"I Don't Mind A Parasite. I Object To A Cut-Rate One."
….here are some items of interest from last week’s political headlines:
*Let’s Go Polling
--As reported by Yahoo News:
“If a rematch of the 2012 presidential election were held today, Mitt Romney would win the popular vote over President Barack Obama, a new CNN/ORC International poll finds.
Romney, who lost the popular vote by 3.9 percentage points in the 2012 election, would beat Obama 53 percent to 44 percent, the poll conducted July 18-20 and released Sunday found. A similar survey of registered voters conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post in November found the Republican nominee would have beaten Obama 49 percent to 45 percent, had the 2012 election been held in 2013.”
points out that this same poll has Hillary Clinton beating Romney in a battle of hypotheticals, but offers this retort:
“Nice try by CNN to add that Hillary Clinton beats Romney 55% to 42% and make the comparison that it is somehow the same as the Obama-Romney redo. Leave it to the liberal media to compare apples to oranges. The Clinton/Romney poll is simply a popularity contest of a hypothetical election that will never take place. However, the Romney/Obama poll numbers are from a knowing public that has seen the Obama promises, political lies and scandals for themselves. There is nothing hypothetical about the facts that Barack Obama is a failed president, who is considered the worst president since WWII and many, if they had the chance, would change their vote and never have reelected him.”
--The above is supported by results of a recent Gallup poll as reported by the folks at hotair.com
. The headline reads:
“Gallup: Obama’s job approval hits 39 percent, tied for his all-time low
But the hotair.com
article goes on to comment on the CNN/ORC International poll referenced above and points out that:
“A CNN/ORC International poll found that 13 percent of Democrats it surveyed want to impeach President Obama. Those Democrats are joined by 57 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of independents who support impeaching the president, according to CNN…
And the greater amount of respondents who support Obama’s impeachment did not do so lightly. CNN found that 79 percent of those surveyed answered that, in general, Congress should only attempt impeachment against any sitting president for a “very serious crime” such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
And as to impeachment - politico.com
“One third of Americans think President Barack Obama should be impeached, a new poll says.
According to a CNN/ORC International poll released Friday, 33 percent of Americans think the president should be impeached and removed from office, compared with 65 percent who say they don’t support impeachment. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans say they support impeaching Obama, compared with just 35 percent of independent voters and 13 percent of Democrats.
“A plurality of Americans — 45 percent — believe Obama has gone too far in expanding his presidential powers. Thirty percent said the president has been about right in terms of presidential powers, while 22 percent he has not gone far enough.
The numbers generally fall in line with CNN results from the past two presidencies — 30 percent of Americans support impeachment for former President George W. Bush in 2006 and 29 percent support impeachment for former President Bill Clinton in 1998.”
Personally, I think all of this talk about impeachment is being fomented behind the scenes by DEMOCRATS, who see it as a way to whip up their base and raise campaign funds. It will be up to the GOP to avoid this trap. Boehner tried to deflect the issue earlier today with a statement that the GOP “has no intention of impeaching the President.”
*Speaking of campaigns and campaign funds, Michelle Obama demonstrated a bit of “foot in mouth” disease last week as she “bemoaned” the fact that there is too much money in politics at a fundraiser in Chicago. First Mrs. Obama said this:
“….yeah, there’s too much money in politics. There’s special interests that have too much influence.”
And then she said this:
““There is something you can do right now today to make a difference, and that is to write a big, fat check. I kid you not. I’m going to be honest with you. That’s what we need you to do right now. We need you to write the biggest, fattest check that you can possibly write.”
The Washington Times calls her comments “ironic.” I call them “sit-com” worthy.
*Not to be outdone by the First Lady, President Obama had his own “ironic” moment last week. As reported by the Mike Miller of the Independent Review Journal:
“During his weekly address, Barack Obama said that the American people “don’t get to pick which rules you play by.” (For you grammar sticklers, that would be “the rules by which you play.”) Anyway, here’s O:
“Even as corporate profits are as high as ever, a small but growing group of big corporations are fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes … they’re basically renouncing their citizenship and declaring that they’re based somewhere else, just to avoid paying their fair share.
*[W]hen some companies cherry-pick their taxes, it damages the country’s finances. It adds to the deficit. … You don’t get to pick which rules you play by, or which tax rate you pay, and neither should these companies.”
Setting aside his worn-out “fair share” mantra (the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world), the irony here is a president who regularly circumvents Congress, the U.S. Constitution and existing federal law. Mind-numbing.
Think about it. Obama has:
• instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
• unilaterally implemented the DREAM Act, which was defeated in Congress
• unilaterally rewrote the Affordable Care Act at least 42 times
• continued to ignore existing federal immigration laws
Maybe I missed it. Maybe he’s saying that people and corporations with whom he disagrees don’t get to choose which “rules” they follow. (See: Hobby Lobby)”
*Staying with the theme of “foot in mouth,” a prominent Democrat delegate from the District of Columbia made the list last week, as reported by the Washington Examiner in their article titled: “Eleanor Holmes Norton says 'you don't have a right to know' what's going on in government.” According to the article:
“Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting congressional delegate for the District of Columbia, angrily sputtered during a congressional hearing Friday that the White House should not be held up to scrutiny, saying that there was no right to know what it was doing behind closed doors.
"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government," Norton said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.
It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government officials. Instead the leading advocate for statehood for the District of Columbia literally argued that even the congressional committee charged with oversight shouldn't be asking questions in the first place.
She made the comments while protesting the committee's Republican majority for voting to ignore a claim by the White House that David Simas, director of it's Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, was immune to a congressional subpoena to testify. Republicans believe the office is being used a political campaign operation, a violation of federal election law.
Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., noted he was not alleging any wrongdoing by Simas, but there was a history of violations involving that particular office in prior administrations that justified requesting his testimony.
Under President Obama, the White House has asserted sweeping executive powers, including the right to ignore pretty much all congressional inquiries. The administration has regularly ignored subpoenas from congressional committees.”
For the entire article, see: http://washingtonexaminer.com/eleanor-holmes-norton-says-you-dont-have-a-right-to-know-whats-going-on-in-government/article/2551313
*Finally, someone on the GOP side who the Dems usually try to associate with “foot and mouth disease” struck back at the liberal media’s attempt to sucker-punch her on the airwaves. Breitbart.com
tells the story of Palin’s “good fortune”(?) in side-stepping what I personally believe was a despicable attempt by lefty Hollywood-types to humiliate and degrade Palin. Here is the article in its entirety:
“Sarah Palin Drives Stake Through Heart of 'True Blood' Producers
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin rejected overtures from True Blood's producers for a cameo role on the conservative-bashing vampire show. Her instincts proved to be correct after Sunday's HBO episode in which Republican women were once again demeaned when one of the lead characters said in horror, "Oh my God, I'm a Republi-c*nt."
Palin told Breitbart News after she heard about the misogynistic episode that she simply wondered, "'True Blood' or true gall?"
"The brilliant minds of 'True Blood' were brazen enough to ask me to do a cameo on their show, apparently so they could insult a conservative woman in person instead of just all conservative women in general," Palin told Breitbart News. "Their offer wasn’t presented in any negative way, perhaps to benefit from a surprise factor after the guest appearance. I turned them down anyway."
Palin also had some choice words for hypocritical Hollywood liberals who often gin up the phony "war on women" rhetoric.
"To producers who throw these deceitfully 'flattering' bones that sound fun on the surface, is it really any wonder I don't accept your offers to participate in your shows?" she said. "Nice try HBO. I’d put any mama grizzly in America against a vampire any day; for only one of them actually exists. The left wants to talk about a 'war on women'? Keep engaging in your misogynist attacks on women you disagree with and we’ll see who wins your self-inflicted war in the court of decent public opinion."
On Sunday's episode, as Breitbart TV explained, two of the characters crashed a Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) fundraiser at the George W. Bush Presidential Library that they said only lets in "a**sholes." The fundraiser ended up turning into a bloodbath:
While HBO's Award winning "True Blood" a popular vampire drama has had a long-running narrative with the bad guys cast as southern conservative politicians, last night's episode took it a step farther, calling Ted Cruz supporters a**holes and offensively referring to conservative woman in eveningware as "republic**ts"
When two of the main characters, vampires Eric Northman and Pam De Beaufort, are planning to crash a fictional fundraiser for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) held at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas they are warned “They only let in a**holes.”
While dressing for the event in cowboy hats and Western evening attire Pam De Beaufort says "Oh my God I'm a republic**t"
And finally De Beaufort enters the gala proclaiming "Of all the horrible things I've seen in the last hundred years this could be the most disturbing."
Blog has been viewed (238) times.