if the media actually bothers to investigate and REPORT on it.
And we have the racial grievancemongers (aka Congressional Black Caucus) screaming 'RACISM!!!' at anyone who dares to criticize Rice; and the media reports every damn word of that crap, don't they?
Because that's far more important than a burned consulate and CIA office and a few dead Americans.
Speaking of which,
Forget questions of who ordered what and when it was ordered and what assets were available to assist those poor souls at Benghazi. Smucker, a known and very vocal supporter of Mr. Obama, just thinks that “shit happens.”
It doesn’t work that way with other Presidents, or for those with
whom he disagrees. For instance, he also went off on a diatribe against
Mr. Bush for allowing UBL escape Tora Bora. For Smucker, who wrote a
book on the subject, UBL’s escape isn’t about shit happening.
But for the right President, people like Smucker and Kmiec are
willing to throw their colleagues and good friends under the bus. They are just so much collateral damage, and knew all about the risks
associated with their job.
A point about dealing with gun bigots and control freaks:
Gun control at its root has always been about gun control.
Feinstein is a statist, and her laws and regulations will always and
forever increase the power of the state. Feinstein sees through
McArdle’s argument on cosmetics, which is why her proposed ban includes semi-automatic weapons. There isn’t anything cosmetic about the aims of the gun control advocates.
Arguing that their bans don’t adequately distinguish between weapons
leads them to refine their ban. Arguing that there is equivalent
lethality between weapons denies aspects of utility and design, and only
causes them to ban weapons that have specific utility for home and self
defense. And arguing that their regulations were ineffective only
embarrasses them to pass even more onerous ones.
The correct way to argue against Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons
ban is to argue that there is no constitutional basis for such a ban,
and any new assault weapons ban would be at least as immoral and obscene
as the last one was.
More of the 'what we're finding out is in the bill', and it sucks.
Remember Obama promised this as a free exam — no co-pay, no
deductible, no charge. That’s fine and dandy if you are healthy and have
no complaints. However, we are obligated by law to code specifically
for the reason of the visit. An annual exam is one specific code; you
can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding. This
annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of
previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under
that code — insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.
If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss
any new ailment or unstable condition. I cannot bait and switch to
another code — that’s illegal. We, the physicians, are audited all the
time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.
Well, there's another actor who goes in the 'idiot part-player' category.
Why did Obama win the election?
"I saw Romney attack conservatives in the primaries with energy, but when it came to Obama he was measured and polite. He made it plain who he actually sees as his opponents, and it's not Obama and those like him. Add that to his record on a number of things, and I just could not vote for him."
I'd imagine that covers a LOT of people who didn't vote: given a choice between the socialist and the socialist-lite, they thought "Why bother?" and stayed home.
And the Stupid Party response? "We need to be more like the socialists!"
Why yes, I DO despair.
Added: as Kevin notes,
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."