Palin 2016′

Columnist offers backhanded ‘Palin 2016′ endorsement
The Los Angeles Times‘ Charlotte Allen wrote yesterday that a presidential bid by Sarah Palin in 2016 might be what the GOP needs. Two of the Reasons: Uninformed voters would love her and she’s better looking than Hillary Clinton.From Allen’s column:

Gabriel Malor, writing for the New York Daily News’ blog, pinpointed another reason: By focusing his campaign mostly on serious economic and political issues such as the national debt and tax incentives, [Mitt] Romney failed to take into account the fact that large segments of the electorate neither know nor care much about serious economic and political issues. What they — a group sometimes euphemistically called “uninformed voters” — do know and care about are the tugs on their emotions, fears, revulsions and heart strings provided by hours and hours of uninterrupted television watching. …Hardly anyone could be more blue collar than Palin, out on the fishing boat with her hunky blue-collar husband, Todd. Palin is “View”-ready, she’s “Ellen”-ready, she’s Kelly-and-Michael-ready.Furthermore, looks count in politics, and Palin at age 48, has it all over her possible competition, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be 69 by election day 2016 and who let someone talk her into adopting the flowing blond locks of a college student, making her look like Brunnhilde in a small-town Wagner production. Men love Sarah Palin, and she loves men.

s John King tweeted that his “

Media foam at the mouth over Mitt’s ‘birth certificate’ joke
Mitt Romney cracked a joke at a campaign stop this afternoon in Michigan which has people on both sides of the aisle in a frenzy.  Some say it was a poke at birthers, yet birthers are taking it to mean that Romney’s coming on board with them.  Some say it was a poke at liberals who whisper about Romney’s racist undertones. In response, liberals are… well, continuing to call Romney a racist.But I disagree with both of these assumptions. I think the joke was aimed squarely at the media.Let’s face it — the “birther” movement has had no bigger fan than the mainstream media who likes to paint all Republicans as hateful racists who cling to God, guns and conspiracy theories to protect themselves from an apocalyptic invasion of minorities and gays, or something. So while the reporters at the Romney rally today gasped at Romney’s supposedly overt racism, the audience got the joke, responding to Romney’s dry humor with applause and laughter.It’s a perfect example of a “secondary reaction” joke, Ace of Spades HQ writes. “The joke itself is lame. The humor comes from imagining the reaction of the thin-skinned Obama and his hyperprotective partisans in the press.”It’s true — the reaction of the media to Romney’s joke has been hysterical:

– Never one to overreact, MSNBC calmly discussed the “breaking news” of Romney’s quip and labeled it the “most despicable bigotry we can imagine.”  (Seriously? Dear MSNBC, open a history book once in a while, will ya?)– Mediaite’s resident boy-who-cried-racist Tommy Christopher proclaimed that MSNBC’s Touré was right in accusing Romney of using “n***rization” as a campaign tool to “racially marginalize” President Obama.–CNN’s John King tweeted that his “birther comment” ruined a perfectly good day for Romney.–Reporters at the Huffington Post were beside themselves, saying it was “awkward for Romney to play on the birther conspiracies that have plagued Barack Obama.”  Uh, awkward for whom, exactly?–Salon.com headlined their report, “Romney Goes Birther,” and said the joke was proof the GOP candidate was “doubling down on whiteness.”–The Washington Post also weighed in, writing that Romney’s joke “injected the toxic issue of birtherism into an already bitter presidential race.” Wah-wah.

Like the media and any other “rational” person, the Obama camp also didn’t think Romney’s joke was funny:

“Throughout this campaign, Governor Romney has embraced the most strident voices in his party instead of standing up to them,” said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. “Gov. Romney’s decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America.”

The outraged Obama campaign wasted no time in trying to use this “,Nike Tn 2013;new low for Romney” as a springboard for a new email fundraising push.  Yet the Obama campaign itself has repeatedly joked about the conspiracy theories surrounding President Obama’s birth certificate — they even make money off of it!Media foam at the mouth over Mitts birth certificate joke(Image: BarackObama.com)Gee, you know who else likes to joke about birthers?  Barack Obama does:I think perhaps Romney should just randomly insert the words “birth certificate” into every stump speech he delivers from here on out — it’s the best way to get media attention.  Obama accuses Romney of being a tax-dodging felon and the media yawns.  Romney cracks a birth certificate joke and they soil themselves.  I bet if Ann Romney added “birth certificate” to her remarks at the upcoming convention, the media wouldn’t hesitate to broadcast it.

Crazy In Love’

Obama continues to dodge press, play games
It’s been eight weeks and counting since President Obama took a question from the White House press corps, but that doesn’t mean he’s staying out of the spotlight.Yesterday, I noted how Obama had no trouble making time to sit down for interviews with celebrity gossip groups like People and Entertainment Tonight. Well, today the tour of softball interviews continues with the president refusing to answer any serious questions.In an interview with 93.3 KOB.FM,gucci 長財布, the President of the United States responded to some tough questions from the pop music station, including:If you had a super power, what would it be?

“This sounds — it’s kind of a weird super power, but if I had something that I could immediately wish for, I would love to be able to speak any language. Now that’s a weird super power — it might not come in handy to rescue folks from a burning building. But I’ve always wished that whatever country I’ve went to, whenever I’ve met somebody who spoke a different language that I could right away speak their language. I’m a big believe in making connections with people.“But If it’s like an Avengers super power, then I think the whole flying thing is pretty good…Yeah, you can’t beat just swooping around. That looks like it’d be fun.”

What’s your favorite song to work out to?

“My iPod has a bunch of different stuff. I’ve got a bunch of old school, a lot of R&B, Stevie Wonder, Earth, Wind, and Fire, Marvin Gaye, but I’ve also got a bunch of contemporary stuff: Jay-Z, Beyonce, you know, Nas. You name it, I’ve got it. I will say right now that if I’m really trying to get my heart rate up, “Crazy In Love” is a pretty good song to work out to.”

“Oh, ‘Crazy In Love’?!  I love that song!  I think I’ll vote for this guy!!” says no one, ever.Is the campaign bus comfortable?

“It is.”

But the most substantive and honest answer of the day may have come in responding to this hard-hitting question: ”If we were to visit Chicago, what place would you recommend to get some really good soul food?”

“First of all, there’s a great place on the West side called MacArthur’s, it’s sort of a family restaurant and you name it, you got it. Fried chicken, greens, cornbread, black eyed peas. There are probably three different types of hot sauce sitting on the table. You can’t go wrong there. But when you come to Chicago, you’ve got to try all sorts of stuff. You’ve got Al’s Italian Beef, you’ve got deep dish pizza — gotta check that out. You probably need to get a hot dog at Wrigley field. I know I’m a White Sox fan, but it’s a nice place to watch a ball game. So don’t worry, you will not lose weight if you come to Chicago.”

Just, wow.  Is this what “restoring honor and dignity” to the White House looks like?After the fluff fest, one of the hosts was particularly proud of the interview.  It seems not everyone has lost their reverence for the man-child-in-chief:

“I just flirted with the President of the United States of America,” the co-host of the show says after President Obama hangs up. White House correspondents, meanwhile, are begging for a suggestive glance from across the room.

Here’s the audio:h/t Politico

t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’

How will Obama explain Bill Maher to Sasha & Malia?
That’s the question Democratic political analyst Donna Brazile voiced during a CNN segment covering the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh’s comments about contraceptive cheerleader Sandra Fluke. Earlier this week, President Obama invoked his daughters’ names in denouncing Limbaugh’s remarks.  When he phoned Ms. Fluke to thank her for her outspoken support of his contraception mandate, the president said he had his daughters in mind.“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” the President said of Malia and Sasha at a press conference on Tuesday.  “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”That’s a very noble idea that I 100%  agree with.  Limbaugh’s comments were inappropriate and people in America should be able to speak freely without fear of being attacked or slandered.  But, as many have pointed out in the time since Limbaugh publicly apologized for his remarks, the president surrounds himself with people who say much more despicable things than Limbaugh — they just tend to agree with him more than Limbaugh.  Obama’s top campaign strategist will soon appear on Bill Maher’s prime time HBO hour of vulgarity and the president’s own campaign super PAC isn’t about to return misogynist Maher’s million-dollar gift or dis-invite him from entertaining the president’s other wealthy friends.So while the president is rightly worried about his daughters having to defend themselves against being labeled “slut” for voicing an opinion, how will he simultaneously explain hobnobbing with and accepting money from someone who makes a living out excoriating those he disagrees with by using routinely sexist and vulgar language?Enter Brazile who warned against making this issue a case of “the left said, the right said.”  Instead, both sides need to embrace basic standards of civility, she said.Watch (via Mediaite):

support in those communities was rising slower than it was among whites.The exit polls suggest both groups have now moved in large numbers toward supporting gay marriage. Their shifts may not be bigger than other demographics

Republicans have lost a big opportunity with minority voters
I have long believed that social issues including gay marriage would be a key for Republicans to connect with minority Latino and African American voters. Connecting with these voters on issues of morality and faith represented a huge opportunity to make inroads with a voting bloc Democrats have dominated for decades.But since President Barack Obama’s “evolution” and new-found support for gay marriage, the tides seem to be changing and the GOP may have missed its window of opportunity:

When California voted for a gay marriage ban in 2008, 70 percent of African Americans voted for it, and when North Carolina overwhelmingly passed a similar measure earlier this year, many cited the black vote as a big reason. (Shortly after the ban passed in North Carolina, President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage.)On Tuesday in Maryland, though, 46 percent of African Americans supported gay marriage. And according to national exit polls, 52 percent of both black and Latino voters who turned out Tuesday said they support gay marriage in their states.(The largest shift came from black women, of which 59 percent now support gay marriage, compared to 42 percent of black men — a huge gender gap.)That’s a big turnaround from recent years. In 2008 and 2009, a Pew Research Center survey showed just 28 percent of African Americans and 39 percent of Latinos backed gay marriage. And by 2010, support in those communities was rising slower than it was among whites.The exit polls suggest both groups have now moved in large numbers toward supporting gay marriage. Their shifts may not be bigger than other demographics, but the fact that they are shifting at all (after sticking to their opposition) is what’s really significant here.And given their affinity for President Obama — 93 percent of African Americans and 71 percent of Latinos voted for the president — it’s not unreasonable to think that his support had an impact.

that Romney left Bain prior to the company’

Hypocrite Obama hits Romney over Bain connection, but ignores his own
In a new ad out this week from Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, the president blaming Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for job losses in the steel industry.Bain took over GS Technologies in 1993 and the steel company declared bankruptcy in 2001. The ad features former steel workers lamenting about what happened to their company. “We view Romney as a job destroyer,” one worker says. The campaign spot also adds a bit of class warfare into the mix: “Those guys [Romney, Bain, etc.] were all rich. They all had more money than they’ll ever spend, yet they didn’t have the money to take care of the very people that made the money for them.”WATCH:It’s worth noting, however, that Romney left Bain prior to the company’s bankruptcy in 1999 to manage the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Perhaps even more noteworthy is President Obama’s own connection to the venture capital firm which he criticizes so harshly. While Romney wasn’t a part of Bain when GS Technologies went bankrupt, Jonathan Lavine was.  Lavine — a top Obama bundler — is managing director at Bain Capital and scraped together more than $100,000 for President Obama’s campaign in 2011.Hmm… They had more money than they’ll ever spend, yet they didn’t have the money to take care of the very people that made the money for them…You really have to appreciate the galling hypocrisy of President Obama.NRO’s Robert Costa also notes:

So according to the Obama team’s logic, Romney, who had left Bain, is responsible for GST Steel’s demise, but Lavine, who was there, is not?

Despite the glaring hypocrisy, the Obama camp plans to run the “Steel” ad in a handful of swing states — Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Virginia.In related news…

President Obama’s in New York City today, doing two pricey fundraisers, with tickets going for $5,000 and $35,グッチ,800 respectively. And apparently, it occurred to his campaign that attacking Wall Street vehemently the day of high-dollar fundraisers wasn’t a smart move.So during a conference call today attacking Mitt Romney for the GST Steel bankruptcy and layoffs (which occurred two years after Romney had ended his involvement in the day-to-day workings of Bain), Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter was quick to stress that it wasn’t that the administration objected to private equity firms. “No one is questioning the private equity industry as a whole,” Cutter said, even as she laid the blame for the layoffs at Romney’s feet, saying that he lacked the values to be president and had shown himself incapable of caring about the middle class.So, in other words, it’s okay – great, even – to be a private equity investor and have the wrong values about middle class people until you decide to stop writing checks and start running for office.

s imagination…

A picture is worth 1,000 words: Texts from Benghazi
Two years ago, an innocuous photograph of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from TIME captured the internet’s imagination…A picture is worth 1,000 words: Texts from BenghaziAt the time, Clinton was working aboard a C-17 on her way to Tripoli.  But the internet had a field day hilariously speculating what she was reading on her Blackberry…A picture is worth 1,000 words: Texts from BenghaziBut in the wake of the 9/11/12 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, Clinton’s texts have taken on a more serious tone, thanks to conservatives…Via Revealing Politics:A picture is worth 1,000 words: Texts from Benghazi

but this is a family site so I’

RNC gospel singer BeBe Winans slammed with racist, hateful Tweets
Continuing to parade their ignorant assumptions about who should and should not be a Republican, liberals on Twitter unleashed a fury of hate on famed gospel singer BeBe Winans after Mr. Winans delivered a stunning performance from the Republican National Convention.Here’s just a small sample of the vile things people had to say. Twitchy has many more, but this is a family site so I’m not going to publish them here…RNC gospel singer BeBe Winans slammed with racist, hateful TweetsI went to YouTube to see if I could find a video of Mr. Winans’ phenomenal performance and stumbled across this… a “reporter” bluntly asking the black singer, “Why are you here??”Now, I could be reading too much into this, but I sensed soem implied stereotypes in the reporter’s question.  Like many black conservatives are asked every day, I inferred that this reporter was wondering what attracted a black man to the Republican Party — because, you know, conservatives are all Uncle Tom racists and what-not.I want to first and foremost commend Mr. Winans for not turning and walking away from this woman. Instead, he gives the best possible answer to this obnoxious question: “Why not be here? … We are all Americans first.”  When the reporter assumes Mr. Winans must have been paid to attend (because seriously, why else would he?!?!), he responds: “Not a dollar given.”  He goes on to explain that his music asks for Americans to come together.  ”If we unite then there’s nothing we can’t accomplish… I didn’t get paid a dime,Nike Free, but I’m glad I came.”Bravo!If someone asked me this insulting question, I. Would. Explode.  I would turn into this crazy-annoyed sarcastic Hulk-of-a-person and start shouting about how this is a free country.It’s as if liberals think blacks aren’t allowed to be Republicans. It’s as if liberals think blacks shouldn’t be Republicans or that blacks shouldn’t perform in front of Republican audiences.  It’s such an insulting degradation of character and one of the most blatantly racist things I’ve witnessed in a long time. This “reporter” should be ashamed of herself.

s campaign are also selling these would-be free signs. And in Romney’

Gingrich campaign selling things that should be free
Newt Gingrich campaign selling yard signs, photo opsUsually candidates seeking public office give out free stuff to their supporters in order to boost name recognition. Yard signs made of cheap cardboard and some wire,Cheap Nike Free Run, for example.But Newt Gingrich‘s campaign is so strapped for cash that it’s actually selling yard signs for $10 on its website.Even worse, while in Delaware yesterday the campaign was charging supporters to take a photo with Gingrich. $50 per photo.UPDATE: Mitt Romney‘s and Rick Santorum‘s campaign are also selling these would-be free signs. And in Romney’s case, they’re $15! But neither are charging for photos.

denounced the “

New York Times and labor unions reject effort to recall governor
Yeah, you read that right.The New York Times and the labor unions — led by the AFL-CIO — announced their rabid opposition to the recall of a democratically elected governor.They even went so far as to label the recall effort “an unwise move with potentially damaging ramifications” being led by “wealthy, opportunistic politicians”; a plan that could create “instability”; a “rendezvous with potential political chaos”; a “hijacking of an election”; a “tangent of mischievous politicking”; a “sorry indulgence”; and a source of “mischief” — among other descriptions.Of course, their cries of woe have nothing to do with the efforts to recall Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker, whose efforts have saved the state millions of dollars and increased the protection of personal freedoms for those who don’t want to join labor unions.Their state of outrageously outrageous outrage was over the efforts to recall unpopular and failed California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis back in 2003.The New York Times editorial board believed that the recall effort was the “Wrong Remedy in California” (as the editorial headline read):

Recalling Governor Davis, however, is not the answer. It is an unwise move with potentially damaging ramifications.

Why would it be so damaging? Eeeeeeeeevil politicians — especially those nasty Republicans — would see this as an affirmation of their supposed belief that elections don’t really matter (apparently those no-good GOPers were emboldened by their successful stealing of Florida for George W. Hitler Bush in 2000):

Previous recall attempts in California have run out of money and steam. This one is more durable. Darrell Issa, a Republican congressman from San Diego County, has contributed over $1 million to the current effort. This, too, should give Californians pause. Allowing wealthy, opportunistic politicians to overturn fair elections when politicians fall out of favor with the public is unhealthy.

Of course, though the Wisconsin recall of a successful governor would “help” the state of Wisconsin, the recall of a failed governor in California — in whom even liberal columnist and Michael Douglas’ spurned lover (Darn you, Catherine Zeta-Jones!) Maureen Dowd could find little to like, calling him an “unappetizing” figure who sought to “[keep] the focus off his own transgressions” — would serve only to create disaster . . . or something:

Californians can still avoid a political quagmire by voting to keep the governor they already have — at least until the next general election. Otherwise, a state recovering from an huge deficit will face an even worse form of instability.

The Times editorial board didn’t stop there with their claims that California would suddenly burst into flames. In an editorial titled “California Chaos,” the Old Gray Nag warned:

California is now rolling inexorably toward a rendezvous with potential political chaos that it does not need in its present fragile condition and that somebody in authority should have found a way to avoid.

Despite the fact that even Democrats and liberals noted that Davis was a loser (Dowd quoted one Dem consultant saying “People can’t stand the guy. It’s truly a remarkable feat to spend your whole life in public service and engender no personal loyalty.”), as the California recall process moved along, the Times attempted to convince the country that a recall of a duly-elected governor was such a bad idea that it was becoming less popular even among it’s main supporters and financiers who were finally coming around to the Times’ way of thinking:

Even Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican millionaire who bankrolled the recall petition, has begun openly questioning his investment in this tangent of mischievous politicking.

Naturally, the labor unions (who effectively serve as money launderers for the Democratic Party) backed Davis and refused to back a recall effort. Here’s what the Times news pages reported in “A.F.L.-C.I.O Joins Fight Against California Recall” about Big Labor’s position:

Gov. Gray Davis of California, turning to one of the Democratic Party’s traditional pillars of support, received the backing today of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in his recall election.The executive council of the national labor organization, meeting in Chicago, approved a resolution that opposed the recall and endorsed a central component of Governor Davis’s strategy: that no prominent Democrat should run as a possible successor to him.“We call on all state leaders in the Democratic Party to stand united with the governor, and stay off the recall ballot,” the resolution said. The council’s vote was unanimous, said one official in attendance, Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, a group that took a similar stand over the weekend.

Wait. Now why would unions — who are leading the charge against Scott Walker in Wisconsin — oppose the recall of a governor whose efforts were hurting the entire state, including the unions’ many middle-class dues-paying members? Principle. It’s all about principle — standing up for elections and not letting them be “hijacked” by political opponents. Or so they claimed:

The California Labor Federation sent a letter on Monday to the state’s Democratic elected officials alerting them to the “unequivocal position of the labor movement” on the recall.“I am telling people that you have to stand on your principles,” Mr. Pulaski said in a telephone news conference from Chicago. “We are not guided here merely by the short term or practical reaction of politics, but a principle upon which we stand, that this is a hijacking of an election.”

Joining the labor unions’ chorus, the Democratic National Committee — which happens to support the recall of legally elected and highly successful Gov. Walker — denounced the “partisan Republican effort” to recall the sitting executive:

In another show of solidarity with Governor Davis, the Democratic National Committee issued a letter today, signed by nine presidential candidates, opposing the recall and calling it a “partisan Republican effort” aimed at furthering “the right-wing agenda” of President Bush and other Republicans in Washington.The letter called California an important “Democratic holdout” against the Republicans, sidestepping any mention of Governor Davis’s low job performance ratings or the state’s budget problems.

As the recall campaign was coming to a close in early October 2003, the Times editorial board lamented the atrociousness of the whole recall effort that “loosed” all sorts of “mischief” on the Golden State:

The recall campaign that is — finally — coming to a conclusion has further demeaned the governor’s office into something resembling a civic ducking stool. Time and hope remain for voters to defy recent polls and reject the recall of Gov. Gray Davis as a sorry indulgence.

Not to be outdone in the left’s attempt to explain to the nation how awful and un-American the recall of a governor is, Times columnist Clyde Haberman cried:

No matter who wins and who loses in the California recall election today, one result is already certain: the circus out there makes one proud to be a New Yorker.On second thought, drop the word ”circus.” It isn’t fair. The circus deserves better. It at least lets you know going in who the clowns are.This electoral exercise — there, is that better? — shows that New Yorkers have far more fortitude than Californians. Don’t you think we have plenty of politicians who inspire voter remorse? But do we mope and whine about it, and then try to undo an election months after it was won fair and square?

Sooooo, the recall of an elected governor is horribly evil horribleness that undermines democracy with pure partisanship from opportunistic jerks seeking to overturn fair elections — except when the agenda of the progressive left and the funding of Big Labor are at stake.