That article contains powerful stuff, that Americans need to see, about President Obama’s arrogant attitude. Key quote (but not the only good one): “You get nothing. I get that for free.”

Wow. 800 billion dollars of our money is his, for free.

Unfortunately, that WSJ article is behind a subscription firewall. Good move, WSJ. Now, the liberals can claim that we’re misquoting the article, and we can’t produce the full article to rebut them.

However, I have a WSJ online subscription. So do many of us.

On our blogs, to what extent can we reprint parts of the article? I won’t reprint the whole thing, and I’ll give full credit to the WSJ and the article’s authors, by name.

That article has powerful stuff in it. Its key parts need to be shared, widely and often.

What can, or can’t, we share?

Republican Rep. Peter King has officially announced he will step down as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

The New York congressman must resign because of party rules that limit committee chairmanships to six years, and King has already had a one-year extension that he is now finishing.

He made the announcement Saturday to the New York Daily News, and no short list of names has emerged as a possible replacement in the Republican-controlled House. However, Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security, has been mentioned as a potential replacement.

Should Attorney General Eric Holder resign and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano take his place, as speculated, King would appear qualified for the post. However, President Obama will likely appoint a fellow Democrat.

Ummm…DUH !!! Ya think?

Someone at FoxNews.com—an Obama voter, perhaps?—thought it was newsworthy to write that, if a Democratic President has a vacancy in a high-power* Cabinet position, he/she will likely fill it with…another Democrat.

Did I miss the news that Obama administration sources had leaked hints that the president was seriously considering House Republican Peter King to replace Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security?

A quick Google search (take note, FoxNews.com) for “peter king janet napolitano” or “peter king replace janet napolitano” produces links to plenty of stories where Rep. King castigates Secretary Napolitano. I found none, though, that show any reputable buzz—or, any buzz at all—that indicates that King’s name is being floated as a possible replacement for the DHS secretary.

Perhaps Roger Ailes should compel his staff to watch Schoolhouse Rock. Or, pass their high school government class before writing copy?

(All emphasis in the blockquote above is added).

* Update: I concede that most presidents have at least one Cabinet secretary from the other party in their cabinet. However, those “Auslanders” are normally in innocuous Cabinet departments (e.g., Transportation) or share the same mindset with the sitting president (e.g., GOP-Senator-turned-Clinton-Defense-Secretary William Cohen). IMHO DHS isn’t an innocuous Cabinet post and Peter King isn’t an Obamaphile. Ergo, I still think FoxNews.com’s mention of King as a possible replacement for Napolitano is just plain stupid.

Then, I was reminded that many of my friends, who are 50 or younger, have long thought that they would never get a fraction of the federal entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc…) their grandparents receive and parents will receive.

Is is possible, then, that warnings about the entitlement crisis fall on deaf ears, because people aren’t counting on receiving those entitlements anyway?

The people I know don’t begrudge their parents and grandparents relying on SS, Medicare and other federal benefits. They feel they’ve earned them. And, for a while at least, they’re willing to pay taxes that fund benefits for their elders.

For themselves, though, they paid attention to Ross Perot in 1992, when he made the growing federal debt a national issue. They got the message twenty years ago that federal entitlements were on an unsustainable path. Then, they either planned accordingly and built personal financial plans that didn’t rely on federal benefits. Or, they did nothing. But, either way, they didn’t really expect to get the same benefits their parents did.

So, when those younger voters see Heritage Foundation charts that show, unavoidably, that federal entitlement spending cannot be sustained, they mentally shrug. They already knew that!

Moreover, I think these voters have silently resolved that they’re not going to allow their wealth to be confiscated to pay for unrealistic entitlement spending promises. Office-holders that try to make them pay won’t be in office for long. As Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit says, spending that can’t be sustained, won’t be. People will not stand by silently while their pockets are emptied, to pay the bills of older people who promised (and voted) themselves entitlement benefits and then sent the bill to their children.

I think many Americans are looking at the entitlement bills we’re running up for ourselves, and saying to themselves “Screw that—I’m not paying that.”

How, then, do we reach people who aren’t really scared by the entitlement bubble? People who expect that bubble to pop long before they retire?

Obama: “This is my last election,” Obama is heard telling outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Russian President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” an apparent reference to incoming President Vladmir Putin.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/11538889-418/obama-on-hot-mic-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility.html

That episode made my blood boil. I’ll bet that it would make many American’s blood boil.

Yet, I haven’t seen it in a single campaign ad. I live in Arizona, a red state. But I spent a fair amount of time in Virginia recently—I didn’t see it there, either. I’ve also seen no recent mention of it in the conservative new media. That makes me think that Team Romney isn’t using this.

Has anyone seen this episode in an ad? Is it getting big play in the swing states.

If not…why not??!! When we have a big weapon like this, why don’t we use it? Are we saving it for the next election?

PLEASE tell me this is getting big airplay in the battleground states.

• Only ONE of the 5 Sunday shows discussed Benghazi in any great detail.
• How many people know what Tyler Woods’ dad has said about Joe Biden’s shockingly-insensitive comment about his son?

The beginning of this week is a bad time to try and make a huge story out of this, because of Hurricane Sandy.  The Dems are undoubtedly hoping that they can hide behind Sandy’s winds and rain—and the resulting coverage therof—until after November 6th.

I don’t think they can hide that long.  Especially if we don’t let them.

IMO the GOP and conservative New Media should plan on unloading everything we have on Benghazi on Thursday.  By then, the Sandy coverage crush should have started to abate a bit.  Thursday is a good time to open fire.

Remember how the Bush DUI story in 2000 depressed a fair amount of the Dubya vote?  This is a close election.  The Benghazi story can have the same kinds of impact on wavering or undecided voters.

Wavering and undecided voters are probably focused on the Second Perfect Storm right now.  By the end of this week, they’ll be willing to focus their attention elsewhere.  We should wait until then to make our Benghazi case to the public.

Candy Crowley is a regular Friday guest on The Hugh Hewitt Show. Today, Hugh is asking conservatives and Republicans to ““go easy on Crowley.”

Some conservatives are upset that Romney didn’t deliver a second obviously crushing series fo blows to the president, but Romney did turn in a confident, assured performance that did not show a bit of fluster even when Candy Crowley intervened –wrongfully– to protect the president on Libya, or later interrupted his answer on Fasy & Furious. That was important as everyone sees the same debate and saw what most people will view as a home field aadvantage for the president in question selection and moderator. Romney should send Crowley roses for messing up the Libya exchange as it propels Libya to the front page tomorrow and into the public’s consciousness as not even an uninterrupted exchange would have. The media is not supposed to create the narrative, but it did, much to Romney’s benefit.

Go easy on Crowley. She made a mistake, but it wasn’t intentional and it has the unintended consequence of focusing the post-debate exactly where it should be and far, far removed from any nonsense.

I’m an addicted Hugh Hewitt listener…but I must disagree here. “Go easy” on her? Why? The MSM EXPECTS conservatives and Republicans to “go easy” on them…but they don’t go easy on us.

Remember the CNN/YouTube debate in 2008? Most of the um, uncommitted or undecided questioners had publicly stated their support for the Democrats. The Army officer who lectured the GOP candidates on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell was affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign. Bill Bennett pointed that out on-air to Anderson Cooper.

“CNN, the most trusted name in news.” Yeah, right. In the days after that kerfluffle, CNN’s public comments left me with the distinct impression that they really didn’t care if they’d been unfair to conservatives.

I bet that Crowley will go to the conservative media and expect them to give her a pass. I hope Hugh Hewitt doesn’t. If conservative media keeps giving these MSM figures an out when they do stuff like this…they will keep doing stuff like this! Who will make them stop, if we won’t?

The MSMers who shaft us don’t want ALL conservative media figures to forgive them. They only need one or two. Then, when the rest of conservative media criticizes them, they can retort with “Well, so-and-so isn’t upset and he’s a conservative New Media luminary, so what I did couldn’t have been ALL that bad!” Then, with plausible deniability established, and a shield to hid behind and deflect criticism with, they can return to the MSM cocoon.

I hope Hugh Hewitt, or other conservative New Media leaders, don’t give Crowley that shield. She doesn’t deserve it. At the very least, I hope he insists on a detailed explanation from Crowley for why she sandbagged Romney, and not let her go until he gets it.

Akin is now mounting a populist-tinged campaign, where he’s stoking anger among the party faithful toward his GOP “bosses,” a shot at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn — all of whom called on Akin to end his bid before the Tuesday drop-out deadline.

In an interview with POLITICO, Akin accused McConnell and Cornyn of being hostile toward conservatives and gravely warned them that if he loses a race that could determine the Senate majority, the blame will fall squarely on them.

“It’s opened my eyes to a new world,” Akin said when asked about the calls from his party’s leadership to drop out. “There are certain people in the Senate who are not comfortable with conservatives — and as I look back historically, seeing what’s been done in a couple of past elections, I’ve been hit by the same thing that other people have been hit by.”

Where do I start? That reminds me of the line from Monty Python: “Help! Help! I’m Being Repressed!”

I, as a fis-con RINO, am more than willing to partner with Todd Akin, and support him forcefully, for his Missouri Senate bid. Why do I do that? Because I can do math.

51 GOP Senators (we need someone to cancel out Susan Collins) equals repeal of Obamacare. 50 or less equals virtually nothing. 49 GOP Senators means Harry Reid remains in charge, and ABSOLUTELY nothing will get done. No GOP Senate, no meaningful reform. It’s that simple.

FDR and Churchill didn’t partner with Stalin because they thought he was a great guy. They partnered with him because ALL of them had more pressing problems at the time.

Am I saying that Todd Akin is the same kind of guy that Stalin was. No, far from it. Everything I’ve read indicates that Todd Akin is a decent, VERY well-meaning guy who said a monumentally-stupid thing, for which the MO electorate will most likely NOT forgive him.

Todd Akin has missed a chance to embrace his mistake, man up and move on. Instead, he has chosen (assuming Politico quoted him correctly, which isn’t a guarantee) to slam the GOP leadership. He’s chosen to hold a pity party for himself, and blame others for not bailing him out of the hole that he dug for himself, with his own shovel—his mouth.

I fully expect John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, Reince Preibus and other GOP leaders with national responsibilities to execute those responsibilities with care, wisdom and common sense.

Check out the polls. Winning the Senate isn’t a lock. We have candidates in tough fights all over the country. They will need resources.

The MO Senate race was supposed to be an easy, inexpensive pickup for the GOP. That is, until Todd Akin chose to open his mouth. Now, if GOP leaders decide that a candidate who is not only capable of, but apparently prone to, saying dumb things to microphones and cameras shouldn’t rank high on the funding priority list, that’s not an abandonment of conservative principles. It’s (a) common sense and (b) a implicit affirmation that Darwin had a point: life tends to make short work of the careless and clumsy amongst us.

Let’s not forget that EVERY GOP candidate across the country runs the risk of the Dems and the MSM hanging a “Todd Akin Is My BFF” millstone necklace around their necks. If the national GOP leadership reaches out to Todd Akin, then the national GOP leadership, plus ALL the party’s candidates, everywhere will have to carry Todd Akin around their necks. The MSM won’t let them get away from l’affaire Akin until after the election, when it’s safe to do so. OUr candidates will try to change the subject, and the MSM won’t permit it. They’ll starve our campaigns of the PR oxygen they need to get their message out. (Remember Macacagate?)

Should ALL the GOP’s candidates have to work harder—and perhaps lose winnable races—because Todd Akin is having a pity party? Which GOP candidate does Team Akin consider expendable, in order for their guy to get the “respect” he feel he’s due? Josh Mandel? Tommy Thompson? George Allen? Heather Wilson? Jeff Flake?

Now, Akin could have responded to Politico this way:

I’m not going to blame the national GOP leadership for the problems I created for myself. I said a dumb thing that I didn’t mean. I’ve made myself a target for the left, and I know that the Democrats and media will try and use my words to make things tough for GOP candidates everywhere. My party’s leadership has many elections they have to win; my words threatened to make their jobs that much harder. Moreover, they had to think about the other candidates we have across the country. I get that.

Missourians need to remember, though, that this Senate election is a choice. If Claire McCaskill gets re-elected and the Democrats keep the Senate, Obamacare can’t be fixed. The Democrats won’t permit it. No matter how tough and moderate Claire sounds now, Harry Reid and the liberal leadership in the Democratic Senate will hit the mute button anytime she speaks. Just like they do now. If Claire and the Democrats keep the Senate, our economy will stay stagnated and the theft of our children’s and grandchildren’s money, through deficit spending, will continue.

Many Missourians may not think very much of me; I get that. Your alternative, however, is more of the same horrible stuff we’ve been getting these past four years. I’m not running to be your friend or minister. I’m running to be the guy from the Show Me State who will go to Washington and REALLY make the changes that thousands of Missourians are begging for.

Now, why couldn’t Akin have said something like that?

Todd Akin is married with two daughters. Let the Democrats make a forceful case that Akin is indifferent to rape. Common sense, plus a family photo, will show that Todd Akin isn’t the creature the Democrats are painting him out to be. (Have his wife and daughters cut TV ads yet? If so, are Missouri airwaves being blanketed with those ads?)

For any fiscon RINO who’s leery of sending GOP money to Akin, think of it this way: you wouldn’t have opposed Lend-Lease aid to the Russians, would you?

Having said that—for any Akin supporter who wants to blame their candidate’s problem on an elitist GOP cabal in Washington, your candidate should look somewhere else for the source of his problems. The nearest mirror.

I find it mildly troubling that the Senate Conservatives Fund is asking people that it doesn’t know whether the FUnd itself should support Todd Akin. Does the Fund normally make decisions based on the results of Internet polls? If so, if I were a Democrat, I’d have all my people sign up as Fund members. But anyhoo…

Here’s my answer to the FUnd. Yes, support Akin, as we would support any other nominee. But, ONLY give him money if you (the Fund) has money to spare.

Why? According to the polls I’m seeing, the GOP hasn’t locked up the Senate yet.
- Nate Silver at the NYT puts the GOP’s chances of taking the Senate at 20%
- John Fund just ran a National Review article, asking if the GOP could still take the Senate. In that article, he points out that, not too long ago, it was accepted conventional wisdom that the GOP’s capturing the Senate was a foregone conclusion.

If the Senate isn’t locked up for the GOP yet, then the GOP leadership and major money sources have to target their funds wisely. I.e., they have to do “triage.” Assess all the patients and prioritize care to the patients most likely to pull through. (Or, in this case, most likely win).

Here’s part of the Senate Conservative Fund’s rationale for (potentially) supporting Akin at this point in the race:

The race in Missouri appears to still be winnable. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows Todd Akin trailing McCaskill by just 6 points. Congressman Akin may still be able to win this race even after all of the attacks from the liberal media and the Republican establishment.

The race in Missouri appears to still be winnable. If you’re a patient lying outside the MASH operating room, and you “appear to still have a chance of surviving,” you’re not winning the triage game.

Akin supporters have had more than a month to crank up their ground game, work their voter and fundraising networks and kick things in gear for Todd Akin…and they’re still six points behind to Claire McCaskill! Forgive me for pointing out that the patient doesn’t seem to be pulling through. Meanwhile, we have other patients we CAN save, by giving them the medicines and medical resources we DO have.

If people want to engage in a pity party, blaming the “Republican establishment” for Todd Akin’s woes, they have every right to do that. But, I don’t feel obligated to waste precious resources—resources that will probably give us better payoff if they’re applied elsewhere—simply to salve some bruised feelings. Especially if the people whose feelings are bruised refused to acknowledge that their guy shot himself in the foot.

So, Senate Conservative Fund, there’s your answer. We shouldn’t abandon Todd Akin, but we should only expend resources on him once we’ve fully resourced the candidates who have better chances of winning.

My 0.02.

1. I do not see Romney/Ryan hammering home the debt issue. IMO that’s our most powerful weapon, because Team Obama can’t really counter that. Both sides are running ads that seem to send the same general message: “My plan is better and the other guy stinks.” Well, if you’re an average, unengaged voter, those ads can cancel each other out. They can cause you to tune out. (Which, I suspect, is Team Obama’s plan).

Shouldn’t the GOP be running graphs, over and over and over again, that show how the debt is skyrocketing? Why aren’t they emphasizing that we’re burdening our children and grandchildren with huge debts? IMO that message would resonate, and Team Obama really doesn’t have much they can say to counter it. So…WHY NOT USE A WEAPON THAT THE OTHER TEAM CAN’T DEFEAT??!!!

2. Tim Kaine owns George Allen on the airwaves. If George Allen can’t do better than this, the GOP deserves to lose this seat. Kaine is beating him to death and Allen is not running ads that, IMO, inflict any real damage on Kaine.

Why don’t we start running against Harry Reid, instead of Tim Kaine? EXPLAIN, while we still have some time to do so, why a Democratic Senate controlled by Harry Reid is a bad thing. Cite the volumes of evidence we have to back up our claim.

THEN, explain why any moderate Dem is blowing smoke if they pledge to be moderate and stand up to their party if elected: that same moderate Dem will confirm Harry Reid to be the majority leader. Knowing FULL WELL that the majority leader will kill bills that liberal Dems don’t like. (Like, say, federal budget resolutions.)

Here, IMO of course, are the benefits of doing that
- We educate some voters. People are really paying attention this year.
- We get some buzz
- We put the Dem candidates on the spot. (“Mr. Kaine, if Harry Reid remains in control of the Senate, how can Obamacare be changed?”). Right now, they’re counting on the ignorance of the voter. Let’s do something about that! Let’s take a few weeks in September and early October to educate voters. Then, we can mount some arguments closer to Election Day that build on those arguments. Make Harry Reid an issue, and make Tim Kaine deal with him!

I know it’s early in the election cycle. But, right now, from what I see on the TV in the Richmond suburbs, our message isn’t working.

For example—”Beam Me Up, Scotty!”

About a year ago, a former Planned Parenthood official wrote a book about her experiences in the employ of that abortion provider. She tells the story of watching an abortion. Before killing the baby, the doctor joked “Beam Me Up, Scotty.”

Imagine a billboard with the words “Beam Me Up, Scotty” on it, followed by a URL to a website with much, much more info.

I’m just sayin…

I’m looking for some good online resources that take on the Dems’ key Mediscare arguments. E.g., even though Ryan says that people 55 and over won’t be affected, Dems claim that Ryan’s proposed Medicare changes will weaken the plan overall—and THAT will hurt seniors.

Where are some good, credible sources—preferably as mainstream as possible (I’m trying to convince Dems and independents here)—I can refer to?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Greetings everyone–smagar here. I’ve linked an article just posted on TucsonCitizen.com, by “Baja Democrats.” Baja is the most active Democratic blogger on TucsonCitizen.com. I, blogging on the “Fort Buckley” blog on TC.com, have been duking it out with Baja and the other Tucson leftys.

This appears to be Baja’s big pre-election blog in support of Ron Barber, the Democrat running against Jesse Kelly for the seat vacated by Gabrielle Giffords.

Did you know that John Boehner and the GOP are trying to bring the US economy to its knees?

(OK, I know that we all know that. Our Koch and Halliburton masters have told us that. But, remember what else they told us in the last data burst of commands they sent to our implanted antennae: we have to act surprised and outraged if Democrats try to tell (drum roll) THE TRUTH in public!)

Feel free to drop by TucsonCitizen.com and add to the comments that are filling up Baja Democrat’s comment section. I could also use some conservative reinforcements in the “Fort Buckley” comment section.

I would be remiss if I didn’t send a huge Old Pueblo Capitalist shout-out to Mike Becker, who wrote this fabulous guest article for us this past week. Kudos and thanks, mbecker908!

Our election here starts in less than 48 hours. PLEASE pitch in and help us out.

Thanks,
smagar

We could use some commenters in the online publications down here. It would be great if we could get some help over the next few weeks. (The election is June 17th; early balloting begins this week).

These are the major online newspapers in Tucson:
- Arizona Daily Star (the city’s only “official” dead-tree newspaper, and clearly left-leaning).
- Tucson Weekly (our alternative newspaper, who only like Republicans that are RINOs, silent or dead)
- Tucson Citizen (where I blog)
- Tucson Sentinel

On TucsonCitizen.com, these are the major pro-Democratic Party blogs
- Baja Democrats
- Hispanic Politico
- Medicare and More (it should be titled “Mediscare—Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney Hate Grandma!”)

Redstate commenters are some of—if not the—most effective online political combatants on the planet. I speak from experience when I write this next sentence: Democratic Party and liberal commenters in Tucson are largely ignorant, driven by emotion and shallow thinkers. Most of their arguments are easily picked apart and debunked. This is a target-rich environment.

Jesse Kelly is emphasizing the important message that will be sent, if a D district flips R just months before the November election. We’re getting plenty of support from the GOP. But, we could use some surge reinforcements on the commenting side.

I know we all have our own elections we’re tracking and candidates we’re supporting. But, November is months away. The battle for AZ 8th will be won or lost in the next four weeks.

Care to join us for a month?

Last April, the Tucson Tea Party (TTP) gathered in Reid Park. 2011 had been a rough year for the TTP. Three months earlier, liberals and the media (yes, I repeat myself) made it sound as if Jared Loughner had been a fellow traveler with the Tea Party movement.

By April, though, it was clear that the TTP had been unfairly implicated in the tragic events of January 8th. (Meanwhile, as union thugs and liberal activists ran wild in Wisconsin, the left’s wintertime devotion to civility had melted away in the spring thaws.)

Thank conservative New Media for that.

Senator Alan Simpson once said that an allegation unchallenged is an allegation believed. The conservative blogosphere heeded his advice.

Conservative bloggers, such as Glenn Reynolds’ “Instapundit,” sprang into action on that horrible weekend, and quickly started dissecting and debunking the anti-Tea-Party insinuations and whispers. They pushed back against all the rumors and distortions, playing “whack-a-mole” as new accusors (David Fitzsimmons, Paul Krugman, etc…) mouthed off.

Prior to the rise of New Media, liberal reporters and opinion writers could ignore the rules of good statistics and show correlation (The Tucson Tea Party opposed Giffords; Jared Laughner is from Tucson, too) without bothering to prove causation. When you think about it—why wouldn’t they do that? Who was going to stop them? Virtually all of the other media voices who could challenge them were just as pro-liberal and conservative-loathing as they were.

Liberal-dominated media had come to expect that they could smear conservatives in banner headlines on page 1 of Monday’s newspaper or telecast, watch the smear run wild (and unchallenged) through the media the rest of the week, then run some minor corrections and perhaps a mea-culpa or two at the bottom of page 48 on Saturday.

By last January, however, things had changed.

By Monday of that horrible weekend, the mainstream media (MSM) was on notice that any anti-Tea-Party insinuations they enabled would be challenged. The insinuations tapered off…what a coinky-dink!

That April, many of the conservative blogosphere’s brightest lights came to Tucson to meet with and talk to the Tea Partiers they’d defended all winter. The result was a victory celebration, of New Media over Old.

Follow this link to my entire story. There, you’ll see photos of the bloggers who addressed the Tea Party crowd that day, hear Andrew Breitbart‘s tour-de-force performance and read reminiscences of Tucson conservatives who were in the crowd.

This is my tribute to Andrew Breitbart. The key to success in life is showing up when it counts. No one showed up like Andrew. Fair winds and following seas, sir.

At first blush, I’m in agreement with Ace, from Ace of Spades, posted the day Obama threw down the gauntlet:

Basically Obama is running for President and he wants his opponent to be “Congressional Republicans”. Sometimes the best strategy is to skip a fight you want to have and should have simply because simply engaging in it is a win for your opponent.

Think of it as ignoring a comment troll. It’s unsatisfying but effective.

Let the GOP candidates take this fight to Obama while the House actually focuses on things like the tax bill that’s coming up in 2 months.

Today the WaPo weighed in on Obama’s side:

Obama’s justifiable ‘power grab’ on recess appointments

“UNPRECEDENTED.” “A power grab.” “A flagrant contempt for the rules.” Such were the howls from many on the right after President Obama this week used recess appointments to install a new director at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to reconstitute the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with three new members.
…
Republicans may well be correct that Mr. Obama is playing politics with these appointments. He announced the Cordray appointment during a stump speech in swing-state Ohio, where he railed against Republican obstructionism. His supporters in organized labor will no doubt be pleased that he filled the slots on the NLRB.

But so what? Both the consumer bureau and the labor relations board are agencies of the U.S. government, created by Congress, and it is inexcusable that congressional obstructionism would leave them unable to function. If Republicans don’t like the structure or purpose of either agency, they should try to alter them through legislation. Meanwhile their filibustering against qualified nominees to make political points or extort concessions from the White House cripples government and discourages good people from serving. That is the real poisonous practice, in which both parties have engaged. Until there is a de-escalation, the country will continue to pay a high price.

(Emphasis added)

To be sure, there’s enough plague-on-both-of-your-houses language in the editorial for the Post to claim that it’s not being biased. But, when you read the whole piece, the tone is clearly pro-Obama and dismissive of the Republican position on this issue.

(I must give credit to the Post: they didn’t become active in the Obama re-election campaign on a Saturday, when everyone was watching the NFL playoffs. They did it in the middle of the week).

Nevertheless, this is a problem for the House GOP. President Obama wants a fight and undoubtedly is willing to play rough. He knows he can be loose with the facts, because the MSM badly wants him to win in November. (How else can you explain the overall tone, to include the headline, of the WaPo’s for-record position on the recess appointments?)

Recess appointments are an inside baseball issue, and most Americans are still following football…literally AND figuratively. Obama badly needs a GOP public relations/perception misstep and the MSM clearly wants to help.

What are your thoughts, Redstate readers, on how the GOP should play this?

Last night, a reporter for the Contra Costa Times and Oakland Tribune photographed a surprising sign in the window of the Men’s Wearhouse Oakland store.

The sign reads “We stand with the 99%. Closed Wednesday November 2.”

That’s the day the Occupy Wall Street movement in Oakland called for a general strike.

Men’s Wearhouse is a publicly traded corporation (MW on the New York Stock Exchange) that takes in over $2 billion a year selling suits, with a net profit of over $67 million last year. So a company that caters to capitalists and businessmen chose to strike against its customers in support of the socialist, communist, anarchist movement that has violently clashed with police in Oakland and has had scores of reports of degenerate behavior across the country, ranging from numerous rapes to defecating on a police car.

…

It’s highly doubtful that Occupy Oakland’s hippie protesters have caused Men’s Wearhouse’s business to boom. Yet, these are the people with whom Men’s Wearhouse has chosen to stand, in opposition to their customers. On the bright side, should riots break out, the store won’t have to fear looting from the hippies and hipsters.

Note that this is not the first time that Men’s Wearhouse has, as a corporation, supported left-leaning politics. In 2009, the company removed its ads from the Glenn Beck show on Fox News.

Perhaps Men’s Wearhouse would be more comfortable selling tie-dyed t-shirts and Nehru jackets, because those Occupiers throwing rocks and bottles at the Oakland police weren’t wearing their product.

UPDATE:

Men’s Wearhouse has now released a statement on their Facebook page. It reads in full:

We closed our store near Oakland City Hall today, for one day, to express the company’s concern for the issue of wealth disparity in our country. The issue affects our employees and customers across the political spectrum.

(Thanks to “The Prudence Paine Papers” for that content, and Instapundit for the hat-tip.)

I was a committed Mens Wearhouse customer. They offer a great service: if you buy an item of clothing from them, they’ll press it for you anytime, free of charge. On many a business trip, I have stuffed Mens Wearhouse clothing into my carryon, secure in the knowledge that the MW store at my destination would make sure my professional clothes were ready for whatever work assignment I faced.

But, when someone sticks a stick in your eye (“these are the people with whom Men’s Wearhouse has chosen to stand, in opposition to their customers”), it’s hard to ignore that.

Mens Wearhouse has to know that they have many, many conservatives, Republicans and businessmen among their clients.

Yet their Oakland store did this. And, based on the Facebook posting mentioned above, their corporate office stands with them.

OK, then. As a conservative and Republican, I’ll now look for another place to shop.

Redstaters, where should an insulted Mens Wearhouse customer go?

I’ve Googled it, and I can find a few links—to low-resolution copies.

Anyone know where I can find a good one?

Moderators, if you want to put my request on hold until the next RS Open Thread, I’ll understand…but I decided to write a diary because I wanted my plea to get the widest visibility possible.

Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Al Megrahi will today mark the second anniversary of his release from prison in a safe house with his family.
Libya’s under-fire regime has called for any celebrations to remain ‘low key’.

Megrahi was filmed last month by Libyan state television appearing at a rally. Despite the fact he looked ill in a wheelchair, the 59-year-old’s surprise appearance was a huge propaganda coup.

This week the Scottish government insisted it has been ‘vindicated’ in it’s controversial decision to release Megrahi from jail on compassionate grounds.

“Vindicated?” That may be what the Scottish government thinks. But, here’s a chance for the British government, perhaps with a little US SOF help, to make up for a very big mistake it made two years ago.

Certainly al Megrahi will need world-class care for the rest of his life. And, with Libya falling apart, it’s doubtful he can get that care in Libya.

So, how about some SAS and SOF “humanitarians” go “rescue” the poor fellow and bring him back into the welcoming arms of Western medical care?

Glenn Reynolds, in Instapundit:

UPDATE: More details arise in Wisconsin’s “Chokegate.” Justice Abrahamson isn’t coming off too well. But then, who is?

Really, if I had tried to come up with a plan to undermine the institutional authority of the judiciary I don’t think I could have done better than the Wisconsin Supreme Court has managed to do.

Ed Morrissey, in Hot Air

Sounds like Wisconsin needs to clean house in its Supreme Court. Rather than have the courts get involved, the state legislature should start probing this case to determine exactly what happened, and whether the Chief Justice has conducted a leak campaign against Prosser as payback. I’d say at least one resignation is due in this case — and maybe a few of them, whatever happened. It’s doubtful that Wisconsin’s citizens can put much confidence in a court that can’t behave itself in a mature and professional manner, and especially one where such poisonous partisan and personal politics are in play

(All boldface above added)

Ummm…Ed and Glenn…what did Prosser and the other conservatives do to warrant sanction?

I sense, in the comments I just linked above, a sorta-holier-than-thou attitude that, if the WI Supreme Court Justices can’t get along, then there’s some level of collective guilt, that at some level ALL of the WI SC justices share blame.

I don’t immediately buy that.

If two liberal jerk justices—Bradley and Abramson—-are acting like, well, jerks, then how is that the fault of the other justices? Why lump them together with the the two liberal freak sisters?

Here’s my concern: The liberals will start echoing Ed Morrissey’s call to “clean house” in the WI Supreme Court. Get rid of the excessive partisans! Drain the swamp! Lance the boil of rancorous partisanship that’s poisoned the Badger State’s highest court! Let’s make cheeseheads proud of their justices again!!! Do it for the children!!!

(OK…that last one just slipped out)

Of course, in order for the housecleaning to be fair, at least one conservative justice will have to go. I wonder who the left will pick…

Something tells me the liberals will gladly sacrifice Bradley, if they can get Prosser as a package deal. Prossser’s head is a trophy the left wants very, very badly.

I hope the Hakuna-Matata Pollyanas on our side won’t get played here, into sacrificing a man who—as far as we know, based on the evidence we have now—did nothing wrong, simply because everyone “wants to be able to get along with each other again.”

I write a conservative blog on my town’s online newspaper.  A commenter wrote that I should be shot. 

I have the IP address—is there any way I can track down who sent the message?  At the very least, if I can put some heat on the Internet provider, I can make the dude’s life uncomfortable., and perhaps dissuade him (?) from doing it again.  Any ideas?

Rest assured, I know this happens a lot online…but I don’t like the idea of just sitting here and taking it.  I’d like to punch back, as much as possible.

Apologies to moderators—I tried using the “Contact” link, but I got a “Not Found” error prompt.