Will HHS Secretary Sebelius fall on her sword? Will Websitegate force Barack Obama from office? Will Republicans ever shut their damn mouths and concentrate, for once, on doing something positive, rather than devoting all their time and tons of public money to futile attempts at de-legitimizing this President? No, no, and hell no.
After initial refusals, followed by scheduling issues, it now appears that Secretary Sebelius will testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday. Expect majority members on the Committee to grandstand vigorously, hoping to compile some tasty video clips they can use for next year’s reelection efforts when they try to convince their constituents to save them from having to go and earn an honest living for another two years.
Wednesday morning, the 29-member Conference Committee holds its first meeting on the budget. Can Democrats and Republicans agree on a way forward? Can anything actually get done? Well, one thing that might get done this week is the passage of a House resolution formally giving the President a wag of the finger for having the colossal temerity to suspend the debt ceiling until February 7. Laissez les bipartisan temps rouler! Continue reading Stormy Monday, 10/28/13
I don’t know what planet Peggy Noonan inhabits, but I’m quite certain its atmosphere is critically lacking in oxygen. There’s no other way to account for her periodic dispatches to Earth via the Wall Street Journal. One of the latest, concerning last week’s opening of the George W. Bush Library, Museum and Crawfish Hut, is a textbook example of oxygen-deprived punditry at its flailing, gasping worst.
Like so many of Noonan’s ruminations, the piece reads like something written well in advance of the event it supposedly comments on, with just enough anecdotal detail added afterward to lend it a flimsy plausibility. And like so many of Noonan’s ruminations throughout Barack Obama’s White House tenure, it follows a paint-by-numbers approach: Peggy Noonan loathes the President, therefore obviously everyone else does too.
“Obama fatigue has opened the way to Bush affection,” proclaims Noonan, and having picked up that mythical ball, she runs like hell with it, dodging historical fact, empirical evidence and mountains of polling data as she makes her way downfield:
One thing Mr. Bush didn’t think he was was superior… He always seemed moved and grateful to be in the White House.
And so would I if five conservative Supreme Court Justices had installed me there over the express wishes of the electorate, but – come to think of it – I don’t remember any occasions where Bush seemed to be genuinely moved or grateful, for anything.
Glibness and triteness fight for dominance in Noonan’s portraits of the presidential attendees. It’s pretty much a draw:
Anyone can soften with age, but [Carter] seemed to have sweetened. That don’t come easy. Good for him.
… [GHW Bush] feels the tugs and tides of history… [the] crowd, and the people watching on TV—the person they loved and honored most was him.
At first I didn’t understand how Noonan knew which ex-President TV viewers “loved and honored most” but then it occurred to me that she probably just phoned all four or five of them afterward to check.
Then she segues into some nice stuff about Bill Clinton, so you just know she’s fixing to move on to some really nasty stuff about Barack Obama. It’s always fascinating to see which adjectives Noonan resorts to regarding the President, when the words she really seems to want to use range from “shiftless” to “uppity” and back again: Continue reading TSW #37
In the televised debate Monday night for South Carolina’s US House seat in District 1, Mark Sanford compared himself to Bill Clinton. Huh? Yep. The House’s most conservative Republican former member found common ground with the former Democratic president. You already know it was not an act of statesmanship. Clinton and Sanford were fallen, pushed by demons and desires into sin. Clinton looked to God for redemption. Mark Sanford turned to Bill Clinton.
Since Sanford brought it up, their sins and failings warrant a comparison, especially when a Republican in a Republican district evokes Bill Clinton as his politician savior. Is this a new thesis of mercy or an invitation to temptation? Their crimes do share elements both wide and narrow.
Narrow, as both had hot scandals. Both lied and were caught, both were in the public eye. Both had affairs. After that, the connection breaks down.
Clinton remains married. His wife is our former Secretary of State. Sanford chose divorce. He is engaged (but not yet married!) to the Argentinian woman with whom he had the affair. Clinton never ran again for public office. Sanford, who fervently supported and then broke self-imposed term limits, wants another chance. Clinton was not fined for the private use of government property. He avoided successful impeachment as the first President for whom the bill of high crime (and misdemeanors!) involved oral sex (it really is sex!). His high crime was lying about his risk-taking; his DNA was saved on a dress!
Sanford instead poetically proclaimed his love at a press conference when he returned from a week’s absence on Father’s Day weekend and asked his wife for an open marriage. He repeatedly confuses and commingles his private and public selves. Voting no on every spending bill and twice on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), he slickly slashed through his own fiscal barriers to fund his impulses and lasciviousness. He flew on his public credit card, in state planes.
His hand in the public till, he jetted off on taxpayers’ money. Eventually, he paid it back. But strange behavior for a man who spent his time in Congress sleeping on a couch and once gave his wife a $25 used bicycle as a combined Christmas and birthday gift! The man who slept on an office cot and voted against every budget took a state plane to get a haircut!
A wide comparison creates more stark differences between Clinton and Sanford. Clinton created 21 million jobs in eight years in office; in four years, South Carolina, with Sanford as its executive, lost 98,000 jobs, with a Republican in the White House. His current priority? In a state in the bottom five of employment, cutting the federal budget.
His claim of attracting Boeing is debunked by a well verified story that state leaders convinced Boeing that legislative support was more important than the governor’s endorsement when they were spooked and on the verge of pulling out because of Sanford’s weird behavior.
Since Sanford initiated a comparison with a Democrat in order to claim the privilege of forgiveness and equal treatment, principles he voted against and failed to fund, another comparison might be effective with a scandal-driven Democratic politician, one who sought and successfully achieved a return to public office—Washington, DC’s former mayor, Marion Barry.
First, I have met Marion Barry and Mark Sanford, and lived in cities and districts where they were elected to govern and procure progress. I have looked closely at the policies of both men and seen them on the campaign stump. Through their period of travails, I have witnessed their efforts at political comebacks. I have seen them put themselves before voters to judge not only policies and promises, but their penalties and crimes.
Marion went to jail. Mark paid $74,000 in fines. Both lost wives. But both are confident, handsome and resilient. Both are polarizing figures, with detractors and supporters. But Mark Sanford is no Marion Barry. He’s worse!
Here’s why: Politics comes down to service, money, and rights.
Mark Sanford, in his service as governor, once walked into the South Carolina State House, carrying a pig under each arm; he named them Pork and Barrel. Termed “an ill thought-out display,” deemed by the Republican Speaker “beneath the dignity of the Governor’s office,” the legislature, controlled by his own party, then promptly overturned, with bipartisan support, 100 of the 106 items he vetoed in the budget. He got his way with six.
This describes Sanford’s duty of service: sleep in his office, sleep with his fiance, proudly turn down stimulus money. And he also touts charter school reforms, including a statewide district, a reorganization of the Department of Motor Vehicles, cutting wait times, restructuring the state’s Department of Transportation, and tort reform. Jobs, wages and health, environmental protection, higher education don’t appear anywhere in his Sanford Seven.
In Congress, he wanted to reform Social Security, a program with a $2.7 trillion surplus (it added $69 billion this year!) and the lowest overhead and administrative costs of any private or public program for income security. He called it “putting tax payers first.” Really?
So he’s known for a little theater, a big temptation to tinker with public money, shorter waits for driver’s licenses, and running around the district this election with new props: cut-outs of Nancy Pelosi and waving hundred dollar bills, claiming this election is being bought—after the Republican National Committee withdrew his funding when it emerged that after repeated warnings, he was charged with trespassing at his ex-wife’s house!
“I had to make the call,” he says in his second explanation of the incident. It was Super Bowl Sunday and his wife wasn’t back yet to receive their 14-year-old son. Enter Mark.
I’m divorced. My daughter always had a key to her mother’s house. But my ex-wife never found me inside. The way you handle custody exchanges is not to enter each other’s dwellings. If the exchange or pickup is missed, you leave a message. It’s simple. “I have the child. You weren’t home yet. Contact me on what you want to do.” You reset. You don’t “make the call” to enter with ease. And then try for the moral high ground in a political ad, under the cover of great parenting skills. (Remember when Sanford was missing on Father’s Day? A time zone away? Out of touch?)
What could have been handled with a phone call or text message (Sanford lived 20 minutes away!) instead led to a full-page campaign ad to spin a clear error in judgment that millions of divorced parents make daily about custody. It also blames the media. It’s arithmetic; his errors multiply.
But what sets Mark Sanford aside from Marion Barry is his unabashed opposition to the dredging of Charleston’s harbor. Charleston ranks three or four in the nation’s busiest harbors, higher than New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile and West Coast ports. Moreover, it has an efficient connecting infrastructure of roads, warehouses and personnel skilled at trade, whose long arms affect the nation. $13 trillion worth of goods are imported through Charleston; $12 trillion are exported. The jobs, income, and multipliers are enormous. Continue reading Mark Sanford Is No Marion Barry. He’s Worse!
I noticed Reboot Illinois promoting this recent quote by Republican candidate for Governor Kirk Dillard.
“When I worked as Gov. Jim Edgar’s chief of staff, we turned a $1 billion deficit into a $1.5 billion surplus, all without an income tax increase.”
That got on my nerves. I guess the implication is that another Governor like Edgar could have balanced the current state budget without tax increases.
Let’s recall that Edgar served as Governor from 1991-1999. He entered office during a recession and governed during the Clinton economic boom of the ’90s. The recession decreased state revenue when Edgar first entered office. As the economy improved, tax revenues increased.
Of course Edgar balanced the budget and increased revenue! A monkey could have had a state budget surplus in the ’90s. Let’s also remember that the economy improved after Clinton raised taxes on the rich and increased the minimum wage; policies most Republicans oppose.
I’d like to hear more if Dillard is writing a thank you note to Bill Clinton. Otherwise, I’d like him to talk about things that were more directly under his control. For example, Edgar’s decision to underfund the state pension system. It’s not nice to brag about a budget surplus when you achieved it by screwing the state workforce. Continue reading Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate takes credit for benefits of Clinton ’90s economic boom
Last month, I visited the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock. It was my second visit since its opening in 2004 so it was nice to see it again, this time with completed grounds and the nearby Heifer International headquarters. It’s worth a visit if you haven’t been.
While walking through the exhibits, I thought back to Obama’s comments during the ’08 primary about the need for a more transformative presidency. He argued the Democratic party needs a President like Reagan, who changed the trajectory of American politics, as opposed to someone like Bill Clinton, who did not.
Some liberal blogs and Hillary Clinton’s campaign tried to gin up outrage by accusing Obama of praising Reagan’s conservative agenda. But, when touring the Clinton Library, it’s easy to see what Obama really meant.
Most of the accomplishments Bill Clinton brags about were undone within a year of George W. Bush taking office.
The Clinton budget surplus became Bush’s record deficits. Responsible fiscal and tax policies that were more fair to the middle-class were scrapped for Paris Hilton tax cuts and government run on credit card debt. Strong job growth gave way to the Bush recession. His reduction in the crime rate ended as soon as the next recession hit. A time of relative peace and good relations with most of the world was squandered by Bush’s war of aggression that made the United States more hated than it has ever been.
In contrast, the damaging aspects of the Clinton presidency are more enduring. Trade agreements destroyed the American manufacturing sector. Clinton’s lending and financial deregulation, done near the end of his presidency, contributed to the housing mortgage collapse. Deregulation left the media in the hands of a few mega-corporations, limiting the diversity of viewpoints in news and homogenizing American culture. All of these were touted as accomplishments in the Clinton Library.
Plus, one can’t ignore Clinton’s adoption of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, his failure to take meaningful action on climate change, and his lack of effort in pushing for universal health care after the ’93 failure. The truth is that Obama isn’t just cleaning up Bush’s mess. He’s also fixing the damage done by Clinton.
If Obama’s first-term accomplishments are defended against future efforts to dismantle them, they will profoundly change America. Consider:
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Reducing dependence on oil
- Saved the US auto industry from collapse and pushed them to modernize their gas-guzzling fleet
- Most significant re-regulation of Wall Street, lending, and credit cards since the New Deal
- Largest investment in clean energy and efficiency projects in American history
- Ended a war, began deescalation of another, and reduced the world’s nuclear weapons stockpile
- Taking student loans back from the banks
- Half a dozen EPA rule changes that will reduce pollution from coal
These are accomplishments progressives spent years fighting for; that previous Presidents have attempted and failed to achieve. The impact of these actions will be felt decades from now. If Obama goes on to effectively deal with climate change, he can easily be listed among the most effective Presidents in American history.
The difference can also be seen in how Obama advocates for progressive ideals. Obama often pushes progressive proposals in language that appeals to moderates. The fact that he’s still advancing progressive ideals is sometimes lost on the netroots, who would rather be pandered to with fiery Kucinich-style speeches. Continue reading Clinton Presidential Library provides contrast to Obama’s transformative presidency
It’s a mercy that I caught every moment of prime time TV coverage of the Democratic convention (mostly via PBS, where the daft commentary was generally kept to a minimum, at least when David Brooks wasn’t talking). If I’d had to depend on certain myopic print and internet pundits for a retroactive overview, I’d be as hopelessly clueless about the event as they are.
Others, of course, aren’t myopic at all; they just have a naked agenda. In post-truth America, anyone can have a soapbox and say just as many patently untrue things as the mood, or the paymaster, might dictate. And it pays; there’s always someone somewhere – or thousands, or even millions – who, no matter the transparency of the falsehoods being pushed, will take the bullshit straight up. Recently, for instance, I ran across an absolutely remarkable Wall Street Journal piece by Charles G. Koch, a gentleman whose name, in some bright and, let us hope, not too distant future, will be as synonymous with “traitor” as Benedict Arnold’s. Koch’s piece is entitled “Corporate Cronyism Harms America.”
That’s sort of like Jerry Sandusky penning an impassioned appeal to street-proof your kids, or A-Rod bemoaning the effect of performance-enhancing substances on baseball, or David Koresh doing a PSA spotlighting the perils of cults.
Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun-Times contributed a piece on the convention that splits the difference between the myopic and the agenda-driven. It reads suspiciously as though it had been written before a single speaker had taken the stage in Charlotte, although Huntley inserted a glib reference to the President’s and the ex-President’s speeches that could just as easily have been based on an intuitive notion of how they would unfold as on the actual speeches themselves. Huntley has a lot to say, most of it so utterly silly it’s hardly worth responding to, but responding to this sort of tripe is why TSW exists, so here goes.
Obama and Clinton tried to beguile the voters with soaring, emotional oratory. But voters have heard it before. This time they might be thinking about results. They might look at Mitt Romney and see success — success in starting familiar businesses like Staples, success in rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics from financial ruin, success in political bipartisanship as a Republican governor who ran a Democratic state.
To paraphrase the Beatles song, Obama’s words may give us a thrill, but they don’t pay the bills — or create jobs.
Well, sure, Steve, some voters could look at Mitt Romney and see success, but I suspect the better informed among them will look at Mitt Romney and see an amoral if not immoral bastard, whose experience “starting familiar businesses” kept him nowhere near as busy as did his experience destroying perfectly viable enterprises by loading them up with debt, selling off their carcasses and pocketing exorbitant fees for killing American jobs. Continue reading TSW #35
“Meet the Press” will feature Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA), and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and the political roundtable includes Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Dee Dee Myers, Joe Scarborough, Bay Buchanan and David Brooks in an episode largely . . . → Read More: Sunday Talks, 9/23/12
ONE: Consider the Barn Burned
One of many sharp contrasts between the Republican and Democratic conventions was how the parties treated their former favorite sons. George W. Bush, a fellow you might remember from his demolition of the economy, his demolition of Iraq and/or his demolition of Republican claims to seriousness as a political party, appeared briefly on video, albeit with his daddy functioning as a sort of fig leaf of supposed respectability.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, appeared live in Charlotte, and delivered a speech as good as any he’s ever given, meaning it was utterly masterful. For those too young too remember the Clinton years, now you know. President Clinton, though, had plenty of company. Deval Patrick, Tammy Duckworth, John Kerry, Julián Castro, Jennifer Granholm, Elizabeth Warren, James Clyburn and many, many others roused and inspired. It was the polar opposite of the sorry spectacle in Tampa the week before, the “highlight” of which was a cranky old man chatting with a chair.
Michelle Obama’s star turn on Tuesday night cut through four years of right wing crap attempting to portray her husband as aloof, out of touch, out of his depth and out of step with that absurd construct Republicans like to describe as “mainstream American values.”
Gabrielle Giffords led the Pledge of Allegiance on the final night, and if you didn’t have tears in your eyes watching it, well, you’re either a Republican or you need to consult an ophthalmologist.
Vice President Biden, as always, came across as that rarest of creatures, a politician I actually do want to have a beer with. Make that a few. And if he feels like cracking open a bottle of Jameson to cap off the evening, hell, yes, I’m in.
And Barack Obama? He did great, but I thought he sounded bone tired. And how could he not be? This election cycle he has the White House to carry on his back as he works the stump, and of course he can’t even play a round of golf without catcalls from the jerks, puds and phonies across the aisle. He’s spent four years pulling the country out of a deep hole, and for his extraordinary efforts he gets called a commie, a foreigner, an imposter, uppity, angry, lazy, a fraud. Why he wants the job again, I don’t know, but I’m damned grateful that he does, and it’s going to be no less gratifying voting for him again than it was the first time.
TWO: Matthew 25:35, with a Side of Orzo
While the late change of venue for President Obama’s Thursday night acceptance speech provided the usual conservative media suspects with plenty of food for thought – and by “thought” I mean “risibly baseless speculation” – it also provided 8,000 pounds of actual food to folks in need in Charlotte.
Bank of America Stadium’s “VIP suites and club rooms” were to have teemed with hungry Democrats on the convention’s final evening, and stadium chef Jon Morey and his staff worked feverishly to prepare a mountain of upscale eats in anticipation. Instead, the Carolina Panthers and the stadium’s food services company Delaware North Inc., with logistical support from US Foods, ended up distributing tons of “pecan-fried chicken, baked orzo, fresh crudités, three bean bake, fresh cut fruit and something called short rib cobbler” to Second Harvest Food Bank of Metrolina, and thence to local soup kitchens, daycare centers and homeless shelters. Food was also donated to local non-profits A Better World and the Harvest Center of Charlotte.
While it’s not known whether any leftover food from the Republican National Convention got to the truly hungry, a convoy of refrigerator trucks was rumored to have made the 200-mile trek from the Tampa Bay Times Forum to 1295 North Ocean Boulevard in Palm Beach. I know this because I just originated the rumor.
THREE: Unfair and Unbalanced
Speaking of Palm Beach, one of the newest residents of its county jail is David A. Kappheim, who earned his stay by allegedly committing domestic battery, aggravated assault and criminal mischief. Why? His girlfriend is a liberal, and he tried to strangle her.
When Kappheim was approached by the arresting deputy, he said “he was very conservative and (his girlfriend) was a liberal.” He also told the deputy that “he felt that he was going to have to kill her,” the report said.
Kappheim also admitted to trying to kill his girlfriend three times, the deputy said. When he was placed in handcuffs, he allegedly had a panic attack and kicked the sheriff’s car’s rear door so hard it was knocked out of its alignment.
While inside of the woman’s apartment, the deputy said he found documents that made him believe Kappheim is obsessed with Fox News and the Republican Party, and that he may be a danger to others.
Rick Scott had barely arrived in Tallahassee in 2011 when he ordered a purge of felons from Florida’s voter rolls. Just this once, perhaps that worked out for the best. Continue reading Take Five (Push, Push Sweet Charlotte edition)
ONE: Suppose They Gave a Primary and Nobody Came
A funny thing happened on the way to March 6. That’s the date on which Virginians will cast their vote in the state’s Republican primary, and the funny thing is that Newt Gingrich, a Virginia resident who has recently been at or near the top in virtually all GOP polling, couldn’t come up with the signatures needed to get on the ballot. Just to add to the fun, neither could Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.
Instead, Virginia primary voters will have to choose between the only two candidates running campaigns savvy and organized enough to have qualified: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Their rivals simply couldn’t meet the state’s dauntingly stringent qualifying requirements, which include finding 10,000(!) Virginians conservative enough to sign a Republican nominating petition, with a minimum of 400(!) signatures gathered from each(!) of the state’s Congressional districts, a Sisyphean task made even harder by the shocking stipulation that those gathering signatures in the state must be qualified Virginia voters(!), just like Virginia resident Newt Gingrich.
The Perry team supposedly submitted almost 12,000 signatures by the filing deadline, while the Gingrich campaign claimed 11,050, but sufficient signatures were found to be invalid to sink both bids.
Gingrich, that longtime veteran of the Party of Personal Responsibility, immediately started pointing his surrogate’s finger at others. In a Facebook post which will live in infamy, campaign director Michael Krull stated:
“Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941. We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days – but in the end we will stand victorious.”
Hmm. Stirring stuff. Krull tersely noted that the campaign is “exploring alternate methods to compete in Virginia – stay tuned.” Actually, one such alternate method was invoked to no avail in a statement last weekend:
Krull said Gingrich… will pursue “an aggressive write-in campaign” to appear on the ballot.
The only problem with that being that write-ins are prohibited on Virginia primary ballots, something that Newt Gingrich (who – it bears repeating – is a Virginia resident) might have known if only he’d ever paid any attention to something other than himself.
But Krull’s larger point remained: Newt is not to blame! It’s society’s fault, man:
“Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot. Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.”
By yesterday, Newt must have realized the “failed system” gambit wasn’t working, so he abruptly switched scapegoats:
… the former House speaker said the “mistake” occurred because one of their workers committed fraud.
“We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. We turned in 11,100 – we needed 10,000 – 1,500 of them were by one guy who frankly committed fraud.”
At this rate, a few more days and he’ll be claiming to have uncovered evidence of an ACORN connection.
Mitt Romney hurried to ridicule his opponent:
“I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor,” Romney said of the Gingrich campaign’s failure to get on the Virginia ballot, which the former speaker’s adviser called a “set-back.”
“I think it’s more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,” Romney said. “You’ve got to get it organized.”
Well, that’s clever enough, though as one CNN reader commented: “Nothing says relevance like references to a black & white, long off-the-air sitcom.” We’ll just leave Mitt to his cynicism. Krull has already reassured Gingrich’s Facebook followers that the campaign “will continue to learn and grow,” and I for one can’t wait. It’s over two months away, but next year’s Super Tuesday is already shaping up to be the most super ever!
TWO: A Candidate Named Sue
Unlike Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry’s not the sort of petulant guy who would throw an adolescent fit about not making the Virginia ballot. He’s the sort of petulant guy who would file a lawsuit over it:
“Gov. Perry greatly respects the citizens and history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and believes Virginia Republicans should have greater access to vote for one of the several candidates for President of the United States,” Perry campaign spokesperson Ray Sullivan said in a statement.
The suit challenges “the constitutional validity of the Virginia statute which regulates access to the ballot by presidential candidates and limits the rights of voters to vote for the candidate of their choice,” the campaign said.
Perry’s filing (PDF available here) claims:
20. Virginia’s requirement for petition circulators to be either eligible or registered qualified voters in the state imposes a severe burden on Plaintiffs’ [sic] freedoms of speech and association because it substantially limits the number of eligible petition circulators.
21. Virginia’s requirement for petition circulators to be either eligible or registered qualified voters in the state is a severe burden on Plaintiff’s freedoms of speech and association because it prohibits an otherwise qualified candidate for the Office of the President of the United States from circulating his own candidate petitions.
22. Virginia’s requirement for petition circulators to be either eligible or registered qualified voters in the state prohibited Plaintiff from recruiting petition circulators who live outside the Commonwealth of Virginia to circulate petitions on his behalf.
Amusingly, Exhibit F to the filing is a web page printout from foxnews.com featuring an AP report about Perry failing to make the ballot.
Now, I’m not one of those activist judges Perry’s always railing about except when he wants one to find in his favor. In fact, I’m not a judge at all, but if I were, my rulings with regard to the above would be pretty much as follows:
20. Virginia’s requirement for petition circulators to be either eligible or registered qualified voters in the state limits the number of eligible petition circulators to a maximum of roughly 5,000,000 people, based on available tallies by the Virginia State Board of Elections in 2008 and excluding several years of population growth, thereby imposing no demonstrable burden on the Plaintiff.
21. The inability of the Plaintiff to find a sufficient number of petition circulators from a pool of roughly 5,000,000 people suggests that a significant number of Virginians might dispute the Plaintiff’s claim to be a “qualified candidate for the Office of the President of the United States.”
22. It is undeniable that Virginia’s requirement for petition circulators to be either eligible or registered qualified voters in the state prohibited the Plaintiff from recruiting petition circulators who live outside the Commonwealth of Virginia to circulate petitions on his behalf, but the Court is frankly baffled by the Plaintiff’s willingness to believe that people from other states like him any better than Virginians do.
In layman’s terms, suck it up, Rick. Case dismissed.
THREE: Pop Charts
Gallup released its annual year-end “Most Admired” lists on Tuesday. Hillary Rodham Clinton tops the list of most admired women for the 10th consecutive year, earning a nod from 17% of survey respondents, while Barack Hussein Obama, also at 17%, is first on the men’s list for the fourth consecutive year.
The President had no meaningful competition for top slot; placing a very distant second on the men’s list, at 3%, was George W. Bush, which I interpret to signify that respondents were nearly six times more likely to admire someone who cleans up messes than someone who makes them.
Sharing 2% were Billy Graham, Bill Clinton and Warren Buffett. Steerage on this little ego voyage was occupied by Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Pope Benedict and Newt Gingrich with 1% each, along with President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Thomas Monson, a ranking not approached by the two Mormon presidential hopefuls.
Oprah Winfrey placed second to Secretary Clinton at 7%, with the First Lady a couple of points back at 5%. From there, the women’s list meanders down into murkier territory, with the bottom five names on the list each at 2%. These last include Queen Elizabeth, Margaret Thatcher, Ellen DeGeneres, Laura Bush and none other than Michele Bachmann, who makes the list for the first time, proving perhaps that if you’re in the news sometimes, by gosh, someone’s going to admire you. Continue reading Take Five (Yes, Virginia edition)
ONE: And arrest his ass if he dares to campaign in Maricopa County!
On a hunch, I just did a Google search using the words “sheriff idiot” and six of the first 10 results referenced Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the shame of Arizona’s Maricopa County. In fairness, one of the six used the word “idiot” only to describe some protestors that Arpaio squared off against last year, and in another hit, idiot status was actually being conferred on Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, though Arpaio was heavily featured in the article.
Still, my little search is a testament to just how famously objectionable and objectionably famous Arpaio is. “America’s toughest sheriff” (as he likes to describe himself) has been offending people for nigh on 20 years now, but according to fellow idiot Jerome Corsi of WorldNutDaily, he’s just found a way to raise his game to a whole new level:
… Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND he has assigned a five-member “Cold Case Posse” to investigate the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate…
“This investigation does not involve politics,” Arpaio told WND. “I listen to all the residents of Maricopa County who come to my office with complaints, regardless what their politics are.”
Yes, you read that right. A county sheriff in Arizona has assembled a team to sniff President Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate. I guess the oddest thing about this is that it doesn’t seem odd at all these days. Since the right wing has devolved so far down the food chain that it now ranks below plankton, this seemed almost inevitable.
… Arpaio is responding to a complaint brought to his office by representatives of the Surprise Tea Party in Surprise, Ariz., who have expressed in writing their concerns that the voting rights of Maricopa County residents in the 2012 presidential election could be compromised if Obama were to use a forged birth certificate to establish his eligibility under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution.
I surely do wish Sheriff Joe had been on this illegitimate president thing 11 years ago, but at least he’s on it now. His crack(ed) team consists of – whoa, not so fast, bub! Their names are secret:
The identities of the five individuals assigned to the Cold Case Posse investigation of the Obama birth certificate are being withheld from the public, in order to protect the individuals involved from both public reaction and from questions that are certain to arise from the media.
Well, whoever the hell they are, Corsi reports that the team consists of:
… volunteers with professional experience in conducting investigations, including individuals chosen because of their professional backgrounds in law enforcement, as well as lawyers who have participated in criminal or civil cases and individuals with specialized skills in fields ranging from accounting to conducting criminal forensic examinations.
Godspeed you, then, anonymous sleuths! You follow in the shambling, frustrated footsteps of intellectual titans like Donald Trump and Orly Taitz, and you are the last faint hope for all those who like their presidents 100% white.
Oh, and because this operation has 501(c)3 credentials, you can actually donate to the effort, dear reader! Corsi helpfully provides a mailing address for just that purpose. Or you could just take that money, shred it, burn the shreds, collect the ashes, put them in an urn, shove the urn off a cliff, sweep up the ashen shards, drop them down a mineshaft, seal the shaft with cement, then take the shuttle and nuke the whole thing from space. Your choice. Continue reading Take Five (True Lies edition)