Is the White House throwing Hillary under the bus on the Benghazi attack?
[HotAir.com]
posted at 4:44 pm on October 12, 2012 by Allahpundit
My guess is no, they wouldn’t dare, but the Daily Caller and Tom Maguire make a fair point. In the span of about 18 hours, we’ve had Biden and Carney each insist that blame for Benghazi’s security failures lies outside the White House. It’s State that’s responsible for protecting U.S. diplomats in the field, which means if the buck doesn’t stop with Obama here, then it must stop with you-know-who. Normally that wouldn’t be a problem, as cabinet members are expected to take the heat for the president when something goes badly wrong. But in this case you-know-who has her eye on running in 2016 — possibly against (heh) Biden himself — and surely doesn’t want Benghazi staining the foreign policy credentials she’s worked hard to build.
Throw Bill Clinton, official Obama campaign surrogate, into the mix and we’ve got the makings of a nuclear clusterfark of ego, ass-covering, presidential ambition, and Clintonian drama. Edward Klein says the chain reaction is already in motion:
In fact, since the convention, Clinton and Obama have had a serious falling-out over two issues: the president’s preparation and lamentable performance in his debate with Mitt Romney, and the question of who should be assigned blame — Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — for the intelligence and security screw-up in Benghazi, Libya…
Our Disgraceful President
[Townhall.com]
Jul 15, 2012
Warren G. Harding was corrupt, as was Richard M. Nixon. Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were like blind golfers, looking for a hole, any hole, every hole. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were power-mad narcissists convinced they knew best how everyone else should live. Jimmy Carter was clueless. But as we approach the 100-year anniversary of the first of these men to serve as president, all have been lapped in debasing their office by its current occupant: Barack Obama.
It is understandable President Obama would not want to run on his record. Who would? “Give me four more years so I can make up for the first four” is not the stuff of campaign slogan greatness.
But even that wouldn’t work because, as he told CBS News this week, “The mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.” In other words, his only flaw is he’s too damn close to perfect.
It’s like someone bragging about being the most humble person on the planet.
Obama Contributor, Who Helped Enact Assault-Weapons Ban, Ran ‘Fast and Furious’
[CNSNews.com]
Former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama’s transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.
“There’s clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement,” said Burke.
EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21
[PatriotUpdate.com]
Friday, May 4, 2012
One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we haven’t heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.
Of course, there were President Bill Clinton’s establishment of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order in 1993 and President Obama’s “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” executive order in 2009. And, many federal agencies have been incorporating sustainability into various aspects of their organizations. Still, virtually all Stop Agenda 21 grassroots activity has been focused on the local and state levels.
The establishment of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern of denial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. Even though the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development proposals from the UN’s ’92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSD’s statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21. We have evidence that federal officials were taking pains to make the PCSD appear to be completely separate from the UN’s Agenda 21 because J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, said the following in 1998:
Clinton on Obama’s Economic Performance: ‘Got a Very Difficult Hand to Play’
[TheBlaze.com]
- Posted on September 18, 2011 at 4:15pm by
Christopher Santarelli
Waiting for an uptick in the economy during President Obama’s first term? Former President Bill Clinton says don’t hold your breath:
After reading a quote from President Clinton’s former adviser James Carville, suggesting that President Obama take a complete change of direction and “fire a lot of people,” President Clinton countered Carville’s assertion that things are not going well with:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
SHIFT IN WASHINGTON STATE BOOSTS GOP SENATE HOPES
Signs of an unmistakable Republican trend are brightening the chances of a GOP takeover of the US Senate. Yesterday, a new Rasmussen Poll showed Republican Dino Rossi one point ahead of incumbent Senator Patty Murray. The Rossi lead – obviously within the margin of error – came after he had trailed by three points in previous polling.
Most significantly, Rossi led by two points among those who had already voted using Washington State’s early voting option. Murray led by a point among those who had not yet cast their ballots (some of whom would presumably never do so).
If Rossi wins in Washington State, it would be the ninth Republican takeaway with ten needed for control. Right now, Republicans lead in the races for the following Democratic held Senate seats: North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Nevada, Colorado, and Washington State. Only in West Virginia has the Democrat, Governor Joe Manchin, gained in recent days. If John Raese, the Republican nominee, can close the three point gap that now separates him from Manchin, the Senate will go Republican.
In the past week, Republicans have improved in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Washington State, the signs of a trend are developing.
Riding A Wave Of Common Sense
PersonalLiberty.com
October 25, 2010 by Bob Livingston
The elected elites are on the ropes… and they know it.
How else do you explain the meltdown going on in Washington and in political races across the country?
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have taken to insulting their own voting base — and all other Americans as well. Obama recently said, in effect, Americans are scared stupid by their economic circumstances. It’s not the first time Obama has sniffed the great unwashed and found his olfactory lobes offended. If you listen carefully to his speeches, it happens fairly often.
Since they’re so frightened, Obama posited, Americans are turning to those irrational and ignorant Tea Parties for comfort and supporting whacky “out-of-the-mainstream” Tea Party candidates. What other reason could be behind the front-runner status of people like Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Ron Johnson and Pat Toomey — candidates with little or no prior political experience but who say they stand for the Constitution and smaller government?
Of course, the idea of smaller government is anathema to the elected fascist class of both parties and chattering elitists and globalists dominating the mainstream media. They all believe that anyone that didn’t graduate from a prestigious university is incapable of providing for himself and making rational decisions. So a large government is not only unavoidable… it’s necessary.
The Politician was outed last week in my column, aptly titled, The Politician. He or she is of and for the Government.
Politicians are wordsmiths — twisting words, using doublespeak and other semantic gymnastics to confuse the issue, appear both for and against a position depending on the audience and otherwise obfuscate the meaning and purpose of the legislation they pass.
Pelosi Knows the Tea Party Has Its ‘Most Effective Weapon’ Aimed At Her
BigGovernment.com
Glen Templeton \”God Bless Good Old Boys\”
Harvard Professor V.O. Key, Jr stated in his seminal work, “The Responsible Electorate”: “The most effective weapon of popular control in a democratic system is the capacity to throw a party from power.” That weapon is aimed at San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who hijacked the peoples’ House.
There has been much said about the Tea Party blaming its views on right wing talk show hosts and political pundits. Many believe the Tea Party was formed by a Democratic Party and Administrations false conclusion that their success in the 2008 election was a vindication of their beliefs, the swing of the electorate response to the campaign positions taken, an indication of the intuitive mood of the people and, finally, as the respect it represents by an intelligent electorate.
Key concluded: “This narcissistic approach assumes it’s most repulsive form among election winners who have championed intolerance, who have stirred the passions and hatreds of people, or who have advocated causes known by decent men to be outrageous or dangerous in their long run circumstances.” The great Presidential scholar Richard Neustadt called it the pivotal nature of character to Presidential performance and James Barber of Duke University enhanced it with his classic book “Presidential Character”. They both concluded that it was character more than policy that determines Presidential performance.
Poll shows Obama re-elect number at 38%
HotAir.com
posted at 8:48 am on September 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
A new poll from Politico has bad news for the White House as Barack Obama prepares for the grueling task of re-election. Despite a long history of American voters choosing to re-elect its Chief Executive, Obama only gets 38% of likely voters to agree that he deserves re-election, while 44% say they will definitely vote against him — and another 13% say they’re considering doing the same:
A significant majority of voters are considering voting against President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, expressing sour views of his new health care law and deep skepticism about his ability to create jobs and grow the sluggish economy, according to the latest POLITICO / George Washington University Battleground Poll.
Only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected, even though a majority of voters hold a favorable view of him on a personal level. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.
What’s the problem? ObamaCare and a lack of job creation have completely undermined Obama’s image as a moderate, pragmatic President:
It’s Obama’s policies that are hurting him right now. By a 13-point margin, voters are down on the health care law. In an especially troubling sign, more than half of self-identified independents — 54 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of the law, compared with just 38 percent who have a favorable opinion.
And by an 11-point margin, voters trust congressional Republicans to create jobs more than Obama. His approval rating stands at 46 percent, according to the poll of 1,000 likely voters, conducted Sept. 19 to Sept. 22.
Timeline: The Sestak Bribe and the White House Coverup
DIRECTORBLUE
May 30, 2010
The contradictions between Congressman Joe Sestak’s account of a job offer and the belated, official White House response are, in a word, stunning. The controversy isn’t dying down and it won’t be going away. In fact, I suspect it has only just begun.
13 February 2009: Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter votes for the controversial $787 billion Stimulus package, leading to an outcry by Pennsylvania voters and Republicans nationwide. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that both before and after the vote, Specter is courted as a Democratic convert by Gov. Ed Rendell and Vice President Joe Biden.
Sometime between February and July 2009: A member of the White House staff (possibly Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) offers Rep. Joseph Sestak (D-PA), who is running against incumbent Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), an unspecified job in return for him dropping out of the race. The rationale: the White House believes Specter has a better chance of winning against a GOP contender than Sestak.
26 March 2009: President Obama announces his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy.
28 April 2009: After months of speculation, Specter switches to the Democrat Party.
18 February 2010: Apparently unaware that job offers by an administration in exchange for political favors are illegal, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) readily admits that he was offered a job to drop out of the Senate primary race with Arlen Specter during an interview with Philadelphia TV newscaster Larry Kane.
CWNews Posted Comments