Tag Archives: Politics

IRS targeting Tea Party groups “has more legs politically in 2014 than Benghazi” says NBC’s Chuck Todd

13 May

 

From Jim Geraghty at National Review:  “Scarborough, Todd Wonder Why Democrats Are Shrugging at IRS Scandal”

TODD: Why aren’t there more Democrats jumping on this? This is outrageous no matter what political party you are, that an arm of the government, maybe it’s a set of people just in one office but, mind you, that one office was put in charge of dealing with these 501c4s and things like that.

SCARBOROUGH:  Why didn’t the president say something on Friday afternoon?

TODD:  I don’t know. Maybe they were distracted by Benghazi. Maybe they made the decision they didn’t want it to be about healthcare. I raised this question – where is the sense of outrage? And the only pushback was, Jay Carney spoke about this at the press briefing and he was pretty strong. I have to say it didn’t sound very strong to me. I don’t know if the White House realizes. I think this story has more legs politically in 2014 than Benghazi.

More here.

 

 

Advertisements

“Legalize Polygamy!”

7 May

Slate.com had a piece week titled “Legalize Polygamy!:  No. I am not kidding”

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

Well, at least the author of this piece is honest.  And she is correct in that much of the opposition to homosexuals getting married is that it could lead to other things, like polygamy.  Apparently the opposition was right to worry about that.  Not only could it lead to polygamy, apparently there are already people out there (like the author of this piece) who are championing the virtues of polygamy already.

She went on to defending a woman’s right to choose:

As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.

I wonder what the author thinks about women who choose to be a Conservative or Republican?  Or who choose to be Pro-Life?  I wonder if they are as praise-worthy as the ones who choose polygamy?

She wraps it up nicely:

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

University Board Votes to Keep Chick-fil-A on Campus Despite Protests

3 May

 

 

Elon University’s board of trustees voted to keep Chick-fil-A on campus despite protests from the “tolerant” student government.

The Elon University board of trustees voted last week to keep a Chick-fil-A on campus despite a vote from the school’s student government to remove the popular fast food chain for its president’s stance against gay marriage.

The movement to oust the chicken sandwich restaurant began last year when company president Truett Cathy stated his opposition to gay marriage…

…Student reaction to the decision has been mixed.

Cameron Saucier, a sophomore at Elon, said he believes there are more important things for the board to worry about than a restaurant primarily known for its chicken sandwiches.

“We’ve had several public forums and committees to discuss whether to keep a fast food chain when we have tuition hikes coming up next year and other issues that need to be addressed,” Saucier stated. “It’s kind of ridiculous.”

He said he believes the entire Chick-fil-A controversy was a result of political correctness taking over his college campus and is representative of how opposing thoughts are not welcomed at Elon.

“Political correctness has just gone way too far on Elon’s campus and the whole incident should’ve never happened in the first place,” Saucier commented.

While Saucier seemed fine with the school’s decision, members of Elon’s LGBT community were offended that the school decided to keep the restaurant.

“The fact that Elon condones [Chick-fil-A] both surprises and upsets me,” Holly Brown, a member of the LGBT group Spectrum, told Elon Local News. “You would think preventing discrimination would be more important than a chicken sandwich.”

 

 

 

“Journalists” Threaten to Quit if Koch Brothers Purchase LA Times Newspaper

1 May

 

With fears that the LA Times could be sold to the Koch brothers, “journalists” there are threatening to quit.

As Tribune Co. emerges from a four-year bankruptcy, the predominantly Democratic city is quivering at the rumor that libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch may be interested in buying the LA Times. The brothers are believed to be the only group prepared to buy all eight Tribune papers, including the Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel and Hartford Courant, as a package — how Tribune would like to sell them.

Good points made here by Allahpundit of Hot Air:

After Meyerson’s piece came out last week, I tweeted it as evidence that the great conservative dream of buying up big-name liberal media outlets and making them more objective had a fatal flaw, namely that the reporters themselves would never tolerate it. Some will walk, others will stay on and defy warnings from the top not to tilt left and then dare ownership to fire them, knowing that martyrdom from the rest of the media awaits. Ace countered that Fox News proves that’s not true: Surely there are plenty of liberals working there, however grudgingly, in the name of collecting a paycheck in a highly competitive industry. They’ll put money over ideology if push comes to shove. Maybe, but Fox isn’t an exact analogue. Fox started from scratch as a conservative network; the Kochs buying the Times would be an invasion of liberal territory, a takeover of a once-eminent serious newspaper. It would threaten the left in a way that building a conservative media outlet from the ground up wouldn’t. Choosing to work for it would, at least at first, be seen by some leftist media types as tantamount to crossing a picket line.

The Newspaper Guild issued a statement that has to be read to be believed: (emphasis mine)

Recently you’ve seen many petitions asking that the Koch brothers not be allowed to buy the Tribune Company’s newspapers. We understand why the Kochs breed this distrust. They are active political proponents of harsh right-wing positions. We’re also not certain that Tribune will listen to anything but money when the final decision is made.

What we do know is that great papers publish credible, trusted journalism online and on the printed page. Whoever comes to own these mastheads needs to understand that protecting newsrooms from ideological taint is no small thing. The future of American journalism depends on the ability to print truth, not opinion.

We call on Tribune to make a pledge that they’ll only sell to a buyer that will protect the objectivity of the news product by making a public commitment to doing so. The Newspaper Guild-CWA and the Communications Workers of America seek your support in this goal.

Yeah, it would be a shame if the LA Times went from being proponents of harsh left-wing positions to proponents of harsh right-wing positions.  I guess the “ideological taint” in their newsroom is cool as long as the taint is left-wing.

Senate Democrats Continue to Show Their True Colors

18 Apr

This is a picture from today’s Senate Budget Committee meeting, led by Kent Conrad (D-ND).  The empty seats are those belonging to Democrats, who barely participated.  What purpose do these people serve and why should anyone reelect them if they have no interest in doing their jobs?

Guy Benson from Townhall.com has more:

What you’re looking at is a view of today’s Senate Budget Committee meeting, at which Chairman Kent Conrad conducted a faux “markup” of his party’s FY 2013 budget resolution.  The near side of the table is where Democrats were supposed to sit.  Granted, this entire exercise was somewhat academic because its resulting product would receive neither a vote in this committee, nor in the Senate at large.  Throughout much of the session, all 11 Republican members were present to do, you know, their jobs.  Of the 12 committee Democrats, no more than 3 or 4 were in attendance at any given time, according to sources inside the meeting.  “[The Democrats] showed absolutely no interest in discussing our big picture problems or offering solutions,” a GOP budget aide tells Townhall. “Those who were there showed up only to make a brief statement for the record, then took off.  The photo speaks for itself.”  That it does.  In fact, in this particular photo, every single Democrat seat is vacant, except for that of Chairman Conrad.  What to make of this?  On one hand, why bother participating in a total farce?  On the other, these Dems could have at least feigned interest in a requirement of their own public service.  Senate Democrats have effectively renounced all pretense of responsible governance.  They have done so in an attempt to avoid losing their precious majority — the very purpose of which, I thought, was to govern.  We face a debt crisis that threatens to obliterate the America we know and love, yet an entire American political team has willfully and deliberately decided to eschew productive solutions in favor of sitting on the sidelines and shouting insults at their opponents.

“Give it a rest, Guy,” I can practically hear you saying, “you’ve been beating this dead horse for months.”  Yes.  Guilty as charged.  This is a disgrace, and I’ll keep flogging this story every chance I get — especially as the MSM largely shrugs and offers its preferred party a pass.  Here we have an entire house of Congress intentionally ignoring the law for political gain, as our nation approaches aterrifying solvency rubicon.  Conservatives cannot, and will not, shut up about this.  Parting thoughts:  (1) Since the year 2009, not one single Democrat or Democrat-aligned member of the United States Senate has voted “yes” on any budget.  They’ve refused to present their own ideas, of course, but they’ve also unanimously voted down every last alternative, from both Republicans and their own party’s president.  Think about that.  (2) Here the Democrats on the upper house’s Budget Committee, other than its retiring chairman.  Name ’em and shame ’em:

 

“Voters are Stupid”

19 Mar

 

Last week a CBS/New York Times poll showed that Obama’s approval rating hit its lowest level ever at 41%.  The very next day – right on cue – the Politico ran a piece titled “How Much do Voters Know?”  Apparently they wanted to make sure that everyone knew that it was stupid voters, not Obama’s performance as President, that led to his lowest approval rating ever.  One example they pointed out was voters’ ignorance on Obama’s handling of gas prices:

For voters to disapprove of Obama’s energy and economic policies may be completely rational. But to reassess a president’s performance in the context of a short-term increase in gas prices is more of a tantrum-like response to a new feeling of discomfort over which the president has relatively little control.

What he failed to mention was that the voters are probably stupid about this because elected Democrats, and media outlets like Politico, blasted the Bush administration for failing to do something about rising gas prices every time they went up.  Democrats, both elected and in the media, did not mind that Bush and Republicans were being hurt politically by rising gas prices, so they did not bother mentioning that there is very little that a President can do to affect global gas prices.   I think the expression goes you’ve made your bed, now lie in it.

Watch this video of Politco’s editor John Harris.  He makes it very clear that he thinks that “voters are stupid.”  Especially if they are making Obama look bad.

Gas Price Hypocrisy. You Can’t Make This Stuff Up!

1 Mar

 

I learned long ago that the media is not interested in credibility.  They criticized President Bush every single time the unemployment rate jumped and the gas price spiked.  They now give Obama a pass for exactly the same thing.    It does not matter to them that they look like complete fools in the process.  They ran story after story about the perils of unemployment and rising gas prices when Bush was President.  Now, with unemployment much higher and gas prices that have doubled since Obama took office, they do stories about the advantages of these once perilous things.  For example, back in 2009, the LA Times had probably the most embarrassing news story that I’ve ever read.  The focus of the story was the “funemployed.”  Funemployed!  Can you imagine any news outlet running a story about how much fun people were having while being unemployed while Bush was President?   Here are a few gems from the article:

  • Michael Van Gorkom was laid off by Yahoo in late April. He didn’t panic. He didn’t rush off to a therapist. Instead, the 33-year-old Santa Monica resident discovered that being jobless “kind of settled nicely”…
  • Every week since: “I’m going to go to the beach and enjoy some margaritas”…
  • What most people would call unemployment, Van Gorkom embraced as “funemployment”…
  • While millions of Americans struggle to find work as they face foreclosures and bankruptcy, others have found a silver lining in the economic meltdown. These happily jobless tend to be single and in their 20s and 30s…
  • They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least till the bank account dries up, they’re content living for today…
  • “I feel like I’ve been given a gift of time and clarity,” said Aubrey Howell, 29, of Franklin, Tenn., who was laid off from her job as a tea shop manager in April. After sleeping in late and visiting family in Florida, she recently mused on Twitter: “Unemployment or funemployment?”…
  • “Funemployment road trip to Portland.” “Funemployment is great for catching up on reading!” “Averaging 3 rounds of golf a week plus hockey and bball. who needs work?”…

Is that not the most ridiculous thing that you’ve ever read?  Particularly after what we saw from the media during the Bush Presidency?

Now back to gas prices.  This video is a good compilation of Democrats and the Democrat Media in their own words.  Don’t let the short beginning discourage you…it is only :30 long.  It is worth it.  The hypocrisy is staggering.