As the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web Today” suggests, “Use the Reader Comments to Learn More About the Times” and how the public views the journalistic abuse.
It seems that the NYT (and other media) decided to investigate the wife of SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavenaugh, Ashley. The NYT readers point out the lack of similar”vetting” of Obama’s judicial nominees.
Fake news, indeed. 85 emails from Mrs. Kavenaugh’s position as town manager of Chevy Chase, Maryland revealed nothing of interest – except exposure of the NYT bias, perhaps.
But the Op Ed says, ” We had to try.” Just what were they trying?
I’ll let you read the translation byJames Taranto’s Best of the Web Today (in the Wall Street Journal) of this little bigoted “memo” against the Republicans, the Tea Party and Evangelicals sent out by “Democracy Corps'” Stan Greenberg and James Carville on your own ( The “memo” is also available for download online in pdf) , but you probably won’t have too much trouble anticipating it from this excerpt:
We expected that in this comfortable setting or in their private written notes, some [participants] would make a racial reference or racist slur [sic] when talking about the African American President. None did. They know that is deeply non-PC and are conscious about how they are perceived. But focusing on that misses how central is race to the worldview of Republican voters. They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly \”minority,\” and their party is getting whooped by a Democratic Party that uses big government programs that benefit mostly minorities, create dependency and a new electoral majority. Barack Obama and Obamacare is [sic] a racial flashpoint for many Evangelical and Tea Party voters.
How could anyone take seriously a memo co-authored by these two men? Especially one that is supposed to explain Republicans, using “word cloud” graphic, featured above? Mr. Taranto didn’t, but found at least one author on Bloomberg who did.
If you aren’t a subscriber, consider signing up for the free daily email from The Best of the Web.
Ann Coulter never seems to pick a winner in Presidential elections. This year is no different. The problem may be that she is not as conscientious about research as I thought.
I’ve read all her books, and have been impressed with her research. She can certainly say “Lexus-Nexus” faster than anyone I know.
She’s obviously not done her homework on Rick Perry and the law in Texas. In this video interview at the Wall Street Journal, she says that Romney lied about Global Warming because he was attacked, but that we should believe that he won’t support the same people if we elect him President. She’s sure that he’s learned his lesson on Romneycare, too.
In contrast, in the case of Rick Perry,
His position on illegal immigration is a killer. . .
You can’t repeal the citizenship.
We have a path to amnesty for illegal immigrants that’s a policy can never be changed.
There is no such thing as a path to amnesty in Texas Law, and the Governor has never endorsed amnesty.
We have already been burned once by false promises of border security in exchange for tying security to other aspects of the immigration debate. President Regan, in 1986, signed the immigration reform and control act, which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The law was supposed to be a comprehensive solution with provisions intended to clamp down on border security. These provisions were never enforced, and the subsequent explosion in illegal crossings has resulted in some 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States today an estimated 1.8 million illegal immigrants are currently residing in Texas, compared with 1.1 million in 2000. In ten years, that represents an increase of 54 percent or 70,000 persons each year coming to our state illegally. Today, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates than about one in ten people born in Mexico live in the United States. And all of this has occurred outside the system and to the disadvantage of others who have been waiting in line for many years. There are literally millions of people waiting to get into the country legally. (pp.118-119)
Perry, Rick (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. Little, Brown and Company. Kindle PC Edition.
Warren Buffett’s plea for higher taxes means he wants the government to take more money from other people – but not him. In real life, Buffett says and does underscores his previously stated opinion that private interests “will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”
The Wall Street Journal reviews Mr. Buffett’s disingenuous claim that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, ignoring the fact that his regular income is taxed at the highest rate while the bulk of his income is taxed as capital gains or dividends.
The real hypocrisy is that Mr. Buffett takes full advantage of tax shelters, such as his foundations and charities.Most of the middle class, even the “wealthy” that President Obama and Mr. Buffett want to tax at a higher rate – those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 a year, can’t afford to put millions in tax shelter charities and foundations.
And maybe, just maybe, we, too believe that we can “do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government” with our own money.