Chris Hayes Was Just Being

Honest -  But It Doesn't 

Excuse Him

"Oh hey, I apologize for insulting the fallen heroes

the rest of  you don't care that much about anyway."

You may have heard about the flap caused by MSNBC host Chris Hayes over the Memorial Day Weekend when during a commentary segment of his show he opined that he was troubled by the idea of calling America's fallen military service members 'heroes'.  

The backlash for that comment was immediate and overwhelming, so it wasn't long before Hayes was issuing a written apology: 

On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that. 

As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues. 

But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.

Here's my problem with what Hayes did: he was being perfectly honest in his original commentary.  It's his apology in which he commits a greater offense.  


Let me explain.  

In the original comment, he managed to insult America's fallen troops from the Revolutionary War all the way up to the last soldier to die in Afghanistan the other day.  It looks to me like he did indeed apologize for doing that, albeit in a smarmy condescending way.  Liberals have been quite open about opposing the Iraq & Afghan wars; you have to go all the way back to WWII to find an American War in which Liberals give their whole-hearted support to it - and some of the wackier ones don't even do that.  


Stretching back to Korea, then through Vietnam, Grenada, El Salvador, the First Gulf War, and finally the current War on Terror, it is true the Left has derided & decried the use of the American military, the strategy it was given to pursue, and if there was ever anything to be fighting over in the first place.  

One of the favorite cries of the Left the past few conflicts is that America's wars are all about oil now, so how can you really call a guy a 'hero' if all he ended was doing was dying to ensure the oil flowed?  9-11 was just a pretext or something for a new War For Oil.  Or they go with the Christopher Hedges line, that War Is A Drug & America is a War Addict, just looking for a reason to start one somewhere to get it's fix.  

Battle of Normandy, 1944

It certainly does make many Progressives deeply uncomfortable that since 9-11 2001, plenty of the fallen heroes being honored in our yearly Memorial Day observances aren't from faded pictures shot back in the 1960's or the 1950's or 1940's.  

Battle of Fallujah, 2004

These new fallen soldiers have all made their sacrifice for their country in the past decade.  They were right here still with us just a few years ago.  This makes Memorial Day more real and meaningful than ever to most Americans.  


But not to the Left.  


These fallen heroes are close, they are immediate and they are from wars the Left vehemently protested against, called lost causes from the beginning, and it infuriates them to see how seriously other Americans are taking Memorial Day now. 

Lt. David Rylander of Stow, Ohio was killed in action in

Afghanistan on May 2nd, 2012

This is what drove Chris Hayes to say what he did.  And after the huge backlash, he did seem to back off his original assertion. 


But during that apology he decided to insult the rest of America outside the military by claiming our 'collective guilt' through a 'civilian-military divide' leads us to engage in this useless 'pro-forma ritual' of paying meaningless lip service to fallen heroes before we turn around and get back to the really important part of Memorial Day - grilling steaks.

Hayes went from insulting the fallen to insulting the living.  Many of the living observing Memorial Day this year lost someone in the field of battle in just the last 10 years.  Useless pro-forma ritual my ass.  


In a true classic case of liberal projection, because Memorial Day is essentially a meaningless pro-forma ritual in his mind, he assumes it must be the same for every one else.  He didn't really care about America's fallen soldiers so nobody else really does either.  It's all a show, a sham, a kabuki theater. 


You know why the Left is so pathetic? They keep talking about how awesome their empathy for others is.  They supposedly have this amazing ability to empathize.  And it's complete BS.  People who spend a lot of their time bragging to you about how empathetic they are end up being like Mark Twain's Honorable Man: 


"The more he shouted & protested about his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." 


The Marxists & Socialists that make up much of the intelligentsia of the Left disdain America's actual founding, it's governing philosophy, and rail against the traditions & ceremonies that teach each new generation a shared collective memory of appreciation for what makes America exceptional.  

Where Chris Hayes sees only a pro-forma ritual institutionalizing 'collective guilt', the rest of America sees a time-honored, honorable tradition that instills a valuable collective MEMORY.  


Because the Left wants to rip out the actual foundations of this country & replace it with something foreign and un-American - socialist & marxist BS brought over the Atlantic in the early 19th century - they seek to lessen the influence of anything that binds Americans together as Americans to their honorable and exceptional past.  Like remembering their hallowed dead.  


The Progressive Left is deeply suspicious of the military and the uses to which it is put.  We get that.  God knows they whine about it enough.  But to project their creepy distrust & disdain for the military onto the rest of us & pontificate that Memorial Day observances are just empty rituals where all the people just stand around saying things about 'heroes' that they don't really mean.................


This apology is worse than the offense that originated it.  

No, That WASN'T Your

Imagination Playing

Tricks On You

Obama really DID lose 40% of the vote or more in 3 Democratic primaries in 3 states in the past 2 weeks.  


Had that been an incumbent Republican President losing over 1/3rd of his own party's vote in a re-election bid, you can bet it wouldn't have been quickly memory-holed like it was for O. 


If this had been, say...George W. Bush in 2004 running for re-election losing 40% of the vote or more in Republican states like AZ, OK, etc. etc. this would have been good for more than a week of MSM pundits stroking their chins for the camera as they opined about the deep and serious problems facing Bush & the Republican party.   It would have dominated news cycles for some time.

It's not important news if we bury it after 2 days. 

Because it's Obama? It got about 2 days of coverage, reluctant at that & then it was quickly shoved down the memory hole.  Aside from racist working class Dems in KY, ARK and WV, nothing to see here folks! 


http://www.wvva.com/story/18237717/2012-wva-primary-results

BTW, for those of you who need a reminder, Keith Judd does not even live in West Virginia. He lives in Texas.  In a prison. Due to the fact he is a convicted felon serving out a prison sentence.  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/meet-keith-judd-the-felon-challenging-obama.html

I can't even find West Virginia on a map! 

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/KY/38672/83427/en/summary.html

Click image for larger version of Democratic party hilarity

Kentucky had a closed primary, which means only registered Democrats were allowed to vote.  Of 202,216 that did so that day, a full 42% selected 'Uncommitted' instead of the guy who's been President for the last 3 1/2 years, Barack Obama.

That Uncommitted is a hell of a guy in Kentucky!

More popular than ever! 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2012/by_state/AR_President_0522.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS

Click image to see how many votes a guy who doesn't even live in 

Arkansas got vs. Obama

Like Keith Judd up there, John Wolfe does not even live in the state in which he garnered over 42% of the vote away from Barack Obama.  He's a Tennessee attorney and one of those guy's who's hobby is running for President.  

It was this or fly fishing, and you get more hot chicks

than fly fishing. 

This late in the process if the Democrats can't unite behind their own guy, that's a hell of a story.  But don't wait for the Old Media to tell it to you.  Only if it's the Republican in trouble is it worth a full week of coverage.  

With more primaries coming in the next few weeks in states like Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico & South Dakota, it very well could happen again.  

The MSM's quick burying of Obama's triple-primary-embarrassment coupled with last week's laughable rollout of the narrative that all of Obama's stimulus spending was actually BUSH'S FAULT! [complete with MOSTLY TRUE! rating by Politifarce!] is not only a study in denial, it's a study of desperation. 

Flooding The Zone:

It's Blog About 

Brett Kimberlin Day! 

Do you know who Brett Kimerlin is?  If not, then this post is for you! 


Brett Kimberlin is a big-time Democratic political operative these days.  It's an amazing success story, how he turned his life around after being sentenced to over 50 years in prison back in the 1970's for setting off a series of bombs, including one that severely injured two people.  


Through hard work, sweat, and entrepreneurship Brett transformed his life, started up two political activist organizations which today receive millions of bucks in grants and donations, and works hard to achieve victory for Democrats in elections.  

These are the two organizations Kimberlin started

Unfortunately, Brett has a problem.  He doesn't WANT people to know this incredible success story of how he turned his life around.  He doesn't want people to know he's a convicted bomber & felon.  Instead of going with the facts and holding himself up as a testament to how great America is, Brett apparently decided to try another strategy when his past started coming to light in 2010.  


What strategy did he decide to pursue?  


Well here's some links where you can read all about it: 


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/25/opening_act_blog_about_brett_kimberlin_day.html


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/04/692810/--Updated-Four-Times-Reality-Closing-in-on-Speedway-Bomber-Brett-Coleman-Kimberlin


Note that particular diarist at Daily Kos got all kinds of grief from people trying to claim that Kimberlin had been 'exonerated', a lie Kimberlin himself frequently makes. 


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2010/10/11/Progressives-Embrace-Convicted-Terrorist


http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_17.html


Here's Aaron Worthing on Glenn Beck's radio show discussing how Kimberlin's harassment led to him & his wife losing their jobs, among other things: 

This is the video taken at a courthouse in which Brett Kimberlin had Aaron Worthing

subpoenaed to appear simply to learn his real name.  Outside the courtroom Kimberlin then attempts to use his iPad to take Worthing's picture, in direct violation of the courthouse rules. Worthing will take the iPad from Kimberlin, and then give it to deputies who intervene & give Kimberlin the iPad back. Kimberlin then storms out & later fakes hospital records to back up his claim that Worthing hit him 3 times and 'decked' him, a physical assault so great it supposedly put Kimberlin in the hospital.

Now watch that video and tell me how vicious that 'physical assault' was.

http://patterico.com/2012/05/25/convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism/


Here's Patterico aka Patrick Frey, on Glenn Beck's radio show today talking about the SWAT'ing incident: 

http://theothermccain.com/category/neutral-objective-journalism/the-kimberlin-files/

Here is Beck's interview with Stacey McCain: 

I was on Twitter when @BreitbartUnmask name checked McCain's two sons to him.  McCain has only mentioned one of his sons; the troll then came back with both of their names.  

Lee Stranahan made this handy video to introduce Brett Kimberlin to those who don't know his story: 

Yes, this is the sad, sad story of Brett Kimberlin.  A man who totally re-invented himself, but then when his past kept resurfacing he decided to engage in lawfare, intimidation, threats and even worse in an attempt to get people to shut the hell up.  


When only a small handful of bloggers were on the story, this sort of strategy might work. When over 100+ are on it, it's gets harder to try to silence the facts.  


You can't try 'SWAT'ing on 100 people, and the more you engage in lawfare and intimidation tactics the only thing you end up doing is growing the story. 


In football parlance this is known as 'flooding the zone' - there are so many people out there now you have no idea which one to cover and stop the ball from being passed.  


Engaging in harassment of bloggers who were reporting what is in fact in the public record about your past is just short sighted and stupid.  Now more people know about Brett Kimberlin and what he did than ever.  


Good luck suing them all, Brett! 

Ann Coulter Walks Us  Through

Obama Defender's Latest

Absurdity

This is Ann's "Ha Ha Ha, You fell 

for THAT??!!" face.

If you watch MSNBC & read liberal blogs like 'The Daily Kos', then there's no way you missed seeing this the past couple of days: 


"Federal spending under Obama at historic lows ... It's clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years."

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor 

http://www.conservatives4congress.com/2012/05/turns-out-obama-is-not-guilty-of.html#post-title

"You are TOTALLY going to buy this, aren't you?"

Let's watch how masterfully conservative columnist Ann Coulter deconstructed this travesty: 

http://networkedblogs.com/y1Jny

It's been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: "Federal spending under Obama at historic lows ... It's clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years." There's even a chart! 

I'll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on.

Think for a moment how incredibly counter that claim is to the mass perception of Americans who have watched what Obama's done since he took office.  Oh Obama's not a big spender?  The Tea Party has is all wrong?  There's been no $5 trillion added to the national debt in the past 3 years because Obama & the Democratic Congress didn't go on a huge spending spree from 2009-2010?  Some answer that by claiming 'yes'. 

This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It's "science"! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts? 

Since Ed Schultz is a buffoon, I totally get why

he fell for this. 

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed "the big myth" about Obama's spending: "This chart -- the truth -- very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly." And the truth was, the "growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents." 

Note that Schultz also said that the "part of the chart representing President Obama's term includes a stimulus package, too." As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. 

But what's David Cay Johnston's excuse? 

Hell of an investigative reporting job there, David!

Schultz's guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: "And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president." 

Everybody's keyboard OK?

I may have sputtered a little but, but my keyboard is indeed fine.  So how did others in MSNBC's lineup handle this startling news? 

"I'm so much smarter than you,

there should be a law against it."

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: "Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama." 

In response, three writers from "The Daily Show" said, "We'll never top that line," and quit.

So Maddow instantly buys a claim put forward that federal spending has not been skyrocketing under Obama.  As we're going to see in a minute, an even cursory glance at the figures & the chart put out to advance this incredible story would demonstrate what you have to believe to accept the premise, and it's clear Maddow did so without even a quibble.  

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation's premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: "Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future." (I'm reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.) 

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush. 

That's not a joke.

This is how desperate they've gotten to bend reality and help Obama hide his actual record on spending: they are simply going to go for broke and tell you a huge whopper.  

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. (And if we attribute all of Bush's spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn't spend much either.) 

Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's spending. And he's testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama "is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill."

Yes, the Wall Street Journal isn't just Republicans & Conservatives.

There are also Democrats there who will desperately try to hide

Obama's real spending record. Who knew? 

Nutting simply shoves over $1 trillion in new spending from Obama's 1st year in office into Bush's presidency and then points out how awesome Obama's spending numbers look once you do that.  


Yes. Really. He did that. And there is no way Maddow & Schultz and Markos & every other leftist tool touting this Marketwatch chart & article could have missed it if they'd spent even 1 second questioning what they were being told.  

Nutting acts as if it's the height of magnanimity to "attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush ..." 

On what possible theory would that be Bush's spending? Hey -- we just found out that Obamacare's going to cost triple the estimate. Let's blame it on Calvin Coolidge! 

Nutting's "and not to Bush" line is just a sleight of hand. He's hoping you won't notice that he said "$140 billion" and not "$825 billion," and will be fooled into thinking that he's counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama's spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!) 

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush. 

But Obama didn't come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch's Nutting says that's Bush's spending.

Coulter doesn't bother to go into this in her column, but anybody who followed the budgetary politics of Bush's 2nd term knows quite well Congress is the one who actually passes a budget - and they did not do so for the final 3 years of Bush's presidency.  They passed one for Obama...and then have refused to pass another for over 1,000 days.  

Nutting acting like he's going to do Bush a favor and not attribute that additional $140 billion in stimulus funding to him is laughable.  He'll only tag Bush with the original $825 billion stimulus bill. So  Bush gets credit for $825 billion of the stimulus that failed, and Obama is only responsible for $140 billion of it, according to this reasoning.  This way, he avoids the real truth that it is Obama alone who is responsible for new spending over $1 trillion on stimulus bills while unemployment hasn't dipped below 8% for over 2 years.  

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money. 

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting. 

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president -- such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush's spending.

That Rex Nutting - or anybody else - could proffer this stupidity with a straight face tells you how bad Obama's record is on spending.  Obama rammed through well over $1 trillion in new spending in his first year in office with a compliant Democratic super-majority in Congress giving him whatever he wanted, And now in a desperate attempt to save Obama from the consequences of what he did, we have people trying to float this idea that it was actually President Bush who was responsible.  

They are basically saying to all the Americans who lived through both the Bush & Obama presidencies: "Who are you going to believe?  Us or your lying eyes?"

Frustrated that he can't shift all of Obama's spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House's numbers, the White House's estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion. 

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting's counting Obama's nine-month spending binge as Bush's spending. 

If liberals will attribute Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won't they do?

Nothing, of course. Once you are desperate enough to engage in sleight-of-hand stupidity like this, there really is no Rubicon you won't cross.  I would go on further to argue this is an encouraging sign, that the Left is dumb enough to grab and champion an article like Nutting's without even taking 5 minutes to seriously examine it's premises.  

What is one of the most prominent ridicules the Left makes of the Right? That Conservatives just parrot talking points, accept handed-down Narratives from their leaders, can't think for themselves, & don't spend any time questioning or poking holes into what they've been told?  

Trust me: as we get closer to November, we're going to see the Left expose itself like this again and again.  Some new narrative like Nutting's will spring up and Lefties will grab it and run with it with both hands and parrot exactly what they're told to say, just in time for the narrative to fall apart on them and embarrass them yet again.  

Projection: Everything Lefties claim is true of Conservatives is true of them.  Maddow, Shultz, and every other Lefty blog that trumpeted this nonsense by Nutting just proved it again.  

What The Hell Is This 

White House Doing To 

Our Intelligence Network?

Let me see if I have this right.........


In the past month

1) Iran hanged a man it called a spy due to the WikiLeaks documents publicized by Julian Assange & leaked to him by Bradley Manning [way ta GO, fellas!]


http://news.investors.com/article/611924/201205171910/wikileaks-enables-iranian-mullahs-to-kill.htm

2) The White House blew the cover off of an entire ongoing operation by the British intelligence agency MI6, revealed the identity of an undercover agent, and ended his mission when he could have stayed in place providing further intelligence. 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/underwear-bomb-plot-mi6-cia-leaks?newsfeed=true


http://news.investors.com/article/611449/201205150812/underwear-bomber-mole-was-not-a-cia-agent.htm?p=full

3) The White House leaked the fact that a Pakistani doctor helped our CIA agents track & find Osama Bin Laden.  He has just been sentenced to 33 years in prison for doing that. 


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pakistani-doctor-helped-find-bin-laden-sentenced-33-years-prison-article-1.1083093


http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/01/28/leon-panetta-and-the-pakistani-doctor-yet-more-double-standards-on-classified-information/


[Sure hope Panetta plans to write to him for the next 33 years.]

Kathryn Bigelow now knows the real name of the Seal Team 6 

Commander that killed Bin Laden. Uhm....why?

4) The White House leaked the name of the Seal Team 6 commander who led the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden to a bunch of Hollywood movie people.  


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/13421/


THERE IS NO F**KING REASON WHATSOEVER TO LEAK THIS SEAL'S REAL NAME TO ANYBODY, CERTAINLY NOT FOR A F**KING HOLLYWOOD MOVIE.  You think the SEALs have been upset being used as political props by this White House thus far? Wait until they find out about THIS. 


What are they going to do for an encore? I mean really: HOW  are they going to top this past month?   


Any foreign national who decided to help us fight the terrorists overseas has got to be crazy.  At any time some politician needing a political boost or trying to sabotage a program could leak names to the media.  After watching what that Pakistani doctor got, getting anybody to volunteer to help us is going to be harder than ever.  


If this is what 'smart power' looks like, no thanks! 

Look! Over There! 

A Horse!

Looking at my record again? Who do you think you are?!

Oh hey, look over there - HORSES!

I knew this kinda thing was coming and yet the blithering stupidity of it stuns even me.  


Remember this post, "How That 'Shiny Object' Distraction Strategy Working For Obama?":


http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/05/so-hows-shiny-object-distraction.html


Rather than talk about economy, I stated we could expect to see the Obama campaign and it's media shills relentlessly try to play the 'Look -  A Squirrel!' game with the public until November.  


Here's the scene from 'Up!' in case you don't know how the 'Squirrel' strategy works:

What have they tried so far to get the public to look at anything other than Romney's real job experience?

1. The War on Women
2. Ann Romney's clothes
3. The Car Elevator
4. The Swiss Bank Account
5. Eeeevil Bain Capital
6. The Sudden Fascination With Mormonism
7. 50 Year Old High School Pranks


Now we can add an 8th one! 


8. Ann Romney's horses


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ann-romney-dressage-20120522,0,635867,full.story


Yes, they ARE this stupid. Remember, David Burge aka Iowhawk put his finger exactly on the stupidity of this strategy weeks ago:

"Apparently I'm supposed to be more upset with what Mitt Romney & his family does with his money than with what Obama does with mine."  

You didn't pay 1 goddamn penny for this.

Not 1 penny of taxpayer's money went to buy or care for a single horse, but we're supposed to be outraged by this while at the same time the Obama Administration continues to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into failed projects like green tech loans.  


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/27/obama-warned-that-green-tech-bets-would-produce-a-colossal-failure/

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu

Wasted most of $30 billion from the Stimulus bill on green tech

failures like Solyndra - but don't worry! Obama's giving him MORE

of your money!

This whole 'OMFG THE ROMNEY'S ARE RICH!!!!!' campaign strategy is beyond dumb. The Romney's are rich & spend the money they earned on things like horses & car elevators and $990 shirts?  You don't say?  


What's the problem here again?  Rich people spending their own money?  The nerve of these people! Who do they think they are! Rich people are supposed to be in the Democrat camp like Hollywood or Wall Street, giving millions to Obama's campaign! 

Yes, as the MSM hammers the Romney's over being wealthy, 

let's all forget the fact the Obama's are the 1% too.

Apparently only rich Republicans are supposed to lampooned, mocked, ridiculed & attacked for being Republicans.  If they were Democrats giving to the Democratic party this apparently absolves you of the sin of being wealthy.  


Expect to see 5 more months of the Obama campaign grabbing one squirrel after another and setting it loose as they desperately try to keep the public's attention off of Obama's economic record of failure & waste.