yes, a co-founder of a group that conducted numerous bombings calls Breitbart a “bombthrower” — without irony:
As bizarre as it seems, this is what the left does nowadays. They put on a Serious Face and then they accuse you of being everything that they are now, always have been, and evermore shall be.
And as you sputter in disbelief, they repeat the accusation. Again and again and again.
To the point where an actual convicted domestic terrorist will actually describe a 43-year-old family man and conservative blogger as the real terrorist. [UPDATE: And so will an admitted but non-convicted terrorist like Ayers.]
You’ll hear plenty more about this tactic as the election approaches.
In a fascinating article, it is revealed that former Senator Arlen Specter is every bit the punk he always seemed to be.
Former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) writes in a new book that President Obama ditched him in the 2010 election after he helped Obama win the biggest legislative victory of his term by passing healthcare reform.
Specter also claims that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not uphold his promise to grant him seniority accrued over 28 years of service in the Senate as a Republican.
Specter, who rocked Washington’s political establishment and made headlines around the country when he left the Republican Party to join Democrats in April of 2009, has kept quiet about these slights until now.
The profanity in this video makes it unsuitable for those unsettled by strong language, and hilariously appropriate for everyone else:
It sounds like Specter spent his final days in the Senate simmering with rage over slights from Obama and Biden and Reid.
The article also quotes Bob Dole as telling Specter he would have done the same thing. Another also-ran loser, either lying to his buddy to make nice, or revealing his ultimate squishiness. Either way, it makes me sick.
Thinking of them both out of power, however, makes me smile.
Of course, the two probably aren’t correlated. It’s probably the high cost of gas that’s doing it.
Start with the low approval rating:
President Obama’s approval rating has hit the lowest level ever in CBS News polling, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times survey. The drop may be partially attributable to rising gas prices.
Just 41 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, according to the poll, conducted from March 7 to 11. Another 47 percent disapprove of his performance, up from 41 percent last month.
Mr. Obama’s approval rating was 50 percent last month.
And now the horrific deficits:
The federal government set a new monthly record deficit of $232 billion in February and has notched a total of $581 billion in the first five months of the fiscal year, according to the Treasury Department’s official count released Monday.
That record was set in February . . . our shortest month of the year.
Projected Obama defense: it’s a leap year!
Oh — and there’s another trillion dollar deficit coming this year.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon, you’re talking real destruction of your children’s future.
No matter what you think about the Critical Race Theory debate, it has ripped away whatever shreds of credibility Soledad O’Brien might have ever had.
Also taking a large hit: the reputation of anyone who touted her pathetic attempt to rehabilitate herself on the definition of Critical Race Theory. I’m looking at you, Tommy Christopher.
Airing this morning was one of the more remarkable episodes of media dishonesty you will see this election season. Let’s show you the clip:
This video clip is remarkable on several levels, but let’s start with the blatant, jaw-dropping dishonesty on the issue of whether the discussion of white supremacy is a central part of Critical Race Theory.
Recall that, the other day, Joel Pollak said that Critical Race Theory
holds that the civil rights movement was a sham, and that white supremacy is the order, and it must be overthrown.
Here is what Professor Dorothy Brown says in the above clip:
Critical Race Theory seeks to explain judicial decisions by asking the question what does race have to do with it … it looks at race in America … It’s nothing about white supremacy. When I hear “white supremacy” I think of the Ku Klux Klan. Critical Race Theory is the opposite of that. So honestly, I have no idea what he was talking about.
But — and here’s the kicker! — guess who else has previously written that Critical Race Theory holds that “white supremacy” is the order of the day? Why, one Dorothy A. Brown — the very expert who appeared in the above clip on Soledad O’Brien’s show:
Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.
So why is it that an expert who agrees with Pollak’s position was led to claim that Pollak had it exactly backwards?
Because the video was — say it with me! — heavily and selectively edited!
[Posted by Karl]
Reason’s Peter Suderman recently noted that GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s most recent budgetary proposals are vaporware:
Indeed, exploring his economic policy proposals is rather like touring a Hollywood backlot. Like a street façade on a movie set, Romney’s economic plans are designed to project an outward appearance of functionality. But when you look behind their cleverly made-up fronts, there’s nothing to see. Romney’s policy offerings on taxes, spending, and entitlements consistently lack crucial structural details; his campaign seems intent on emulating the outward appearance of policy proposals without providing anything that’s actually workable.
Romney’s platitudes, while vague, are not surprising. The man whose job he seeks, Barack Obama, took a worse tack. Before the midterm elections, Obama punted our structural debt problem to the Bowles-Simpson commission; he abandoned the chairmen’s recommendations after the elections.
However, on this score, the White House has been trying out some revisionist history with willing organs like the New York Times, claiming Obama has come to adopt most of the recommendations, “though his proposals do not go as far.” The new narrative:
Faced with an even more intransigent opposition after Republicans captured the House in the 2010 elections, Mr. Obama made a tactical retreat, suppressing his instincts to “go big” in favor of a go-slow approach.
He settled into trench warfare, waiting for House Republicans to make their fiscal moves and betting they would get so much criticism that ultimately they would compromise — much like what happened between President Bill Clinton and Republicans in the 1990s. Last summer, Mr. Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner nearly clinched a “grand bargain” reducing deficits up to $3 trillion over 10 years, but the deal fell apart over taxing the wealthy — an issue that continues to divide the parties.
Today, Mr. Obama and Republicans are battling rather than making deals, positioning themselves for an election that will determine which side has the upper hand in December, when critical budget deadlines could force a compromise in a lame-duck Congress.
Mr. Obama said that if he had “put his arms around” the plan immediately, Mr. Bowles recalled, it “would have been savaged by Republicans, and that would have killed it.”
The new storyline bears little relationship to reality. Obama’s proposal in April was to the left of Bowles-Simpson, which was supported by at least three conservative Republican Senators. The “grand bargain” negotiations broke down after Obama rejected the Bowles-Simpson approach to tax reform. And Obama rejected Bowles-Simpson from the start because that plan also included a politically suicidal middle-class tax increase. (It’s worth noting that the left-leaning Noam Scheiber suggests — or hopes — Obama will let the Bush tax cuts die if he gets a lame duck second term.)
The most telling part of the new budget narrative is how bad it makes Obama look, so long as you pay attention. The NYT story begins with Obama’s April budget speech, which “flayed” the plan put forth by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). This was very obviously the action of a candidate campaigning, instead of a president leading, let alone negotiating. Scroll back up to the blockquote — the pro-Obama spin is now that he waited for the GOP to act and then exploit it politically. This attributes vision to the administration that was not observed at the time, but this reimagined flattery-in-hindsight is completely cynical in nature. Even the Ryan plan was a bare necessity to address our ballooning public debt. Obama was completely irresponsible, but we are now told he was clever.
In short, the general election will likely feature a challenger selling vaporware on the budget because the incumbent refuses to offer a serious proposal and will viciously savage anyone offering even vaporware. This is why I learned to stop worrying and love the debt bomb.