Posts Tagged ‘bob beckel’

Take One For the Team

Hilary Clinton fell on the sword by stating she is responsible for the State Department, and subsequently the security downfalls related to the Benghazi Consulate attack. This is true, and about time. This attack happened on Sept 11th, and it is now October 16th. Everything with politics is – wait for it – political. This is no different. There is no reasonable explanation for waiting until now for her to come to this conclusion, but alas, a Presidential debate on the same evening? Does this give the President a fall to guy? Can he now say “See, it wasn’t me”? Can he take a page from Shaggy’s playbook? Yes and No.

He can as Clinton took the blame. This gives him the opportunity to say whatever he wants to deflect the blame to her. She is his scapegoat now. That being said, he can say that Clinton was his diplomat in charge of that, and he entrusted her with that responsibility.

He also can not deflect this issue because of the extraordinarily long response time and changing stories. I understand all to well how atmospheric intelligence gathering works. Stories DO have tendency to adjust as they progress or as the fog lifts on the situation. That is a fact. What does not make sense is the continued attempts at blaming an anti-Islamic video on the attacks, and then an angry mob, and then a protest, and then admitting finally it was none of the above without really stating what it was. Congressional hearings showed clearly that SOMEONE knew this was no random act of violence, but a true and intentional attack against our ambassador and Consulate. For whatever reason, people knew, and lied. That is something Obama can not wipe his hands of no matter the political martyr attempts of officials. Clinton can say all she wants she is taking responsibility that conveniently comes with no repercussions, but there was a cover-up no matter what Chris Matthews claims.

This is really something that no word salad will fix. This is HUGE. Bob Beckel actually claimed today that there are more important issues than this. Wow, an ambassador is killed in a country that we helped overthrow and that is not news to him? Well, to the extent that he does not want Obama to have  a black eye. Fact is, this is big news, and the more the administration lies, the worse it gets for them. Just say what happened and move on already. I hope it comes up tonight, but I hope more that the “moderator” attempts to steer the conversation in a “fair” manner so Obama does not have to answer for this.

Obama seems to be the real flip-flopping career politician with his broken promises, to which the Left claim are simply not big deals (like closing GITMO)

I am actually becoming ashamed to be an American when I see our commander-in-chief apologize for an anti-Islamic video to the UN general assembly in response to our ambassador being murdered. Let that shit swirl in your mouth and see how it tastes. I am thinking more and more Obama has no chance of winning this election. NONE…

– Me


Obstructionist Congress

Obstructionist is defined as:

Obstructionism: deliberate interference with the progress or business especially of a legislative body. Webster’s

Given that, it is safe to assume that an obstructionist is one who partakes in obstructionism. School is over, time to get to it. Democrats and Liberals have been claiming the Republicans are merely obstructionists for their actions in the House since the Republicans took over the majority in that portion of Congress. Approval ratings are in the toilet and both sides blame each other. Well here is the nuts and bolts of the argument.

The Democrats had control of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and the White House. This was the time to bully their opposition as they could push through any legislation. I personally think they got used to that. They enjoyed having the power to pass any law they wanted and fed off the power. Now they are unable to do that resulting in this obstructionist language (whining). From my perspective, the House has passed numerous bills the Senate refuses to even allow a vote on. Would that not make the Senate the obstructionist side of Congress? Well, if that were true, then that means the Democrats are being obstructionists. Now the talking point does not work, so let us ignore what the Senate does, like NOT passing a budget, or taking up a single jobs bill from the House.

Truth be told, the Democrats want it their way or no way. That is their version of “negotiations” all the while their talking heads go out and blatantly lie and change the subject when it is brought up. Need examples? Bob Beckel when pressed about ANY touchy subject gets “angry” and attempts to take over the conversation by loudly attempting to demonize Mitt Romney. Alan Colmes won’t answer a question directly if his life depended on it, and quite frequently talks about something else as if that were the topic at hand. Jehmu Greene gets on her talking points and ignores others are speaking, so she just rambles on about whatever SHE wants to talk about, or personally attacks (Calling Tucker Carlson a bow-tying white boy). Could you imagine the outrage if he would even SUGGEST she were black, much-less adding a stigma to that observation? THAT would be highly racist to call a black woman black. I digress.

This is not really about which side of the aisle you are on, but common sense. If you think the questions are loaded, which they generally are, then don’t go on the shows and give your expert “opinions”. If you are such a political and mental powerhouse, then just answer the question as you see it. I see the problem being that the Liberals don’t really have a position on some issues, so they tend to attack instead of defend their own thoughts. They have none, so they try to muck up the water. This is quite apparent with the obstructionist Congress. If anyone is being obstructionist, then they ALL are. The glory of divided government – it works that way to ensure we are not overloaded with more ObamaCare fiascoes.

So I suggest if the Right is obstructing, then so is the Left. Guess we are paying these jack-wagons to do nothing. I just find it so amusing that in today’s politics if you are the opposition party, you are somehow expected to not be in opposition? Megan McArdle writes a great article on the obstructionist Congress and its history (This is not the first time). To act as though Congress not agreeing is unprecedented – well that in itself is a fallacy.

– Me

Voter ID cont’d

Ok, apparently because I think asking for an ID to show up to vote somehow makes me racist, or insensitive to poor people. The argument is requiring an ID somehow disadvantages minorities, specifically Blacks in the South and Hispanics in the West/Midwest. I often ask opponents of ID laws to explain their positions, and make sense doing it. That is really all I want. Instead, from Allen Colmes, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, to the guy next door, I hear the same old tired talking points backed with no proof or even what I would consider a strong argument. It is always the same. They claim requiring an ID disenfranchises the minorities, while offering nothing to back the claim. They claim requiring ID is somehow unfair, while offering no proof or evidence of that claim.

Look, I am for the voter ID laws due to the rampant and gross abuse of voter fraud. Dead people voting? How can ANYONE say that is ok? Unless the dead people are voting for your side… Now we got to the heart of the argument. Those who are here illegally and not ELIGIBLE to vote, along with those who have passed, tend to vote Democrat. I said it. Nobody on the left wants to talk about that, though when arguing the pros and cons of voter ID laws. Instead they go straight to talking points. You are racist because you want to require someone to show an ID at the voting booth. No, I am also willing to show an ID, matter of fact, I expect to! There has been no single argument as of yet to explain how ID laws hinder any citizen. Show an ID, vote, plain and simple. Why is that an issue? People show ID for much less important things, such as buying alcohol, entering government buildings, flying, and possibly entering an elementary school.

I suggest this is a Leftist attack on fair voting… The left utilizes these weak tactics and false racist arguments in order to fit their agenda – voter fraud being the case this time. I will hold this to be true until someone can finally show me that I am wrong. Explain it to me, that is all I ask, and I will change my stance on the issue. My guess is, nobody can, due to the merits of the argument being flawed from the outset. I wonder if the left would like this if millions of Canadians, Europeans, South Africans, and Israelis were coming here and voting Republican during election cycles? Now THAT is interesting.

– Me

%d bloggers like this: