“But this could change…” In other words, ignore the data because global warming/climate change/climate disruption/etc. is still a problem.
 April 17, 2015 at 6:44pm
Or, “So, if Hillary Clinton were not running but Michelle Bachmann were, you would vote for one of them because they are women?” (Fill in the blank with your own pick of a conservative woman — same principle).
Of course, that would be different. Then ideology and qualifications would be important. But consistency of argument on the part of the respondent is not…
 April 16, 2015 at 11:52am
Get ready for the litany of fabrications that will come from the Clinton camp during her presidential run. Even if she acknowledges any of these half-truths, mistruths, and falsehoods, it will be in the context of something like her cover story for her Bosnia landing:
(Reuters). ‘”I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently,” Clinton told reporters….She said she had a “different memory” about the landing. …. “So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I’m human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation.”‘
If that doesn’t work, then there are plenty of other alibis: 1) that was so long ago, it’s irrelevant now, I’m here to talk about the future; 2) you are asking me about something that in the grand scheme of things is quite insignificant when we have all these problems to deal with; ask me about my plan to plan to plan to address those problems.; 3) [you fill in the blank]
She and her supporters are going to do anything and say anything to get her elected, true or not. Not saying this is different from any other politician, but I can’t think of any others (other than Obama or Harry Reid) who are more disingenuous.
 April 14, 2015 at 5:34pm
“Earlier in the segment, she accused Paul of wasting his time debating her on abortion during the launch of his presidential campaign instead of focusing on important issues like the “economy, jobs, and helping people reach the middle class.”
Hmm … I don’t remember her raising this issue when she and her ilk were spending all their energy on Obamacare in lieu of working on economic measures.
 April 12, 2015 at 1:08pm
Barry just got schooled. Too bad he doesn’t realize it.
You nailed the crux of the issue in one short sentence. The federal government is akin to a money laundering protection outfit. We send our money to them and, if they approve of what we are doing, they return it back and/or give it to someone “more deserving of it”, less the obligatory handling fee of course.
Hillsdale figured this out years ago when the feds demanded they submit the government reports because they were receiving federal funding. Then when they rejected the direct federal funding the feds concluded they were still receiving federal funding (via students using federal support). I support many organizations like Hillsdale because they do good work *and* because they flipped the bird to the government.
Can’t wait to see the next battleground. My prediction is that the feds will use 501(c)3 status and/or its variants to justify that organizations are indirectly receiving support from the government and they have to comply with whatever missive the government issues. (Forcing churches to accept gay marriage maybe?)
 April 10, 2015 at 5:28pm
Can this guy ever stake out a position that is black and white or at least lacking in equivalences? He hasn’t stopped voting present since before he was elected president.
ISIS atrocities … get off your high horse, Christians
Iran’s a complicated country … just like we’re a complicated country
I believe in American exceptionalism just as Britain believes in its exceptionalism, etc.
 April 9, 2015 at 3:55pm
So, Donahue and Henderson complain “‘Are we going to bow to the special interests of adults, or will we stand strong for the special interest that has no lobby — our children?’ said the op-ed written by leaders of interest groups”.
Wondering if these two will be intellectually honest enough to accept the same kind of criticism on proposals their *special interests* are pushing, like the Chamber’s advocacy of broad based immigration reform (amnesty?).
Who is lobbying for “the forgotten man”? (Sumner’s, not Roosevelt’s, definition)
 April 8, 2015 at 7:37pm
My reading of the article zeroed in on the same thing.
“Brittney Cooper — who teaches women’s and gender studies and Africana studies and calls herself a next generation black intellectual…”
After that, there was no need to read any further.
 April 8, 2015 at 7:31pm
Looks like BO is either teeing Biden up to take the blame for the policy or is adding fuel to the ABH train (anyone but Hillary)
 April 5, 2015 at 3:56pm
I couldn’t help but notice the utter irony of Dowd writing about this situation yet describing the women with gratuitous adjectives describing their physical appearance, e.g., “… said Gina Bennett, a slender, thoughtful mother of five …” and “… Agreed Sandra Grimes, a perky 69-year-old blonde who helped unmask her C.I.A. colleague Aldrich Ames …”
 April 4, 2015 at 1:34pm
It depends what your definition of “we” is. If you are talking about the entire employee pool, of course not. However, if you are talking just about the slackers who for whatever reason (including those unrelated to illness) don’t *feel* up to coming in to work and have no concern for the fact their work needs to be done by somebody, then the answer is yes.
This is a classic case of a situation where someone taking advantage of a particular situation ruins it for the whole. If people weren’t gaming the system there wouldn’t be a need for employers to request documentation for absences.
 April 2, 2015 at 6:19pm
I can hear it now …. “and we have not detected any cheating .. not even mass cheating … not even a smidgeon of cheating.”
This from the guy whose press secretary didn’t even know that the UN watchdog had called out Iran in terms of their cooperation with their investigation.
Reuters 3/2/2015: “The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said on Monday Iran was being slow to cooperate with his agency’s investigation into the Iranian atomic program…”
I have a fundamental question … if Iran is not being cooperative during the “sales cycle” of negotiating this agreement, what makes anyone think they will be after the agreement is inked?
Another example of how amateurish this administration is.
 March 31, 2015 at 7:14pm
Sad, but this is a merely a window into our future. Try going to McDonald’s — after the clerk rings up the cash tendered, then give them a coin or dollar bill to make the change work out to an even number. The clerk will go catatonic, looking at the cash register trying to figure out the change to give you.
 March 31, 2015 at 3:19pm
It will be interesting to see when the shoe is on the other foot and a Republican president operates in the same dictatorial fashion as has Obama. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the other side will be deafening. (Although I hope the next president has more respect than Obama for the institution of the presidency and constitution).
It will be just like the Dems in the Senate after the Republicans retook the majority. In spite of the absolutely abominable way Reid managed the Senate, they are jumping all over the Republicans for exhibiting only a fraction of the behavior that Reid demonstrated.
With regard to the topic of climate commitments, we need only return to Obama in January 2008: “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
 March 27, 2015 at 7:26pm
Yes, please explain it to me since I must be too stupid to understand. The fact is that individuals will sometimes react poorly to a foreign situation or unfamiliar personal attributes of someone they are seeing for the first time. Obviously age and experience makes a difference in how one reacts, however, whether that is based on color of skin or other attributes such as physical disfigurement makes no difference if the person has no frame of reference for the foreign attributes.
But you go ahead jumping on people about being white guilt cowards when you have only a mote of evidence, if that, to support your assertion. In so doing, you are exhibiting the same behavior as those who play the race card with a hair trigger.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:06pm
Jeez, cut JGIII some slack. Sounds to me like he concluded his OLDER daughter behaved as she did because of her not being able to react properly to seeing a person with characteristics that were foreign to her. Seems like common courtesy and that both he and the salesperson handled the whole thing with grace.
I did the same thing when my child recoiled when seeing a disfigured man in the store. Should I have not concluded that the cause for my son’s distress was the man’s appearance and not apologized to the man for my son’s reaction? Or am I a “non-disfigured guilt” coward?
It is just as annoying to hear someone frivolously play the white guilt/privilege card as it is to hear someone frivolously toss out the race card.
 March 26, 2015 at 3:08pm
Time for another addition to Wilkow’s Guide to Media Perception:
If you are guilty of malfeasance…
Conservative: you must pay for your past sins regardless of how long ago they occurred
Liberal/progressive: this was a learning experience, a teachable moment, etc.; we must move forward and learn from these mistakes; it is not productive rehashing the past.
 March 18, 2015 at 3:16pm
‘Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asked Republicans to move right to the Lynch vote, and argued that Democrats would be willing to return to the trafficking bill after that. “The United States Senate can do two things at the same time,” he said.’
Funny when he was the majority leader, they couldn’t even do one thing at a time. And now he has the temerity to comment otherwise?