24 March 2012
11 March 2012
09 March 2012
Remember then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama blasting Hillary Clinton for employing lobbyists? No? Maybe this will mine your memory:
Well, it appears the president could use some memory mining as well:
Obama administration hires lobbyist it attacked in 2008
If only this was the first time he'd ignored his promise concerning lobbyists:
Obama Already Breaking Promises On No Lobbyists In Administration
And this latest is on the heels of last month's flip-flop on Super PAC:
Barack Obama, Super-hypocrite on SuperPACs
If only that were the first time he lied about campaign finance:
Obama Flip-Flops on Public Campaign Funds
Another take on the story that won't die.
Did Fluke ride a black helicopter into that mock hearing? Speaking of which, how is a law student who can't afford $9 / month birth control from Target able to take all of this time off school and afford to jet all around the country? But I digress. Here's Bill O'Reilly's drop.
08 March 2012
According to the Santorum Camp, Romney lost Super Tuesday because, well, he should have crushed Santorum like a sheet of addictive bubble wrap, having outspent him by a margin of 4 to 1(though they shamelessly shine the disparity to something like 10 gazillion to 1). It's a loss because Romney spent all that cabbage and barely won. And Team Santorum makes this claim with such conviction that you almost believe them. But given more than a second's worth of reflection and the logic unravels. By their argument, Obama didn't actually win the presidency because he outspent McCain 3 to 1. The New York Giants aren't really the Super Bowl Champs because Eli Manning threw for more yardage than Tom Brady. Michael Moore doesn't really outweigh Calista Flockhart because he eats more Twinkies by a margin of 4 to 1. In their attempt to excuse the results they miss one undeniable and final point: Mitt Romney won and the convention delegates added to his coffers are the proof.
Interestingly, Obama supporters also claim that Romney lost yesterday. Their reasoning: they really, really want to face Rick Santorum in the general election come November. Pretty please with strawberries and whipped cream on top. Their stated reason is a little less obvious, however. According to the Left, Romney lost because he didn't actually eliminate the competition. He showed "remarkable weakness as a frontrunner" because there are still other Republican hopefuls in race. In the same way Michael Phelps repeatedly shows his remarkable weakness as a swimmer because he wins most of his races by fractions of a second. In the same way Bill Clinton showed remarkable weakness as a presidential candidate having only receive 43% of the popular vote the first time he was elected. The outcomes were close. Santorum, Gringrich and Paul refuse to quite after losing even more ground in the delegate count. So obviously Romney lost.
It's easy to recognize why these to factions are saying what they're saying. They want to sway voters. They want to claim Romney is weak. They want the infinitely unelectable Santorum on the ballot. But sometimes the truth is just the truth. Romney won. Whether because of the money, his message or his humming organization, Romney won. And as he racks up delegates it's becoming clearer by the week that he will eventually be the Republican nominee.
While I'm on the subject of Super Tuesday, I have to say something of Rick Santorum's "victory speech" at the end of the night. First of all, could this guy possible give longer speeches after every friggin' primary and caucus? Good Lord! I felt like I was back in my childhood listening to my mother rattle off incessantly about the wonders of cod liver oil. And second of all, I know his words sound tonally appealing to some, but do they ever listen to what he's actually saying. My favorite speech moment was when he dropped that "rights don't come from the government." Really, Rick? Ever heard of the Constitution?
05 March 2012
Here's a bit of shocking news.
Sandra Fluke appears to be little more than another in a long line of fakes, planted in that mock trial by the Democratic party in order to create an issue. The innocent 23-year-old co-ed who was so maliciously abused by Rush Limbaugh is actually a 30-year-old women's reproductive activist who was fully aware of Georgetown's policy concerning the coverage of contraceptives before she enrolled. In fact, the opportunity to make a name for herself by fighting for others to pay for her safe sex is exactly why she went to Georgetown in the first place.
Lots of new data concerning the hypocrisy of the left. Here is Kristen Powers talking about the double standard on the left. Perhaps most telling is her description of Bill Maher's repeated inappropriate, misogynistic rants. Not only did President Obama fail to condemn Maher or personally call his victims as he did Sandra Fluke, he has accepted a million dollars in contributions from Maher's political Super PAC, leaving us to wonder if President Obama is the real slut in this story.
04 March 2012
Last week we heard that Mitt Romney's campaign was over if he lost Michigan. After all, the Great Lakes State is Mitt's "native" land. It's where he was born. Never mind that he hasn't live in MI for 40 years. Forget the fact that he was actually governor of a different initial-M state. Nope, according to tedious talking heads in the media, if Mitt lost the mitten he might as well pull up his political stakes and get back to his life as an ultra-successful business dude.
And Mitt almost lost Michigan. The open primary state was ripe for an upset with Democrats crossing over to vote against the man from Mass . . . I mean, Michigan. By now most informed folk are aware of the Santorum campaign robo-calling Democratic households in Michigan, urging them to vote against Romney because he didn't support the auto industry bailout (interestingly, Santorum's message didn't mention that he was against the bailout as well). And despite Santorum's later claim that it was "Reagan Democrats" who crossed-over to notch his name, we also know through exit polling that the Democrats who voted for Santorum were heavily the voters who considered themselves "very liberal" and "against the tea party." In other words, since Santorum is the darling of the tea party movement, we know the Ds voting for him were note voting out of love . . . unless you mean they were voting out of love for the guy they really, really want Obama to face in November.
But despite it all, Romney won his "native state" in much the same way Reagan won his years before (for the record, that would be Illinois). So now I find myself asking the question I heard an analyst drop during the last news cycle. If Michigan was Romney's "must win" what about Santorum and Gringrich? Where is their "must win." When will they finally drop out of the race.
I've heard the arguments that this contentious primary is good for the Republican brand. That it vets the candidates and the winner will have already suffered so many attacks that any assault Obama attempts will be old news. But I don't buy it. First of all, Obama will not use the same attacks. Where Santorum and Gringrich attack Romney as a moderate liberal, Obama will paint him a Bush conservative. And even more concerning, the Republicans are spending hoards of campaign dollars, lightening their coffers in a drastic way before what is sure to be a Scrooge McDuck level presidential race. Let's face it, Obama outspent McCain by a ton the last time around, and given the way the Left has mastered campaign finance violations, we can expect more of the same in the next campaign. We need to bring this Republican bloodletting to an end!
Yesterday Romney won the non-binding Washington state caucus, so again I ask: what will it take before Santorum and Gingrinch drop out of the race? And how much damage will they do to the chance of beating Obama before that time has come?
Many of you are aware that The Khaki Elephant is not exactly a Rush Limbaugh nuzzling blog. I'm sure he's a nice fella down deep, but he tends to take a few too many liberties with the facts for my tastes so I prefer my bombastic conservative a little more to the blond side.
That said, I do have something to say about Rush Limbaugh's recent comments and follow on apology concerning Georgetown law student , Sandra Fluke. Folk on the left are accusing Limbaugh of trying to "silence women" when he made the following comments after Fluke testified before a Democratic-held mock hearing on why she should be able to score free contraception while having sex in college:
Limbaugh's word choice aside, what was he really saying about Fluke's complaint? The left wants to pretend this about the right of women to have sex, or their access to contraception. But that has nothing to do with the comments at hand. The question is not whether or not contraception should be available, but whether or not somebody else should pay for their fun. Whether or not tax payers should have their insurance premiums increased to support college students sex habits. And if so, shouldn't we pay for their beer too?"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."
Limbaugh went on, "She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."
Labels: Rush Limbaugh
03 March 2012
What is it with former Democratic presidents that they just won't go away? Is it their constant desire for attention? Their belief that they alone know what's best for the rest of us who merely bumble our way through life? Their need to feel loved by as many people as possible without clammy hugs and kisses?
But you know, maybe this time we should actually listen to Carter. Unlike economics or admiration of murderous totalitarian dictators, racism is a subject that the Georgian seems to know very well. In fact, he's taken a swim in its swirly eddy many times.
Here are some highlights of Carter's Racist drops that were pulled from Hot Air.
And we haven't even touched on Carter's documented history of antisemitism.
- Carter’s top campaign staffers were spotted distributing grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm celebrating with two black men. Sanders was a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, and in the photograph he was celebrating a victory with two players who were pouring champagne over his head. Carter’s leaflet was intended to depress Sanders’s white vote.
- “The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr.”
- Carter criticized Sanders, a former governor, for preventing Alabama Gov. and notorious segregationist George Wallace from speaking on Georgia state property. “I don’t think it was right for Governor Sanders to try to please a group of ultra-liberals, particularly those in Washington, when it means stifling communication with another state,” said Carter.
- “‘I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time,’ Carter told a reporter. Carter also said to another reporter, ‘I can win this election without a single black vote.’”
- Upon receiving the endorsement of former Democratic Gov. Lester Maddox, Carter responded by praising the life-long segregationist: “He has brought a standard of forthright expression and personal honesty to the governor’s office, and I hope to live up to his standard.” Maddox had not only refused to serve blacks in the restaurant he once owned, but he had also greeted civil rights protesters with a gun, and made sticks available to his white customers with which to intimidate them.
- “The campaign paid for radio ads for a fringe black candidate, C.B. King, in an effort to siphon black votes away from Sanders.”
- “Then there was the radio commercial in which Carter said he would never be the tool of any ‘block’ vote, slurring over the word ‘block’ so that it could be mistaken for ‘black.’
Andrew Breitbart reveals the left, even in death
Hey, aren't Republicans supposed to be the mean ones? The selfish, angry, bigoted, narrow-minded, hate-filled minions of the Dark Lord, Jesus Christ? That's certainly the story told by the Left and their sack mates in the media, yet time and again we see hatred spewed from the Left that neither would nor could be contemplated by the rest of the right-thinking world.
The loss of Conservative firebrand Andrew Breitbart revealed yet one more example of a Liberal mentality that claims to embrace diversity yet spits the ugliest of vitriol on all who refuse to share their ideology . . . and the attacks continue even in death.
One can certainly understand why the Left wasn't particularly fond of Breibart, he had a knack for unveiling their inner secrets. It was journalist/blogger Breitbart who was behind the undercover ACORN videos, exposed proof of the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal and reported repeatedly on hot-button topic like racism in the NAACP, Obama Campaign finance irregularities and . . . well, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party.
But even through political disagreement, shouldn't there be a certain amount of respect when someone dies?
Apparently not from the Left when you read the number of hate-filled blogs and tweets aimed at Breitbart immediately after the announcement of his passing. And before some of you claim that it happens just as much from those on the Right, I say PROVE IT! Find me the proliferation of ugly statements made by the Republicans after Ted Kennedy's death. Take some time. Search. Dig. Indiana Jones your theory. You won't find it.
Despite intense disagreement with Kennedy's ideology, Republicans could not lower themselves to this kind of dialogue.
Still don't believe it? Come on. Find me all the tweets on a prominent Lefties death that match this selection of representative tweets collected by The Blaze.
@darrenfiorello: Andrew Breitbart died? Is it wrong that I’m happier about that than when they got bin Laden and Saddam?
@readjunk: I wonder if the state of Douchery will lower it’s flags at half mast?
@johnkapp: Andrew Breitbart was a racist, sexist, homophobe. Good riddance.
@towndrinker: good riddance to bad rubbish. no reason to mourn someone who made it their business to make this world a less pleasant place. #breitbart
@Sttbs73: It is very hard to have sympathy for an evil person like Andrew Breitbart! I am done being NICE.
@jeffglasse: Andrew Breitbart now enjoying afternoon tea with Hitler #goodriddanceyouhack
@darrenfiorello: People don’t die at 43 of natural causes. But if you’re going to live a lie, you may as well die one.
@AlmightyBob: @AndrewBreitbart haha youre dead and in hell being a gay with hitler
@Chico Delainky: I wonder how
#AndrewBreitbart died? If he was found with some type of foreign object in his butt., that would be really funny.
@neuteronomy: You know, I don’t often speak ill of the dead, but
#AndrewBreitbart was a detestable waste of air.
@PaulyPeligroso: Andrew Breitbart died doing what he loved. Not having a heart.
@TheSocialest: Good riddance Breitbart. Hopefully they put James O’Keefe in your casket.
@gabriel0923: Andrew #Breitbart has died having been finally consumed by his revolting hatred! The world is better off without him!
@dufus: Did we cry when Hitler died? No.. #Breitbart see you in hell asshole
@dac2527: Satan calls Andrew Breitbart home… Good riddance!
@TheLibertyLamp: Andrew Breitbart destroyed lives based on LIES, I will not be some phony liberal and pretend condolences. ROT IN HELL ANDREW U BASTARD!
@dollada06: Andrew Brietbart is dead, its no Rush Limbaugh but i’ll take it! #GOP #DFL
@ChickGoneBad: They say Andrew Breitbart died of natural causes. Sure, that having that much evil inside you will almost naturally kill you.
@JerryWaxman2: His kind of journalism, and the “gotcha” out of context videos deserve an early death. http://huff.to/wJlRNS via @HuffingtonPost
@GOP_Hates_You: @AndrewBreitbart Burn in HELL
25 February 2012
Oh, I know he's smart enough to have made a gazillion dollars, but how stupid does he think we are? Warren Buffet doesn't pay a lower tax rate than his secretary because of the system's intent, he pays a lower tax because he has a team of tax experts working the system every way they can and dropping his billions into tax shelters that the government can't touch. Oh, and in his faux generosity Buffet also fails to mention the millions he made through the government bailout of banking institutions that he fully supported after he had previously invested there (and that adds up to a sweet $10 billion from his investment in Goldman Sachs alone).
Yet here we are, still watching Buffet grace his favorite media outlets talking about how unfair the system is . . . the very system he milks for millions like Old McDonald on methamphetamine. Like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, I'm tired of Buffet's insincere rhetoric. If you want to pay more taxes, Warren, shut your pie hole and write a check.
11 February 2012
It Doesn't Matter Reason #1) Face it, Santorum has not been splattered by the mud-slinging yet. Yet. While Romney was spending millions exposing Gringrich's baggage and Newt was promising to run a positive campaign as he repeatedly claimed that only a legit birth certificate distinguished Mitt from Obama, Rick Santorum quietly continued to deliver his smiling, I'm-the-electable-and-silly-sweet-conservative message to voters. Well, after Tuesday's success, that is sure to change. Romney will turn his well-funded scorched earth tactic on Santorum, and it won't be pretty. The former Pennsylvanian Senator has plenty of baggage to serve as fuel for the assault. I'm sure Romney will focus overtly on Santorum's historical penchant for ear marks or his sketchy use of Pennsylvania resident tax credits while essentially living in Virginia, but don't be surprised if some of the stranger things in Santorum's past start to enter political dialogue through back channels. Like his equating of homosexuality to bestiality and incest. Or how he blamed liberal politics for sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. And while some may think it touching or simply a product of intense grief, a significant number of 21st century voters are certain to find it a little bizarre that he brought home the corpse of his dead baby for the kids to "cuddle."
It Doesn't Matter Reason #2) Newt is still in the race. Santorum and Gingrich have spent most of the primary season trying to out-conservative the other, speechifying as though only DNA results could disprove each as a Reagan/Thatcher love child. The result: those who are just voting for the conservative label are splitting their vote. Meanwhile, Romney will continue to pull in some conservatives, most moderates, and many who believe he is the most electable in a general election. Advantage, Mitt.
It Doesn't Matter Reason #3) Santorum's lack of money and campaign capability. Plain and simple: Santorum just doesn't have the money to keep up. Oh, I know that like the work of a conscientious hooker, it's not all about the money. If it were, than the Republican candidate wouldn't have a chance for the White House come November. In the last presidential election, Obama outspent John McCain by a nearly 3 to 1 margin and you can pretty much bet the same will be true the next time around. So even Romney can't hope to simply buy his way past the liberal campaign finance machine to score the White House. But you still need a bushel of green to make any credible, long-term run and Santorum just doesn't have the cabbage. In addition, I'm just not impressed by Santorum's ability to campaign. He has the Conservative shtick down, but his debates and interviews are forgettable. For example, when he . . . . see? Gone. And let's face it, his past is filled with as many lost elections as victories.
Oh, It Doesn't Matter Reason #3) Romney didn't campaign in Missouri and only gave a nod to Minnesota. So only Colorado caught him by surprise. I doubt that will happen again.
07 February 2012
Every once in a while there's an interesting gem posted on those social networks and here's one I snagged from a friend. I figured the time is right to post it on the heels of yesterday's "the Presidency doesn't matter" riff.
If you needed more proof of liberal media bias, just look at the orgasms created by Friday's announcement that unemployment in January dropped to 8.3 percent. By contrast, these same folks were practically suicidal as the jobless rate dropped to 5.6 percent when George W. Bush was President in January 2004.Shepherd then goes on to to provide several examples of how the Obama's numbers are presented as proof for canonical consideration while Bush's superior stats were signs of the apacolypse. Worth a read, but only if you have a strong stomach. I only made it halfway through before my Pepto run.