News in review 2/27

Week in review of some of the best “news” stories the news could come up with. Some weeks require a summary of the news nuances, in no specific order.

There was llama-gate, a pair of llamas evading capture in Arizona as a panicked public looked on in fear for….llamas and everything else. No word on the amount of chopper fuel expended to track their antics. They have been safely captured, cowboys win 2-0.

Friday, the Team Xtreme race team announced its Sprint Cup car was stolen from an Atlanta hotel lot, in an unmarked trailer. It has since been recovered but caused Travis Kvapil to withdraw from Sunday’s race. He was very good about the incident and thought it was a joke at first.

The world seemed to go Lady-Gaga crazy for a dress that no one could agree on the color of. Call it coincidental marketing genius for the designer; it had everyone weighing in with their opinion on the color. No word from Bill Clinton on what constitutes a blue dress. But someone from the WH press did ask Josh Earnest if Obama had an opinion on it?

Think of what else is going on while we are covering llamas live and trying to determine the true color of a dress?

Congress invents its own version of the movie “Groundhog Day” by at the last minute passing a one week extension on Homeland Security funding. Guaranteed to keep you glued to your seats for next Friday’s sequel.

Then Sec of Denial, John Kerry weighed in on the state of world-wide threats:

Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally, less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century.

Crazy Clapper testifies:

“When the final counting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such a data has been compiled. About half of all attacks as well fatalities in 2014 occurred in just three countries: Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

Something like a switch of rolls for Clapper.

America: he loves me — he loves me not!
But the human interest story of the week was probably a 12 year-old boy in Georgia who defended Rudy Giuliani’s comments on whether Obama loves America.

Not to be outdone in inflammatory rhetoric, Louis Farrakhan rose to the challenge with this comment.

“Giuliani says Obama does not love America. And instead of apologizing, they say he doubled down, he tripled down, he said, ‘I’m not taking this back. He didn’t grow up like we grew up.’”

“How did you grow up, Giuliani? A privileged cracker? [applause] Or I should say, a privileged devil?!”

Which prompted conservatives to demand that each Democrat, one by one, be asked if they agree or not with Farrakhan’s remarks? Inquiring minds need to know.

David Axelrod also gave an interview (last week) in which he said:

“I’m proud of the fact that basically you’ve had an administration that has been in place for six years in which there hasn’t been a major scandal.”

Apparently the litmus test for whether something is a major scandal is now whether it has a dramatic effect on Obama’s “image” or approval polls. Not a major scandal? That is some of what passed for news. It’s a wrap.

Christie in Crisis

Has Christie crossed the line?

There are a couple problems with the Christie story. For now I’ll accept it as he has told it.

Here was another article on it: http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/19915/a-few-thoughts-on-the-christie-scandal/ It’s good basic information.

When Christie says he didn’t know anything about it, I will accept that premise. But when I do that a few things happen: first it says he was unaware of a major undertaking of his team. That hurts because it could indicate incompetence. See to believe all the “know nothing” claims from Obama, in scandal after scandal, you would have to conclude that he is incompetent.

And if Christie knows nothing, then it actually makes the case that an executive in government can excuse the actions of his subordinates by claiming he/she did not know anything about it. See Hillary and Obama’s records on how that works. Try that in business. Fairness to Christie, he did claim he was still responsible.

So I do have a problem that he did not know what was going on. Remember even Axelrod came to Obama’s defense claiming government is so big and vast that he could not possibly know what was going on. Interestingly, David Axelrod was one of the first to claim Christie did the best he could in this situation. (was that a compliment or an insult…which is it?)

If we were out to make the case for “ignorance is an excuse” in office, Christie’s apology-presser goes a long way in doing that. If we are to buy it, then we also grant that Obama and Hillary could be ignorant to what was going on, say, in Benghazi. Or even in the IRS.

I now have a problem. Is it now a legitimate excuse to just say you didn’t know, even though you should have and you are being paid to know? I don’t think that is a good enough excuse. I don’t think it was for Obama, nor for Hillary, nor for Holder, nor should it be for Christie. Ignorance is not a good enough excuse. We know how politicians rely on plausible deniability (i.e. Being such that plausible disavowal or disclaimer is possible).

Just what we need, another excuse for Obama’s conduct and abuse of power. No thanks.

RightRing | Bullright

Axelrod: look at the Republicans, not Obama

Trot out the political guru, Axelrod, and the diversion campaign. Obama has more problems on his plate than a Chinese buffet but somehow “it’s the Republicans, stupid”. Thus sayeth Axelrod. That’s the condensed message. He told Chris Mathews:

David Axelrodent
Misinformation Department

I think a lot of this emanates from the nature of the Republican base, and a lot of these guys are throwing red meat to the base. … You mentioned Speaker Boehner, the real question is the Republican leadership going to tolerate that? Boehner has yet to really stand up to these folks, and this is something that really deserves to be repudiated and you’d hope he would. One thing I would say though, Chris, delegitimization of presidents is something that we’ve seen now. It happened under the Clinton administration. We all remember how vituperative those times were and there were people on the left who aimed some of that at George W. Bush. Now, admittedly, it’s spun out of control now, because these folks are in control of the Republican party. So it’s at a fevered pitch now.

Of course, what else can he say. Its a broken record. Now reincarnate the Clinton years to show how bad they were, after running on Bill Clinton’s legacy and record. The bipartisan, unifier in chief resorts to straight partisan politics and attacks. Well, it is all they know.

His statement leaves lots of room for anyone who hasn’t yet had an Obama lobotomy to remember the truth. The truth about Bill Clinton and George Bush for starters. “Some of that at Bush”? And now “it’s spun out of control” because the Chicago thugster-in-chief  is having to face some inconvenient truths, chased with a miserable record. Can’t have that. So attack Republicans rather than deal with the truth and his record of failure. Now he runs around the country to rally his same old, low-info voter base.

But take a closer look at Axelrod’s words: (italics)

I think a lot of this emanates from the nature of the Republican base, and a lot of these guys are throwing red meat to the base.

That “nature of the Republican base”–whatever that is — must be super busy, in its lack of real power; but no way could it cause all these problems. Then, supposedly it uses them as fodder against Obama? – crazy. The “red meat” is just the scandals and problems your boss created all over the place. Now he wants to blame his opponents for both. If you want to blame them for something…(read on)

You mentioned Speaker Boehner, the real question is [is]the Republican leadership going to tolerate that?

That’s right, except is he going to tolerate what the out of control liar in chief is doing? Just how much and how long will the GOP leadership tolerate that?

Boehner has yet to really stand up to these folks, and this is something that really deserves to be repudiated and you’d hope he would. – that needs repudiated.

No, wrong again. The problem is not Boehner standing up to these folks. If anything when will he listen to them? You have it backwards. It’s his job to represent the people, and not for the people to represent them.

But when is he going to stand up to this dictator hell bent on ruining the country and the Constitutional process, just for his twisted ideology? That’s what the people want to know — not “is Boehner going tell people to shut up?” when the problems emanate from the White House and all around it. And when are we going to hold Boehner accountable for the failure to stand up, and not doing more to prevent it? That’s what people want to know.

One thing I would say though, Chris, delegitimization of presidents is something that we’ve seen now.

Did you happen to notice George -“not our president”-Bush in the last decade anyplace, or how he was treated? Delegitimized from election day on.

Oh now you have to reach back to Clinton to make your appeal. Clinton at least did work with Congress. But Obama’s reelection was all about the 2nd coming of Clinton. It was about how he would work with others. It was about following Clinton’s lead, wasn’t it? He even enlisting Clinton to deliver the closing arguments because the thugster couldn’t.

It happened under the Clinton administration. We all remember how vituperative those times were and there were people on the left who aimed some of that at George W. Bush.

Oh it did, poor Clinton. Everyone but you remembers, even the left. I think the verbal abuse and attacks leaving ugly scars was mostly on Bush.

Now, admittedly, it’s spun out of control now, because these folks are in control of the Republican party. So it’s at a fevered pitch now.

Still do not remember the Bush years or history, do you?. Now “admittedly it’s spun out of control”? A super-sized admission! How big of you. Now it’s at a “fevered pitch”, really?

Where were you the eight years preceding Obama? Right, in Chicago planning. Remember the “insurgent campaign” you ran. Heck, Dubya was Obama’s entire target of it. Obama decided to run against the guy that wasn’t running. Are you really talking “fever pitch” now?

He also told  MSNBC earlier that Syria images were compelling and hard to ignore.

“There’s nothing more impactful than film, pictures, images, and those images are searing. Everyone has seen them,” David Axelrod, former senior adviser to Obama and MSNBC contributor, said on Morning Joe. “Plainly, there needs to be action. The question is, what action?”

Obama was elected partly because of his skepticism about the war in Iraq and his belief of not becoming involved with issues of unknown cost, consequences, and duration, said Axelrod, who added the president needs to consider all options before taking action.

“I expect that they will take action, whether it’s the no-fly zone…or surgical strikes, we’ll see,” Axelrod said.

Partly? Oh, stop it David, he was elected on that premise. It was his whole campaign. It is where he differentiated himself from Hillary. He was the anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-action candidate. As irony and reality would have it, here he is combating weapons of mass destruction in Syria.That while we are busy dealing with this WMD in the White House, along with the media’s complacency about it.

Now I am waiting to hear how Republicans are responsible for this, or maybe Bush. I think Axelrodent is the proper name for him.

photo