TAKING A GAMBLE

President Obama's campaign has rolled out yet another new campaign slogan on his new bus tour across the swing states of America.  Nice touch, by the way, doing a tour to illustrate Obama's focus on American jobs (as opposed to Romney's illusory outsourcing) with a tour bus made in Canada.  One can only imagine how hilarious that would be, if only it was George W. Bush at the wheel.  Anyhoo, once again the President's brain stormers fall a bit short with the new campaign slogan:

"Betting on America".

Hmmmm....Is it really a good idea to encourage a mental link between the president, his agenda and gambling?


It is, of course, meant to give a sense of optimism; a feeling that ultimately America will live up to the president's vision  The problem is, the American people are somewhat less than optimistic these days, and aren't necessarily interested in the America that is being envisioned for them. 

The most glaring problem is that references to betting tend to bring to mind things like, say, the money gambled on Solyndra, Abound Solar, and many other "green" companies the Speculator-in-Chief bet taxpayer money on and lost.  Instead of seeing the obvious - that the technology is not fully developed and (or should I say, because) the market isn't ready yet - he instead presses for further "investment" in green companies.  After all, it's not like he's gambling with his own money, right? (and when he runs out of taxpayer chips, surely pit boss Hu will be happy to loan him another stack)

On a side note, that popular talking point about oil companies getting subsidies, so it's only "fair" (how I've come to hate that word) that green companies should too is complete bull.  Oil companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies.  They receive tax deductions, and that is a different animal entirely.  The former requires the government to pay large (sometimes downright enormous) sums of taxpayer money to companies in order to fuel research and development.  The latter allows companies to write off some of their costs, such as R&D, so they can retain more of their earnings to reinvest in the company and it's workforce, forking over less to Uncle Sam.  Big difference.

References to placing bets may also make one think of the doubling down that has been done over the past few years by the gamblin' man with the keynesian plan.  From the contraception "compromise" that is merely a one-year extension before the church must put aside their fundamental principles and join the collective to the repeated demands for more stimulus, it's been all about ignoring the critics, ignoring the people, ignoring the constitution, even ignoring common sense and sticking with his favorite theories.   Freedom OF religion has become freedom FROM religion, so any infringement upon the church is now perversely perceived as a win for individual liberty. Granting a one-year waiver is not a compromise, it's a demand for compliance - just at a later date.  As for the new calls for stimulus, he can call it a jobs bill all he wants, but it sure as heck sounds like a smaller version of Porkulus - the original "jobs" bill that has resulted in 8.2% unemployment two years after it was passed.  And here we are again, with Mr. Bigstuff looking to buy friends and peddle influence with another hand-out to help profligate states pay for teachers, police and firefighters.  But hey, we'll win next time, honest - our luck's just got to change!  The problem isn't the policy, we just didn't bet enough! 

That word, "Betting", might even bring to mind the shady numbers racket the media has been trying to swindle the American public with - from bogus polls to deceptive editing - in order to make the case for another term for the First Bookie.  Speaking of working the numbers, did the president really think that the American public would buy that ridiculous, obscure left-wing blog post about Obama being the most frugal president since Eisenhower?  Yeah, right.  The largest deficit under Bush was $458 billion, the smallest under Obama has been $1.2 trillion.  But he's frugal, whereas Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic.  Uh-huh.

It seems the overarching plea of the Obama campaign is for people to take a chance on him, once again.  Let it ride, America, our luck will turn!

Perhaps on some deeper level, even Team Obama knows their failed and yet unaltered agenda is, at best, a crap shoot.

Read more...

TAKING A GAMBLE

IT'S TIME TO GET FURIOUS

Operation Fast and Furious is not about politicization, as the left would have you believe.  It is about gun control. The American people should be absolutely outraged by this operation, but instead it has been swept under the rug and ignored.  The fact that hundreds of people have died is, apparently by ATF standards, nothing more than a further argument for more restrictive gun regulations. 


If you have any doubts, a quick check of the facts will set you right. Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, who has been doggedly following this story since February of 2011, has a great primer on the scandal.  Here's how the operation worked, in a nutshell:

First, the ATF persuaded some of their informants to purchase large quantities of "long guns" - high caliber rifles.  Then, when the gun shop owners contacted the ATF out of concern for the large numbers attempting to be purchased by rather shady buyers, the ATF encouraged the dealers to sell to the informants.  Agents were specifically ordered to stop tracking the weapons and not interdict, virtually guaranteeing the weapons would cross the border and reach the cartels.  ATF then planned to use the large number of guns sold as leverage to institute "Demand Letter 3", which would place strict regulations over the purchase of said long guns.  According to emails, the fact that many of the guns made it over the border and were responsible for hundreds of deaths was seen as justification for their planned regulation.  And now they're doing everything they can to cover it up.

The ATF forced gun dealers to sell enormous quantities of guns to extremely shady people and then wanted to use the fact that gun dealers sell enormous quantities of guns to extremely shady people in order to enact stricter regulations.  That's like demanding Chevy remove the exhaust filters from all the new Corvettes, then instituting new EPA regulations outlawing or restricting new sports car sales due to the environmental impact of the exhaust system.  And now they're wide-eyed and saying they've never heard of such a thing as a 'sports car' before.  Quite a racket.

To put not too fine a point on it, our government knowingly and willingly sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, in order to push for more gun control laws.  And now they are doing everything they can to cover it up.  Which is why Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress this week.

If stricter gun regulation wasn't the goal as democrats are arguing, then what was?  It wasn't about tracking how guns get to, say, the Sinaloa drug cartel, because agents were told not to track the weapons.  It obviously wasn't to help the Mexican government with their cartel problems, because if that were the case, wouldn't we have let them in on the operation?  Perhaps rooting out drug lords on this side of the border was the goal, but unfortunately the drug lords in question were already in the employ of or under surveillence by the FBI and the DEA.  So if not those reasons, then why? 

As for the claim that this is being politicized, that's an absolute fact.  Democrats and their supporters have made it political by refusing to see the facts in front of them in favor of blind party loyalty to a fellow democrat.  They should be ashamed.

Read more...

IT'S TIME TO GET FURIOUS

OBAMACARE UPHELD

The mandate has survived.  Except now, it's being called what it has always been but was not allowed to be named - a tax.  Technically, since no one has been taxed yet, it stands - but that's not to say once the tax kicks in it won't be challeneged in the courts all over again.  This is a big win for democrats in the short term, but long term, this decision might well end up favoring Mitt Romney even more.

The House of Representatives have announced a repeal vote for July 11th.  A wasted effort that will not get to the floor of the Senate as long as Harry Reid is in charge, but the optics of continuing the fight should rally the base a bit.  It will also remind them of the importance of the twenty-four democratic senate seats up for reelection in the fall.  Obamacare has now officially become a major campaign issue.


First and foremost, Romney can now spend the next four months running on repealing Obamacare.  After all, you can't get rid of Obamacare unless you get rid of Obama, right?  Not only will this decision fire up the base enormously but, considering 54% of Americans want the law repealed, it's a good bet that more than the base will be voting on this issue.  Obama has to hope the 39% who support the law are far more motivated to get to the ballot box than the 54% who oppose it. 

While the ruling is a bit complicated, at least there is some much-needed clarification on one major question.  It's finally official - the mandate is a tax, according to the Court.  This is pretty big, because for the three years this has been an issue, democrats have been saying that the mandate is most definitely not a tax.  After all, who wants to be known as the party that raised taxes in a recession (or depression, if you're talking to VP Biden)?  Well, it's official - taxes they are, and up they're going.  There are more than twenty new or increased taxes in Obamacare, and eight of them will be hitting those making under $250,000 per year.  If Romney's team has their ducks in a row, they will hit this fact hard and often on the campaign trail. 

This law raises taxes by more than $400 billion over the next ten years and guts Medicare by $500 billion.  Everyone is getting taxed, including, insanely enough, the federal government.  It has been now confirmed by the Court that the cost to businesses of hiring employees is going to go up substantially.  The question now is, how long before these things start really affecting employment and the economy?  Who better to talk about the impact of a 3.8% increase in the capital gains tax rate than a businessman who knows from his many years in the business sector the real effect that one tax alone will have on the economy and jobs?

In fact, making the taxes in Obamacare a centerpiece of his campaign is imperative.  After all, hardly anyone has read the damn thing, so the public probably has no idea how many taxes there are or whom they will affect.  There should be a page on his website dedicated to the tax increases, and he should be hammering the issue on the stump. .

For those on the right who are angry with Chief Justice John Roberts, here is a little nugget that might take some of the sting away.  According to RedState's Erick Erickson, because Roberts has now deemed the mandate to be a tax, democrats will not be able to filibuster its repeal due to the sneaky reconciliation process used to pass it in the first place.  Republicans only need to take four Senate seats from democrats to take the majority, and there are more than twenty up for grabs.  With President Romney installed in the White House, Obamacare could conceivably be a thing of the past by February.  Worst case scenario: even if Obama retains the White House, taxation is solely the purview of the House, and the Republican majority could take a page from Obama's book by just...refusing to enforce it.  No revenue means no implimentation.  Precedence can be a bitch sometimes, eh liberals?

Speaking of precedence, the main thought that has been running through my mind on this decision is the predecence that has now been set.  Even if the law is repealed, the camel's nose is now firmly under the tent and Americans can now be taxed for not just what they consume, but also what they don't.  The implications of this decision will be far reaching.  What power doesn't Congress have over the people it's supposed to serve?

Read more...

OBAMACARE UPHELD

FUN WITH CHEESEHEADS

Big fun today!  The chaotic disarray of the democratic machine is quite a sight to see, isn't it?  In case you've been living under a rock, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker won his recall election last night.  Handily.  I'm not quite sure what's sweeter - the fact that he won, or that he won by a larger margin that when he was initially elected governor in 2010.  Mmmm, sweet like candy!

It looks like the taxpayers finally have a seat at the bargaining table in Wisconsin.  It's about time.

My favorite quote of the night comes courtesy of Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch:

"This is what democracy looks like!"

Running a close second is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal with this little gem:

“A lot of people thought it would be a late night in Wisconsin. I think it’s going to be a late night in Chicago.”

To quote the vernacular: Tru'dat!

How disconcerted are democrats?  Well, David Axelrod had a rather puzzling tweet on the subject:

"Bad night in Boston....WI raises big questions for Mitt"

In case you're confused, he isn't talking about Walkers reelection, he's talking about exit polling that shows President Obama over Mitt Romney, 51-45%.  A six-point lead is nice, right?  Perhaps Mr. Axelrod missed this from the Chicago Tribune article he referenced in his tweet (emphasis mine):

Wisconsin voters in Tuesday’s recall election seem ideologically fairly similar to those in 2010 – more heavily conservative than in the 2008 presidential election, but inclined to reelect President Obama nonetheless, according to early, partial exit poll results.

It's that "more heavily conservative" bit that is the sticking point.  Heavily, huh?  Ouch.  While a six-point lead sure is nifty, it isn't nearly as nice as the extra-spiffy fourteen point spread he enjoyed against McCain in 2008.  An eight point drop isn't anything to brag about, Dave.  Especially in ultra-blue Wisconsin.  He might have missed that bit about 'more heavily conservative', though. It was waaaay down in the...first sentence of the article.  I'd hazard a guess that the Romney camp was pretty happy with last night's outcome, and that his perfectly coiffed head slept soundly on its luxury 1000 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets, most likely dreaming up ways to make Wisconsin even more competitive in the future.

The defeat has hit union supporters hard, to say the least.  Last night Mayor Barrett was meeting and greeting supporters after he had called Gov. Walker to concede and found out just how hard - literally - when he was soundly slapped by a distraught...er, supporter (via Mediaite):



Well, at least she asked first, right?

President Obama has piped in as well.  He's sincerely hoping that Gov. Walker got the strong message the unions sent with the recall. 

Oy.

Hopefully President Obama will eventually get the strong messages the American taxpayers have been sending him for the past three years, starting with Scott Brown.  The attempt at getting the message received really hit its stride with the historic 2010 democratic defeats - not to mention loss after democratic loss in Wisconsin alone over the past year of recall mania.  And all of it (at least for now) culminating with Scott Walker's enthusiastic reconfirmation.  I'm not going to hold my breath on a presidential epiphany.  In fact, I'm rather hoping he won't have one until he receives one more message on Nov. 6th.

There will be a lot of moaning - crying, even - over the "stealing" of the election by the eeeevil corporations and their dirty, nasty millions.  Perhaps the unions would have had more in their war chest if the DNC had had more faith in their cause and candidate and had actually given money instead of moral support to help the election as the RNC did.  

On a side note, funny how blockbuster campaign  contributions - including out of state money - are a sign of universal support when its for Obama and democrats, but a sign of the coming zombie apocalypse for anyone with an 'R' after their name.

The big question now is whether the bitterness can be shed and relationships repaired.  As a parent, whenever I have to strongly rebuke one of my children, I know that sometimes there will be a certain amount of anger, resentment, and maybe even a temper tantrum or two.  But I also know that eventually they will get over it and life returns to a well-behaved, amiable normal.  Unfortunately some children are either not that bright, self destructive, or a combination of the two and fight on far longer than is wise, not caring that they are damaging themselves and others along the way. Let's hope the union hierarchy, whose fifteen month tantrum has cost the state of Wisconsin somewhere in the neighborhood of $16 million, will wise up soon.  Continuing the bad behavior of the past year will only damage the image of the unions further.  Considering they have already lost in excess of half their dues-paying membership since the reforms were put in place, they certainly can't afford to alienate anyone else.

It's time to concede and move on.  I would counsel conservatives to not spike the ball on this too much (never mind that I've written a whole post that is pure ball spiking!), as we don't want to give cause to extend the epic pout we are in for over the next few days.  But considering some of these people are fine with slapping their own candidates, I see no reason why we can't slap each other on the back a bit for a job well done (happy dances optional)!

Read more...

FUN WITH CHEESEHEADS

WHAT'S NEXT, THE WAR ON APPLE PIE? Updated

As a stay at home mom, I have occasionally noticed a certain level of patronization and derision aimed my way by the more left-leaning, feminist career women sector.  There seems to be a perception that stay at home moms are rich women who are not pulling their weight in society and have taken the easy way out or, even sillier, that those women are victims of male hegemony who have been brainwashed and, poor creatures, simply don't know any better.  The reality is far different, but more on that in a minute.

Wednesday night Hilary Rosen, democrat strategist extraordinaire, came out with this little doozy:



The White House is scrambling to get some distance from her comments, not even waiting until morning to chastise her.  The bus she went under was chock full of top administration officials, including the President and First Lady personally.  Good for them. 

Ann Romney has said that her chosen career was being a mother. I couldn't agree more. For women like us, raising our children is the most important job we can have. For me, being the subject of my daughter's essay on role models is better than any bonus. Seeing my children using the life lessons I have tried to instill in them to raise themselves up and strive for more is better than any promotion. And contrary to Ms. Rosen's bungled talking points, staying home isn't a 'luxury' for most women, it just makes sense. I take nothing from working moms - I was raised by two and used to be one myself. I have enormous respect for women who pursue a career and manage to juggle it all. But because our priorities are different from Ms. Rosen's doesn't make them any less legitimate


It's pretty obvious that what Rosen was trying to do was go after Romney for being rich.  Thus the "never worked a day in her life" quip. The implication is that Romney spent her days eating bonbons and lounging around in a peignoir admiring her diamonds while her staff did all the work.  Too bad democrat strategist extraordinaire Rosen screwed it up so spectacularly.  Ultimately, she feels Romney shouldn't advise her husband because as a rich woman, she didn't have to deal with the financial  struggles many women are dealing with today while raising her children and thus can't really identify with the 'common people'.  Which, ironically, could have been a legit class warfare argument (if you go for that sort of thing), if only it hadn't been delivered by ol' Hamhands Rosen.

Non plussed by the negative blowback, Rosen doubled down:




Wow.  Talk about respectful and sincere!  Mind boggling, isn't it?  There were several more "clarifications" in the same vein.  Again, she is stretching to make the 'Mrs. Moneybags' argument and fails spectacularly. She apparently didn't realize that her statement sounds a lot more like sour grapes than reaching out a hand of reconciliation.  She has since offered a more traditional apology - via public statement.  I guess there's no phone call for Ann, either.

The really interesting part of all of this is that this wasn't just a case of momentary foot-in-mouthitis.  This might well have been a trial balloon for a line of attack against the likable Mrs. Romney.  We all know how necessary it is for Team Obama to shut down any threats quickly and thoroughly.  Rosen's clumsy, tone deaf attempt at marginalizing Ann has been an unqualified disaster, without a doubt.  But was it a fluke, or was it part of a greater plan?

With that thought in mind, I'd like to show you a little snippet of a speech President Obama made last week at the White House Forum on Women and the Economy that slipped under the radar (emphasis mine):

And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career. And something that, could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot. Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling. And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work. And I know when she was with the girls she’d feel guilty that she wasn’t giving enough time to her work, and when she was at work, she was feeling guilty she wasn’t giving enough time for the girls. And like many of you, we both wish there were machines that could let us be in two places at once.”

You decide.  The setup for a line of attack against wealthy Ann Romney as an out of touch slacker lolling in the lap of luxury in contrast to hard working, guilt riddled working mom Michelle, or a simple attempt to appeal to middle class working women?  Remember, it's not just about "getting a fair shot" it's also about doing your fair share.  It's pretty safe to say that if this was a trial balloon, they probably won't follow up on it after the swift and damning reaction Rosen got, although they'll probably try coming at it from a different direction (do I see a Gloria Allred presser with a disgruntled nanny in our future?).  They really can't drop it.  "Hey, she's rich!" is about all they've got.

What I would really like to know is, who better than a stay at home mother would know about the economic impact of legislation and the economy on the family budget?  Sure, Ann Romney had more in the kitty than many stay at homes, but I fail to see how that disqualifies her from the discussion.

One more thing: I love to find the silver linings in things, and I've found one in this: Ms. Rosen's day job happens to be democrat strategist with access to the top echelons of the Obama administration.  Why is this a good thing, you ask?  Well, if this is the caliber of strategist they have working for them, this election is a shoo-in. 

For Romney.

UPDATE:  Before I start the update, I have a little question I'd like to pose:  If making a paycheck is as important as it seems to be to legitimizing who can have a say and who can't, why is volunteerism so revered on the left?
It seems Bill Maher might be having some money troubles, because he seems bound and determined to shame the Obama SuperPac into returning his million dollar donation. 
Left-wing pundits tried to move on quickly from the whole thing, calling it a non-issue and a waste of time.
As I predicted, they keep (clumsily) trying the "Hey, she's rich" line of attack, but could someone explain to me how Princeton and Harvard educated, multi-millionaire Michelle Obama is a legit voice for financially strapped women but Ann Romney isn't?   Officially, Mrs. Obama went back to work to pay off school loans, but what fails to get mentioned is her million-dollar house and expensive private schools for the kids  - luxuries many stay at home moms either scarifice or never have a chance to achieve.  At worst, they're both out of touch, but that doesn't mean they can't advise their husbands.  Besides, I'm pretty sure that no matter how dead-on Ann Romney's advice might be, neither Hilary Rosen nor the president of NOW would ever support either her or her husband.
And in conclusion, here is some food for thought on the deeper reason for why the left disdains stay at home moms. 

Read more...

WHAT'S NEXT, THE WAR ON APPLE PIE? Updated

WHAT NOW?

Now that the arguments both for and against ObamaCare have been made, it is in the Supreme Court's hands.  Going into the fight, the law's supporters were cocky and arrogant.  Coming out the other side, it's a different story, to say the least (actually, the term "panic" seems to be the go-to phrase).  While we wait for the Court to make it's decision, I'd like to see some ideas from Republicans about what to replace the law with in the event it is struck down.

It is important to note that while oral arguments went badly for ObamaCare, oral arguments are only a small part of the overall process.  It may seem that the law went down in flames, but we won't really know for sure until the Court's session ends in June and they issue their verdict.  They vote today on the issue and will spend the next few months writing their opinions.   Keep in mind, too, that their vote today might not be the final verdict we see this summer.  Justices have been known to change their vote upon reading a particularly persuasive opposing argument.  So we really won't know for sure until the published opinions are released over the summer.  Anything released before then is mere speculation and should be regarded as such.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is taking the brunt of the blame from the left for the judicial beating the law took over the last few days.  Poor guy.  His inability to defend the mandate's alleged constitutionality wasn't due to incompetence, it was due to the indefensible unconstitutionality of the mandate.  Simply dismissing talk of constitutionality out of hand as the left has consistently done is just not a convincing argument outside of the echo chamber. His stumbling over whether it was a tax or a penalty wasn't because he is too inept to figure out the difference, it's because he has been put in the difficult position of trying to, at times, make it not just both, but also neither.  I'd say he did a pretty damn good job, considering. 

The law, as conservatives have been saying for two years now, is fatally flawed.  That has now been made quite clear by the probing questions of the Justices that cut through to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) at the heart of the matter.  The question now is severability.  How do you strike down the mandate without causing an insurance industry "death spiral"?  How do they decide what stays and what goes (my favorite comment on it was Scalia's invocation of eighth amendment protections from cruel and unusual punishment in regards to having to read the bill)?

While we wait for the verdict of the court, due sometime this summer, Congressional Republicans need to take the opportunity to talk about their free market solutions in the event the law is struck down.  Having a series of small bills that would implement those solutions at the ready would be a wise decision as well, particularly since the White House has decided to forgo a contingency plan, preferring to keep all of their eggs in the ObamaCare basket. 

Any talk of a "comprehensive" republican approach should be shunned.  If we didn't want a 2,700 page monstrosity from the left, why in heaven's name would we want the same from the right?  Small, targeted bills that address health insurance issues point by point are the way to go, not colossal, byzantine laws that will require judicial intervention to interpret. 

The "goodies" former Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised us have already been rolled out, and lots of people have felt the benefits of them, particularly those with pre-existing conditions (like myself).  Many liberal pundits have  argued in support of the law by talking about the pain that would be felt if it was struck down.  But keeping the whole confusing, cumbersome, ever-more-expensive law because of a few perks is not a good idea. 

What we need to keep in mind is that striking down the law in toto won't create a vacuum, it will return us to the pre-obamacare system.  A system that was cheaper, and covered more people, by the way.  This doesn't mean republicans shouldn't have a game plan ready, though, because while ObamaCare made things worse, they weren't that great to begin with.  It should be obvious that among the solutions republicans need to offer is a continuation of the two most popular "goodies" - abolition of pre-existing conditions and an option for parents to keep their 26 year-old adult children on their insurance.  The costs for these perks will be passed on to the consumers who opt for them, of course - but then, you're only fooling yourself if you thought they weren't going to under ObamaCare. 

Republicans also need to start making the argument for severing the ties between health insurance and employment, as well as relaxing the regulations governing interstate commerce that keeps the more than one thousand insurance companies in this country from practicing in all fifty states.  Toss in a little torte reform and and a few other free market ideas, and the disastrously lumbering behemoth that was ObamaCare can be replaced with a consumer-oriented free market that can be tailored to each individual customer according to their needs, not government diktat.

Isn't it amazing that Congress wasn't allowed to read the bill before they voted for it, the president didn't bother to read it before he signed it, and now some members of the Supreme Court are calling reading it an eighth amendment violation?  Considering the way it was written, it seems even those who were tasked with writing it didn't bother read it.  But we're all supposed to be overjoyed and filled with gratitude for having to living under it.  Yeah, right.

 For all we know, the Court could decide to uphold the law. God forbid. But in the meantime, doesn't it make sense to be prepared if they don't?


Oh, and that lame spin from the left about the law's repeal being good for democrats and bad for republicans?  Wow.  Proof positive of democratic over reach and the downfall of Obama's signature achievement due to it's being unconstitutional is going to be bad for republicans, eh?  Boy, they really are freaking out over on the left, aren't they?  They must be tied up in knots to come up with such ridiculously twisted logic.  It's almost a little sad, isn't it? 

Read more...

WHAT NOW?

A LITTLE RETURN FIRE

The so-called Republican War on Women™ that the press and various liberals have been ginning up was starting to die down a bit (although Sen. Chuck Schumer is determined to milk every drop out of it first).  Expect it to heat up again, though - provided the neo-pravda media decide to run this latest wrinkle.

Bristol Palin is now stepping up to the plate with an open letter to President Obama on the issue.  And boy, does she knock it out of the park:

"If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

But…

What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals."

Over to you, Mr, President!
PS - it seems to be getting a lot of attention, because in the time it took me to read her blog and post my own about it, her site has shut down.  Be sure to check back and read the whole thing!

Read more...

A LITTLE RETURN FIRE