G.W.B. Was Never THIS “Incurious”

“Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t accidentally “run into” each other anywhere.  Ever.”

Remember how 99% of the political class at ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. sniffed at how “incurious” President Bush was?  When, in fact, it turns out his G.P.A was a point higher (not much but it matters!) than John Kerry’s?  And it has later emerged that President Bush is an avid, voracious reader (It’s been reported a book a week, typically, favoring non-fiction, and these are books well over 300 pages & without pictures, for any snot-nosed progressive who might be reading this.)

Well, we’ve reached peak “incurious.”  

And, once again, sadly, it is as it relates to those who cover presidents, and not, predictably, as it relates to the intellectual capacity of a president himself  – with or without a “D” after his name.

The most white-hot story in politics right now is Hillary Clinton’s rogue email server. There’s nothing more important or interesting in political circles right now – off-the-air, that is.  

Oh, there’s been some coverage of this profoundly criminal and dangerous breach of national security on the alphabet networks, and even MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has had some honest coverage of it (but that’s only because they want another Democrat to win, not Hillary, who is insufficiently radical, to them, which is kind of horrifying all by itself.)

And, to be sure, The New York Times has done extensive reporting on the issue, even “breaking” the story back in March (but that’s only because they were fed all the details by that no-necked-short-furry-Machiavellian-troll Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s handler-consigliare, who also hates Hillary, also because she is insufficiently radical – and other reasons.)  

The New York Times has subsequently done some other reporting, from other reporters there, trying to white-wash the whole mess, and it’s a safe bet the white-wash reporters got expletive-laced, screaming, threatening phone-calls, just like the original March story reporter got, who dutifully changed the text without attribution (You’re supposed to tell your readers when you change the meaning of the text of an original story.  The New York Times didn’t. That’s bad.  It’s “Journalistic Ethics 101.”).  The Washington Post appears to have had the same trajectory.  So while hat-tips are owed to MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, for covering at all, their motives are suspect; cleary, deeply, cynically, suspect.

So here we are.  It’s the dog-days of summer, Obama’s on the Vineyard, and a Clinton is in legal trouble.  All is normal.

Except it’s not.

It’s really, really not.

The two men who have treated Hillary to her two biggest public humiliations, Bill, who serially cheated on her, and Barack, who beat her from her “inevitable” crown in 2008, “ran into each other” on the golf course.  “Accidentally” says the press.


Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t meet “accidentally” anywhere. Ever. Their Secret Service details know.  Are we to believe nobody on the Obama detail called their buddy on the Clinton detail or vice-versa?  Seriously?  That’s silly, childish even.  That’s unicorn territory. No.  This was a purposeful meeting.  And the fact that there are pictures is also no accident.  Obama has proven capable of keeping the overwhelming majority of his time on all his golf outings private – if he wants to. There’s no way a picture of the two presidents would happens unless Obama wanted it to.  No way.  

So!  What are we to believe about this?  Here are some ideas, as curated by Twitchy, that seem right to me, and gave birth to this blog post of mine. How is it POSSIBLE we have such an incurious press?  I can think of a dozen questions, (without jiggling my blob!) I would love to ask, if only to see the looks on their faces, which might be all the answer we need.  Good grief!    



BOOM! (That’s what I think.)

Obama / Feinstein 2012?

If Joe’s gotta go, and Hillary’s a no-go, then Senator Diane Feinstein would be a formidable choice.

She’s pissed at Obama for the egregious, (I say treasonous) leaks over which she has oversight as a senior member of the Intelligence Committee. I believe she also sits on Foreign Relations. Even apart from her impressive credentials and her (liberal!) politics, however, she’s no intellectual slouch. She’s been a solid Democrat, solid Senator, and gracious leader. She would be an excellent choice (dammit).

It was also her house in Georgetown where the deal was done to make Hillary Secretary of State and not the VP in late 2008. It was her dining room, reportedly, where those discussions took place.

She was also a latecomer to ObamaCare and had to be dragged over the finish line. She negotiated more water for the Central Valley farmers who were drying up due to the stupid Delta Smelt.

All of this is indicative of a close relationship & a covenant of trust between Obama & the Senator. The kind of relationship where he might call her and say “If you lay off me about my treasonous leaks, I’ll put you on the ticket.”

Remember where you heard it first.

Obama's Excellent 2012 Adventure

It occurs to me that Michelle Obama being booed at NASCAR is just the beginning.

You’ll note that the Obamas’ appearances of late have all been very tightly choreographed.  They almost always pack a crowd with friendlies, then keep the camera from doing any wide shots, thus betraying how much the crowds have shrunk since 2008.

You can’t campaign for President only in front of friendly crowds.

I know my Tea Party friends will comport themselves with dignity.

I will remind them to please always bring a video camera and have someone with you taping everything, because you will be set up to be the fall guy for some crank the other side tries to plant as Tea Party.

Keep calm, and carry on 😉

Obama 2008: Iran NOT "serious threat"

Then Senator Barack Obama, May 18, 2008, on the campaign trail in Oregon:

“They don’t pose a serious threat to us… If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

He based this gem of foreign policy reasoning on the observation that they are a “tiny” little country.


Guess he never factored in waiting for the Mahdi, dramatic advances in computer chips & GPS guided technology and how the whole smack is one hell of a lot cheaper and easier to get now than it was in the 1980’s (When the Soviet Union loomed large, which he cited as the last time we faced a real threat from a real country.)

But… Annie… He’s super-smart so he couldn’t possibly be this facile in his understanding of the world, right?  Plus, he said this waaaaay back… in… 2008…

I swear to God you cannot make this stuff up.

Do I need to even bring up what would happen in Palin or Cain said this?

You can see the video clip here.

Herman's "10 Day" / "57" State Problem Explained

99% of America either:

(1.) Doesn’t follow the hour-to-hour developments on the ‘non-sexual’-but-‘offensive gesture’-sex-‘harassment‘-non-story, which is now what the Establishment analysts of both Parties (technically correctly) describe as a process’ vs. ‘substance’ problem.   It’s now become HOW Herman answers the questions, NOT a story on the veracity of the original charge in the first place. 

(2.) Yup… But even if his answers are ‘evolving’… Nobody cares!

Know why?  Because NORMAL people think like Herman did, which is what got him in this mess. 

Herman thought the truth would set him free. That’s why, even thought he had a heads up about this, he didn’t assemble a team of ‘Spinners.’

I firmly believe he thought he could just tell the truth… as he remembered it… coming back to him, as it understandably would after 12 years, in ever-more detailed bits…

I am personally troubled by the fact that Herman failed the ’emergency on the trail’ management test, yes, I am.  But I am unmoved by it because I know, down to my bones, that it was a mistake made by an honorable man, who – and this is the real core of this – until he’d touched the Progressive Power grid, didn’t realize the voltage of that evil.  What’s new, is that the Establishment G.O.P. contributed to the electric shock.

Now he knows D.C. in this unique moment in time, when we have a culture, helped along by Obama, of pitting American against American… and Establishment (read: CORRUPT) GOP against New (read: HONORABLE) Tea Party.

My man Herman’s a fast learner.  He’ll not make this mistake again.  On the trail…

…Or in the White House.

BTW:  Remember Obama’s horrible, dreadful, inexplicable FLUB on drivers’ licenses for illegals during the ’08 campaign debates?  A flub made even though Hillary had been burned in the previous debate?  Nobody on MSNBC regarded Obama’s LACK OF FRIGGING DEBATE PREPARATION – KNOWING HE WOULD GET THE DAMNED QUESTION as DISQUALIFYING, did they?

UPDATE:  Morning Joe is jumping all over Herman for a clip they played of him which, to their ear, indicated that Herman thought China didn’t have nukes.  Uh… No, you dishonest brokers.  He’s using the normal, vernacular short-hand that everybody uses which is to describe they ability to nuke us from there.  Got it?

UPDATE II:  Just while writing the above paragraph, Andrea Mitchell and the panel lamented that the Republican Party is giving Herman ‘a pass’ and ‘not asking the questions’ they should ask…

Someone find me a puppy so I can kick it! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!



Pass?  GETTING A PASS, ANDREA????????????????????????

You mean like you gave Obama ‘I’ve been to 57 states so far’ A PASS?????

And that’s not even the WORST, STUPID thing he’s said, before OR AFTER the White House!