If you’ve ever wondered what an embarrassing retraction looks like, here you go. This is one of the more painful ones I’ve seen:
Before: “Republican Congressman Says Women ‘Desperately Looking For A Husband'”
After: “Republican Congressman Tells Men: Wives ‘Desperately’ Need Their Husbands To Step Up”
Continue reading Buzzfeed tries to sling mud at Tim Huelskamp… and hits itself, instead.
Jason Mattera went up and asked Hillary Clinton to sign a copy of her new book for him, only he wanted it made out to Chris Stevens. Because no fear.
Hillary, surprised by the request, replied, “Yeah, I’m not gonna make it out to Chris Stevens.” Mattera followed-up with, “What difference does it make?” a reference to Clinton’s infamous 2013 Senate testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee.
This will be Secretary Clinton’s life for the next two years. Yes, I know that we’re all really broken up about that.
Moe Lane
I went round and around on how to approach this one.
In an in-depth profile by National Journal’s Marin Cogan, Schweitzer, a Democrat, says that Southern men strike him as “effeminate,” says that ousted House Majority Leader Eric Cantor set off his “gaydar,” and suggests that Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a streetwalker for the U.S. intelligence community.
But I couldn’t come up with anything that lived up, or down, to the original material. But then it occurred to me: why bother? It’s not like Brian Schweitzer has a political career anymore anyway.
Moe Lane
PS: I really do wish that the Left would actually live by the same speech code that they want the rest of us to slavishly follow.
This is a little – cynical? World-weary? Too close the bone? – but accurate, alas:
Based on the wars on poverty, drugs, terror if there is a war on coal expect the coal companies to be running the world in less than a year.
— streiff RS (@streiffredstate) June 19, 2014
I don’t think that anybody’s really talking about the current administration’s average competency level any more, mostly because the topic is hella depressing these days.
We may get a big one; then again, we may not. Either way, Gabriel Malor over at the Federalist listed the remaining big-ticket cases on the docket; since then (as per Gabriel’s update) the Court has decided that SBA List does in fact have standing to challenge Ohio’s absolutely awful anti-free speech law. So there’s that.
I am actually assuming that we’ll get maybe only one large case today if we get any at all. So watch: they’ll clear the docket and take the summer off, or something. Predicting what the Supreme Court will do is a mug’s game (although it does look like the Court will mightily spank the administration over recess appointments). We’ll see at ten AM…
I really do miss Jim Henson.
We’ll go back to a regular schedule tomorrow. Fun stuff, too: got a Democratic governor who doesn’t know when to shut up, that’s always fun.
Youngest is in the middle of toilet training, you see. Yes, I will be merciful and spare you the details: if you’ve never gone through it, you wouldn’t believe it, and if you’ve gone through it, you don’t need to be told a damned thing.
(H/T: Instapundit) This was… unwise of the Internal Revenue Service.
Some history: House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa as early as June 4, 2013 asked the IRS to provide “all documents and communications sent by, received by, or copied to Lois Lerner” between Jan. 1, 2009 and the present.” Note the “all.”
Mr. Issa sent an official subpoena demanding “all” the records in August 2013, and another subpoena reiterating the “all” demand in February 2014. Former Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel in August of 2013 told Congress, under oath, that the IRS was “reviewing every one of Lois Lerner’s emails, and providing the response.” Current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in February told Congress, under oath, that the IRS was sending all of Ms. Lerner’s emails.
Yet in its letter on Friday the IRS slipped in the following: “In early 2014, Chairmen Camp and Issa reiterated their requests for all of Lois Lerner’s email, regardless of subject matter . . . Fulfilling the request,” said the IRS, meant it had to compile Lerner emails that went beyond the “search terms” it had “originally loaded for review.” By mid-March, the agency admitted, it had produced for Congress only the Lerner emails that it—the IRS—considered “related” to the scandal.
Highly unwise. It’s precisely because of behavior like this that the House has decided to spank the IRS. Or, rather, start the spanking process: Continue reading IRS continues to flail about in Lerner case; consequences to ensue.
Now we have Senators saying this. Folks, I give you Senator Ted Cruz:
You cannot win a battle against radical Islamic terrorism if you’re unwilling to utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’
Likewise, you cannot hope to fight it out in the court of public opinion if you have nobody who is there to state yours. Anybody here think that former Senator Hutchinson – and I don’t particularly wish to pile on her over this – would have made the case as well? Or possibly even at all?
Elections have consequences.