From Around the Blogroll: #Benghazi edition

From the Pirate’s Cove:

Obama Pivots To Jobs Again, Goes To Texas, Learns Nothing

By William Teach May 9, 2013 – 7:39 pm

Question: what happens when a POTUS who is economically illiterate heads to a state that is doing much better than the United States as a whole? He asks how they’re doing it? Brother, you forget who’s (unfortunately) POTUS

(Politico) President Barack Obama doesn’t have that much to show for the first four months of his second term. His outside game failed to prod Congress on gun control or the sequester. His inside game is a work in progress.

So the president traveled to Texas Thursday to talk about the one area where things do seem to be working for him right now: jobs.

And what did he do? He brought the Neverending Campaign instead of listening to Those Who Do. And, yup, more complaints about Republicans, who, darn it all, are blocking his wonderful ideas written on cocktail napkins that would fix everything, just like when Democrats controlled the House and pissed away what will easily be over a trillion dollars (with the interest) with Stimulus. Plus all the other spending. Which got us nowhere.

More at the link.

The President might have a case about the wicked Republicans blocking his programs — though Mr Teach noticed that our economy started improving slightly once the Republicans won the 2010 elections and regained the ability to block his programs — and, of course, those arguments are swallowed hook, line and sinker by his sycophants, but in taking his road show to the Lone Star State, he was taking it to the very place where the economic policies advocated by the Republicans are most in actual force, and where the economy has been doing better than anyplace else in the nation. CEO Magazine said that, for the ninth year in a row, Texas was the best state in the union in which to do business, while concomitantly telling readers that the worst state for business is sunny California. Two states, with two very different economic and business philosophies — Texas’ policies are straight Republican economics while California, controlled by very liberal Democrats, hews to the high tax-and-spend philosophy of President Obama — and two very different economic results. We have noted the “success” of California’s economic model several times here.

From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:

Obama Threatens To Veto Debt Prioritization

May 9, 2013 | By 

The national debt keeps on rising and soon the federal government will once again hit its debt limit. House Republicans are voting on a bill that would set priorities on what will get paid first in the event that they fail to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling. That sounds like a responsible plan, so of course, President Obama will whip out his veto pen if by some miracle it passes in the Senate.

More at the link.

I will resist the temptation to add the Herman’s Hermits video to note that the second verse is the same as the first: President Obama and the Democrats didn’t want the authority to prioritize the sequester cuts, either, and wanted to make them as painful as possible, so that they could blame the Republicans when the sky fell in. But, it seems that the sky didn’t fall. Nevertheless, all that the Democrats understand is to spend more and more and more.

There is actually some good news on the debt ceiling front, in that “Rising government revenue from tax collections and bailout paybacks are shrinking the federal deficit faster than expected, delaying the point when the government will reach the so-called debt ceiling and altering the budget debate in Washington.” Add to that the effects of the sequester to reduce spending, and projected deficit is being slightly reduced. The problem is that the President and the other Democrats want to reverse that slight progress by increasing federal spending.

I’ve led off with two non-Benghazi links, but, as you’d guess, much of the blogosphere is concerned with the Benghazi testimony, including:

Also from Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion:

Why is Daily Kos so afraid of some speech competition from the Koch Brothers?

Posted by     Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 6:00pm

The Daily Kos is reacting very hysterically to the mere possibility that the Koch Brothers might buy 8 Tribune Co. newspapers, including the L.A. Times.

Kos has teamed up with SEIU and others to try to pressure the Tribune not to sell the papers to the Koch Brothers, as noted at Hot Air, New left-wing coalition begs Tribune Company: Don’t sell the LA Times to the Koch brothers.

The whole campaign is based on the laughable premise that the Tribune papers are unbiased:

Millions of Americans rely on the news outlets currently operated by the Tribune Company to provide them with accurate, unbiased information about pressing issues in their communities and around the world. Ownership by two of the most influential and radical right wing ideologues in the country will skew trusted news sources to further their interests and debase our democracy.

Any news outlet owned by such intensely partisan activists could not be trusted to provide an honest account of a wide variety of issues that are of vital importance to the public.

Really, what is Kos so afraid of?

Isn’t having NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, Huffington Post / AOL, Yahoo, Google, The NY Times, The Washington Post, Hollywood, the music industry, almost all of Higher Ed, Silicon Valley, and almost every major media outlet on your side enough?

More at the link. But to answer Mr Jacobson’s (rhetorical) question, no, having all of those media outlets on their side is not enough, because there are some which are not. The left do not support freedom of speech or of the press; they support only their freedoms, and not anybody else’s. Patterico’s articles on the Benghazi hearings are less about the hearings than the coverage of them by The Los Angeles Times. If the left had complete domination of the media, you and I would never hear about the Benghazi hearings, because the media do not want you to hear about them.

Why? Because, with President Obama in his final term, the media have turned to Hillary Clinton as the next Anointed One to become President, and the Benghazi hearings call into question — at the very least — her qualifications to be President. She tried the famous “3 AM phone call” ad in the 2008 Democratic primaries, telling us that she was the one we wanted answering that telephone, but the Benghazi killings, and her — and the President’s — complete absence from any decision-taking during Benghazi show that neither she nor he was ready for that call. There’s nothing that we can do now about President Obama: the voters very foolishly re-elected him last November, and that’s it, he’s in office until January 20, 2017. But Mrs Clinton’s performance has to be held up to public scrutiny: she was the Secretary of State, and she was the person responsible for all State Department activity, and she is the one who just flat failed. Mrs Clinton will, once again, try to run1 on her competence and her experience, and there is nothing the liberal media would like more than to help bamboozle the public into believing than that she is experienced and competent, when she simply is not.

  1. I have previously said that it is my guess that she will not run for President in 2016. I believe that she would like to, and that she believes that, damn it, she should be President, but she will be 69 years old in 2016 and, quite frankly, she not only looks every bit of her current 65 years but she does not look all that healthy to me.

Comments are closed.