Say What? Mitchell Claims Tea Party Goals Of Cutting Taxes, Limiting Spending ‘Totally Conflicting’

Say what? Andrea Mitchell has claimed that the Tea Party’s goals of cutting taxes while limiting spending are “totally conflicting.” The NBC correspondent made her anti-factual assertion on today’s Morning Joe, participating in the election post-mortem.

Perhaps we should be kind and chalk it up to Mitchell presumably having had a long night. Otherwise, how can you possibly explain her gaffe?  How could she not understand that it is precisely the limiting of spending that, far from conflicting with, facilitates the cutting of taxes?  Transcript after the jump.

ANDREA MITCHELL:  The problem I think that’s going to confront these new members, is these Tea Party activists are coming to Washington saying we want the tax cuts to be extended and we don’t want more government spending.   So they’ve got two totally conflicting mandates that they are bringing to Washington.   And any realistic approach to this is going to be, this is a train wreck.  There has to be some way of coordinating the impulse.

I’m guessing that Joe Scarborough was appalled by Andrea’s flub, but tried to cover for her by suggesting that there’d have to be compromised.


Education Discussion: Obama-Lauer Never Say V-Word

No, not that v-word.  V . . . as in vouchers.

They might as well have been a couple of Soviet apparatchiks in 1955 discussing implementing better production procedures in diesel-engine factories.  You can talk all day about “best practices, “what works,” blah, blah, blah.  But there’s only one thing that has or will ever be worked to improve the quality of any product, from football teams to cars to education: competition.

The only way to introduce real competition into education is via vouchers: giving parents and children real choice and making all schools—from government ones to parochial to private—compete on a level playing field.

But bizarrely, the concept of vouchers, let alone the word itself, never crossed the lips of either Pres. Obama or Matt Lauer during their half-hour discussion of education on this morning’s Today/Morning Joe simulcast as part of the networks’ two-day Education Nation summit.

The closest either came was a discussion of charter schools.  But while charter schools introduce a modicum of competition where they exist, they are also ultimately government-funded and subject to the oversight, if the looser control, of the government.  They don’t and can’t come close to creating the kind of across-the-board competition that a strong voucher system would.

There was a perfect opportunity for PBO to have mentioned vouchers, or for Lauer to have pursued the topic with a question—in particular, the president’s decision to kill the DC voucher program.  As seen in the video clip, it came when an audience member asked the president whether he felt his daughters would get the same high-quality, rigorous education in a DC public school that they are receiving in the “very elite private academy [Sidwell Friends] that they are attending.”

PBO couldn’t claim that they would.  But instead of pointing to vouchers as a solution, he offered pabulum about how parents who “don’t have a lot of choice about where they live” should be “getting the same quality of education” for their children.  Nice wish. But without vouchers, the vast majority of children will be condemned to education in government-run, union dominated schools that aren’t forced to compete.  Only vouchers and the competition they would introduce can break the logjam and lead to real improvement. For more government updates you can download One America News Network news app for free on your PC from any APK downloader online site.

Why do you think that for PBO and Lauer, the v-word was verboten?


Halperin And Russian Spy Heathfield: Twins Separated At Birth?

Note: the heat wave has gotten to me.  Please read this one with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

I was wondering why Mark Halperin was missing from the Morning Joe set today.  His “Game Change” co-author John Heilemann was there, and the two are normally a matched set.  Then the show rolled a segment on the conviction and deportation of those ten Russian spies, in a deal for the return of several Western agents.

Wait for a second!  Who is that guy, second-from-the-right in the bottom row [photo left]? Sure looks a lot like Halperin [photo right]. The spy’s nom de guerre: Donald Heathfield [real name Andrey Bezrukov].

Halperin.  Heathfield.  Mark missing from Morning Joe.  Hmmm . . .


Obama Resorts To Last Refuge Of Scoundrels

Faced with his administration’s failure to head off the Christmas Day and Times Square bombers, or to stop the Fort Hood shooter before his murderous rampage, Pres. Obama sent his chief counter-terrorism adviser out this morning with apparent instructions to resort to that last refuge of scoundrels: patriotism.

When on today’s Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace confronted John Brennan, PBO’s top terrorism advisor, with this record of failure, Brennan sought to twist the question into an attack on our nation’s troops, invoking their patriotism.

CHRIS WALLACE: Some top Republicans are saying that the administration has been more lucky than good in some of these terror cases, given that Shahzad and the Christmas Day attempted bomber, Abdul mutallab, both detonated bombs that just failed to go off.   Do you consider the Times Square attack a success for Homeland Security?

JOHN BRENNAN: I consider that Homeland Security, law enforcement, intelligence, the military have done an outstanding job since 9-11.  You know when I hear these references to being lucky, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of American men and women who are serving in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world. Who are at our ports of entry.  Who is working around the clock here in the United States and abroad?  That’s not luck.  That’s patriotism. That’s dedication. That’s capability and talent.

Listen to the faux outrage in Brennan’s voice. He knew very well that Wallace wasn’t criticizing the efforts of our troops, but that of the likes of Brennan, Napolitano, and Pres. Obama himself.  But oh so convenient to hide behind the skirts of our fighting forces.


Schieffer Says Resignation Will Stop Sarah From Running

Bob Schieffer predicts that Newt Gingrich will make a run for the presidency and Sara Palin won’t.

Appearing on The Early Show today, Schieffer saw Palin’s resignation as Alaska governor as too big of a political obstacle in the primaries.  Here’s how the Face The Nation host imagined a GOP primary opponent putting it to Palin in a debate:

BOB SCHIEFFER: “Sarah, when the going gets tough, will you get going–and going out?“  I mean, what is that all about?  I think that’s still a very tall hill for her to climb.  Others might disagree with me.  But I still believe that.  I don’t think she’ll make [a run].

My two cents say Palin might not run, but that her resignation won’t be a big factor in making her decision.  By the time the primaries roll around, her resignation will be ancient political history, and she will have four years of a record of fighting for Republican issues and candidates to run on.  Any opponent who tries to play the resignation card on her would wind up looking pretty petty and unpleasant.


Napolitano Profiling Patrick Kennedy?

There I was this morning, watching a Today segment about tougher new airport screening procedures.  A clip rolled of Homeland Security honcho Janet Napolitano talking about the program when suddenly I said to myself: wait for a second!  Who’s that standing behind Napolitano?

Darned if it wasn’t . . . Patrick Kennedy!  You remember good old Rep. Kennedy: the fellow who a few years ago . . . shoved a 58-yr. old airport security screener when she tried to stop him from barging through without submitting his oversized bag to x-ray screening.

So what was Kennedy doing there?  Then it clicked: Patrick must be Janet’s poster boy—Exhibit A of the kind of person, under the new plan, who will be subjected to extra screening, maybe even put on a no-fly list!

But no . . .

Turns out Napolitano announced the new program while in Rhode Island, touring areas ravaged by recent floods.  Kennedy was there in his capacity as a local congressman.  Should have known that one Dem would “posterize” another!  Even so, you might have thought that Kennedy would have been smart enough to find a way to keep himself out a photo op about tougher airport security ;-)


Republican Christie ‘A Millimeter’ From Calling For RNC’s Steele To Resign

Ron Christie has to be among the most loyal Republicans around. The former aide to Dick Cheney and George Allen is a regular on Ed Schultz’s MSNBC show, where he ardently defends GOP positions, typically in the face of a liberal double-team.

So when Christie comes this close to calling on RNC Chairman Michael Steele to resign, it’s news. And that’s exactly what happened on this evening’s Ed Show . . .

Schultz set things off with a question referring to today’s revelations about the RNC reimbursing charges at a strip club with a lesbian-bondage specialty.

ED SCHULTZ: Ron Christie, is this trouble for Mr. Steele?

RON CHRISTIE: I think it is, Ed. I’m getting really sick and tired of the slow drips coming out of the RNC. First, there’s a memo that had some very disparaging things about President Obama. Now you hear something about a strip club and spokesmen come out and say it’s a big misunderstanding. These people need to raise money and recruit candidates to run for office. I’m getting sick and tired of these distractions coming out of the RNC, and I just wonder whether or not this might be the third strike for Mr. Steele. I’m not going to call on him to resign just yet, but I’m just about a millimeter away from going on the airwaves–and I’ll probably do it on the Ed Show–and saying it’s time for him to go.

Mr. Steele, when Ron Christie says he’s on the verge of calling on you to quit, it’s time to say goodnight.


Constitutional Lawyer: ObamaCare Treats People Like Pollution

You might think you’re a citizen with certain unalienable rights.  But in the eyes of Pres. Obama, you’re no better than an acid raindrop . . .

On today’s Good Morning America, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley–no raging conservative he–raised doubts as to the constitutionality of the way ObamaCare negates state law and forces every American to buy a government-approved health insurance policy–under penalty of law.

Turley went on to explain how ObamaCare treats citizens like pollution: a problem to be dealt with.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Congress often does pre-empt state law or pushes it aside in areas like the environment. What’s different here is that they’re treating individual citizens almost like polluting factors that amount to an interstate problem.