Author: Moe_Lane

#rsrh Nixon: China :: Obama: …Israel?

The implications of that analogy by Ed Driscoll (guesting for Instapundit) – that Obama would there be an American President visiting a country that is in opposition to his ideology – are… disturbing.

No, not because it’s self-evidently a silly analogy.  It’s not self-evidently a silly analogy.  That’s why it’s disturbing.

Moe Lane

PS: If you’re keeping score, I don’t think that the President actively hates Israel, in anything like the same intensity found by your average antiwar activist.  I do think that he doesn’t grok what the consequences of his actions are when it comes to Israel, which is highly problematical right there.

But at least they have Obama!

There’s a lot of interesting stuff in this John Dickerson article on what last night’s results really mean, but this last paragraph is probably the one that needs to be most referenced:

The night showed just how limited Obama’s political power is. He said he’d work all-out for Specter, but he didn’t campaign for the senator in the final days. That may have been a wise reservation of his political capital (he’s already been ineffective in previous races), but it also demonstrated how much has changed since 2008, when Obama was talked about as a force that could remake the political landscape. Critz won by running away from Obama’s signature achievement, and Lincoln, whom he supported, was forced into a runoff. For a president who is still far more popular than the Democratic Congress he aims to help, yet who is unable to translate much of that popularity to do so, this condition may be best described as limbo.

Continue reading But at least they have Obama!

#rsrh A follow-up to that press snub earlier this week…

…said press snub being, of course, the President mocking press inquiries while in the process of signing a law celebrating international press freedom.  I say ‘celebrating’ mostly because there’s not really much to indicate that the President is interested in actually doing anything to support international press freedom; goodness knows that Obama’s showing very little interest in enforcing the Executive Branch’s own rules on enforcing illegal immigration law.

Anyway, the NYT’s Caucus blog seems quite bitter:

At a ceremony to sign a bill promoting press freedom around the world on Monday, President Obama refused to take questions from reporters. “I’m not doing a press conference today,” he told Chip Reid of CBS News, “but we’ll be seeing you guys during the course of the week.”

So when the president hosted a “news conference” in the Rose Garden with the president of Mexico on Wednesday, Mr. Reid thought maybe this time Mr. Obama would take questions. Instead, Mr. Obama allowed only a single question from the American news media, calling on a reporter from the New York-based Univision…

There’s more impotent snark in there, but I suspect that you get the point.  One wonders if the New York Times ever will.

Moe Lane
Moe Lane

The ad Alexi Giannoulias (D-CAND, IL-SEN) doesn’t want you to see.

At some time, the Giannoulias campaign may realize that if you can reference your family history to get elected State Treasurer, then your opponents can reference your family history to keep you from being elected Senator:

More accurately, the campaign might admit the futility of trying to squash the opposition’s ability to point out that said family relationship involves bad $20 million loans given to pimps and bookies.  Which is what they’re trying to do here, and instead making the story relevant.

Yet again.

Moe Lane

PS: Mark Kirk for Senate.  He’s already grasped King Canute’s point.

Crossposted to RedState.

CT VFW lays into Blumenthal for fake military claims.

Possibly AG Richard Blumenthal (D CAND, CT-SEN) should not have used a VFW hall to host his explanation of why he wasn’t always lying about serving in Vietnam? – Because the local organization is not happy about that.  Its head (Richard DiFederico) calledBlumenthal’s claims “false” and “outrageous,” and Blumenthal’s choice of venue won’t help that any:

DiFederico’s statement came after Blumenthal’s dramatic and defiant press conference Tuesday at a VFW hall in West Hartford, an event which took place in response to a New York Times report that the Connecticut attorney general had on more than one occasion said he had served in Vietnam, although his time in the Marine Corps Reserve was in fact spent in Washington and Connecticut

Blumenthal is not a member of the VFW, and national leaders noted that he wouldn’t meet the eligibility requirement if he tried to join because he didn’t actually serve in a theatre of combat. The group’s bylaws also do not allow any level of the organization to endorse political candidates.

Jerry Newberry, the director of communications at the VFW’s Kansas City headquarters, said that the national leadership “did not sanction and was not, in fact, aware that the press conference was going to be held at a VFW Post.”

Continue reading CT VFW lays into Blumenthal for fake military claims.

Do you agree with the State Department, Ambassador Huntsman?

You’ll be wanting to answer THAT WOMAN’s question, methinks.

It’s widely rumored that Jon Huntsman (former Republican governor of Utah, and current ambassador to the People’s Republic of China) has future political ambitions: I submit that those ambitions will quickly die the True Death if he does not address the recent ridiculousness over our State Department apologizing to the People’s Republic of China for Arizona’s enforcement of the government’s own illegal immigration policy. Because it’s now officially part of the national discussion:

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Continue reading Do you agree with the State Department, Ambassador Huntsman?