“I think the test is before Obama and other American leaders as we speak. Right now they can make a series of decisions. Regardless of what’s happened in the past, right now is a moment where the fate of the United States hangs in the balance. And the test for all of them is going to be where they can overcome the mistrust, the deep ideological divisions, in some cases just political opportunism and say, this is bigger than any one of us, and we’ve got to make sure that we do what’s right for the American people. And that’s a challenge. That’s not something that another country can do for us.”
President Obama held a press conference today outlining his response to the growing unrest in Iraq. Like his other statements on the region, Obama insisted the problem is more political than military. That’s a convenient rhetorical stance, but meaningless in the real world. War is the continuation of politics by other means, a fact we learned in the blood and fire of our own Civil War. Lincoln could have rightly claimed that the core problem was political, but he didn’t withdraw the Union Army from the field.
For the past year, I’ve predicted Hillary won’t be the Democratic nominee; I still doubt she’ll even run. As the Lion of Tuzla fumbles through her book tour, it’s easier to see the evidence for that counter-intuitive claim.
Yes, Hillary has mountains of cash, a ruthless political machine, ubiquitous name recognition, and a mostly loving press. She is “inevitable,” although less so than she was in 2008. But these vast advantages still aren’t enough to overcome Hillary’s fundamental flaw: she’s a horrible candidate.
Horrible doesn’t quite cover it. Hillary is an atrocious, contemptible, dreadful, execrable, ghastly, heinous, insufferable, lousy, piteous, repellent, rueful, shoddy, unholy, woeful and wretched candidate. And she’s a terrible liar.
Sitting in the boardroom, a dozen social workers, salesmen and developers were waiting for the Health IT CEO to kick off the meeting. As we rocked in our chairs, my boss — an MSW-cum-Chief Sales Officer — complained about his “black sheep” cousin who was shaming the family name.
“The rest of us went to college but he’s stuck in the Army,” he said.
“Sounds like a good start to me,” I replied, as the only employee with military experience.
Those assembled rolled their eyes while my boss looked at me with pity. “He enlisted, Jon. He obviously isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.” Pausing for a beat he added, “no offense.”
None taken, jerk.
At what point do Democrats admit that Harry Reid, well, isn’t all there?
The 74-year-old former boxer has often tossed around unsourced smears to gain a brief political advantage, but now one wonders if he took too many blows to the head. Reid’s current obsession with long-time libertarian donors Charles and David Koch is downright nonsensical. He’s making increasingly bizarre allegations with little apparent benefit.
Over the past few months, the addled Senate Majority Leader has blamed the Brothers Koch for everything from the stalled minimum wage debate to the crisis in Ukraine. But Reid’s most recent rant blamed these two private American citizens for climate change itself.
The Ouroboros is an ancient image showing a large serpent consuming its own tail. Venerated by Greeks, Egyptians and Norsemen of yore, it serves as an apt metaphor for modern American liberalism.
The Democratic coalition was largely built on grievance politics. For decades, progressive leaders divided Americans into subgroups based on race, gender, class, age and sexual orientation. Political leaders were the first to stoke this fire, but educators soon joined in, as did the media, NGOs, big business and popular culture.
This coordinated strategy finally bore fruit with the arrival of the Obama era. Democrats had finally convinced the majority of American voters that Republicans are rich, old, white males who couldn’t possibly care about the poor, the young, women or non-whites.
Does a President need a college degree? Political insiders on the right and left are asking this question as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker considers a run for the White House.
Reporter Aaron Blake highlighted his lack of a higher ed certification in today’sWashington Post, noting that the last president sans degree was Harry Truman:
Earlier this week, liberals forced out the CEO of tech company Mozilla for privately holding common but unfashionable political views. Liberals continue to hound the owners of Hobby Lobby for defending their religious liberty, and also harass the libertarian Koch Brothers for supporting liberty-friendly causes.
Every week it becomes more obvious that liberals are not liberal in any way shape or form.
The word “liberal” comes from liberalis, the Latin word for “freedom.” Politically speaking, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “liberal” as “favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.”
Here’s a scenario that every football fan knows well. Your team has the lead and all signs point to victory. Your aggressive defense has stymied the opponent for three quarters. If they can keep this up for a few more minutes, it’s another game in the win column!
Uh oh. Instead of keeping the pressure on, your timid coach opts for a Prevent Defense.Noooo! He allows the opponent to gain four yards here, seven yards there. He will let them move down the field; he just wants to keep them from making that big play into the end zone.
Finally! An Obama speech!
Once again, our Orator-in-Chief will swan his way through the fawning crowd, wave to his stunt Americans in the balcony, and drone on about nothing consequential for an hour or so. MSNBC will praise, Fox will mock, and CNN will drive viewers to another network.
Progressives still believe this president can change his fortunes with a well-tested phrase, a clever tagline or some new rebranding of Wilson-era ideas. But at this point, praising Obama for his oratory is like praising a blind date for her personality.