Hillary Lied About Benghazi; So What?

We've known for years that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the motivations of the attack on Benghazi. They blamed a YouTube video for sparking outrage across Libya when they knew it was a terrorist attack. We can't let a terrorist attack seven weeks before the 2012 election muddy up the narrative, can we?

After 11 hours of Hillary Clinton testifying before the House Benghazi Committee, we have confirmation of what we've known. And when I say 11 hours, I really mean about 3 hours. The other 8 hours was taken up by Congressfolk pontificating, monologuing, whining, theorizing, making mini-speechs, crafting soundbites, and wasting time by complaining about all the time being wasted.

So was the hearing worth it?

"Thanks to Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony on Thursday, we now understand why the former secretary of state never wanted anyone to see her emails and why the State Department sat on documents. Turns out those emails and papers show that the Obama administration deliberately misled the nation about the deadly events in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012. 

Don’t forget how we came to this point. Mrs. Clinton complained in her testimony on Capitol Hill that past Congresses had never made the overseas deaths of U.S. officials a “partisan” issue. That’s because those past deaths had never inspired an administration to concoct a wild excuse for their occurrence, in an apparent attempt to avoid blame for a terror attack in a presidential re-election year." - Kimberly Strassel, The Wall Street Journal

And also:

"Even by today's standards of rabid partisanship, the breast-beating threat display from Democrats and members of the press alike to which voters were privy yesterday was something to behold.  The message has been clearly received: Republicans, back off from the nest in which Barack Obama’s anointed Democratic successor is incubating... 

Even if you were inclined to be extraordinarily charitable toward former Secretary Clinton and the administration in which she served, one must at least concede that new questions about what the administration knew and when it knew it have been opened up by this committee. It seems, however, that those with a passing attachment to intellectual honesty are in short supply inside the Beltway. 

The Benghazi Committee is owed a public debt if only because it has exposed the decay in Washington’s culture of wagon-circling. Pundits who forever lament America’s sense of alienation from the political class and their growing cynicism towards elected elites appear not to notice when they are exacerbating that condition. While news media and Democrats are praising Clinton’s performance, Americans are waking up to the notion that they might have been deliberately misled about the deaths of their fellow citizens in a terror attack and likely for petty political gain. There is something rotten here." - Noah Rothman, Commentary

On the Republican side, I thought Troy Gowdy and Martha Roby acquitted themselves best. Linda Sanchez and Adam Smith were probably the worst partisans on the Democratic side. When Adam Smith complained about not learning anything, Gowdy shot back with this: "I'll be happy to get a copy of my opening statement for the gentleman from Washington so he can refresh his recollection on all the things our committee found that your previous committee missed."

As for the Republicans in Congress as a whole, they are re-learning the lesson that the GOP from the 1990's learned: you cannot bring a Clinton down with a scandal.  Most of the media reports are praising her performance. And that's what politics is: performance. Democratic donors are thrilled to jump aboard the H-Train now.

Benghazi as an issue in 2016 is dead. Her email server is not. But really, for a year where the majority of Americans want an outsider, when they view DC as corrupt, is Hillary Clinton not the ultimate corrupt insider?  Between her and Trump, this is so far the most bizarro election ever.

Sean Hannity Loves Donald Trump

I did something I haven't done in a long time. I watched Hannity. I used to keeps tabs on him, and it's pretty obvious that he's there to give talking points. O'Reilly could go off on weird stuff at any time, Rush sometimes surprises me with his take on things, but Hannity is a reliable automoton with his spin on whatever the subject is.

So I watched Hannity last night because I heard he and Ann Coulter were singing Trump's praises. He started with guest Newt Gingrich, where they both talked about why Trump is a credible candidate. Hannity was spoonfeeding for the slower folks at home that Trump gave a speech earlier this week with a lot of specifics. Lots, I tell you.

Then Coulter came on and they started defended Donald Trump's position.

Charles CW Cooke was the other guest, and Hannity or Coulter would not let the guy finish a sentence without interrupting him and blasting him with Trump talking points. Hannity and Coulter tag-teamed him for the whole segment, and Coutler said stuff that was flat-out untrue. Cooke, if you read his writing, is a credible conservative. Coulter, if you read her writing, is a carnival sideshow. And Hannity sided with the sideshow. My favorite line from Cooke was that she was changing her position on issues based on whatever Donald Trump said last.

Remember when Donald Trump said he had a call with Roger Ailes and he said he felt like Fox News would be fair to him now? Well, Sean Hannity is the good little soldier wearing the "Trump 2016" button now.

Trump's Iowa Supports Slips; Still #1

Donald Trump showed weakneeses at the August 6 debate, but still leads polls.

The first post-debate Iowa poll is out, and it does show some movement, some hints for where voters are leaning in that state.

Gravis Poll in Iowa August 4

1. Trump - 31%
2. Walker - 15%
3. Bush - 10%
4. Jindal - 7%
5. Cruz - 6%
5. Huckabee - 6%
7. Carson - 5%
7. Kasich - 5%
9. Fiorina - 4%
10. Rubio - 3%

PPP Poll in Iowa August 10

1. Trump - 19%   (-12)
2. Carson - 12%   (+7)
2. Walker - 12%   (-3)
4. Bush - 11%      (+1)
5. Fiorina - 10%  (+6)
6. Cruz - 9%       (+3)
7. Huckabee - 6% (-)
7. Rubio - 6%      (+3)
9. Kasich - 3%     (-2)
10. Paul - 3%       (+2)

Bobby Jindal actually looked like he was making headway in Iowa, but one has to wonder if his inability to stand out at the kids-table debate has sunk his campaign. Maybe it's too easy to declare campaigns "sunk," but I don't see Jindal going anywhere.

"47 Traitors"? Give Me A Break

When 47 Senators sent a letter to Iran to remind them that they wouldn't have to honor any agreement that Pres. Obama signed off on until they had their own chance to review it and vote on it, the hashtag #47Traitors was born. It's another one of those cynical, divisive, gigantically hypocritical bumper-stick hate slogans that sticks in people's heads no matter how little substance there is. Look at how #WarOnWomen has stuck around.

Did the letter undermine the president? It could have. It was stupid and ill-advised. But is anyone on the Left actually advocating for the senators' imprisonment and execution? Let me rephrase. Is anyone rational on the Left advocating for this? No.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good dose of outrage.

Lest we forget, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes provides some examples when the Democrats have undermined Republican presidents with foreign leaders:

* In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd traveled to the Soviet Union during the SALT II arms talks to “personally explain the requirements of our Constitution” to Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev. Byrd later wrote: “In Leningrad, I explained that I had come to the Soviet Union neither to praise nor condemn the treaty but to create a better understanding of the treaty in the Senate and to explain to the Soviets the Senate’s constitutional role in treatymaking.”  

* In the early 1980s, Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached leaders of the Soviet Union with a proposal: I’ll help you with Ronald Reagan’s defense build up if you help me defeat him in the 1984 presidential election. Former senator John Tunney conveyed the offer on Kennedy’s behalf. 

* In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”

* In 1990, former President Jimmy Carter secretly wrote to the leaders of the U.N. Security Council nations urging them to oppose a resolution offered by his own country. The existence of the letter was revealed when one of its recipients shared a copy with the White House. Presi-dent George H. W. Bush was “furious” at the “deliberate attempt to undermine” his foreign policy, according to his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. 

* In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue. 

* In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops. Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.

Back in the real world, in the political cycle, this stuff doesn't matter. Why? Cuz we got #47Traitors trending, man! Woohoo. Champagne for everyone at MSNBC and Media Matters. Just another way to use the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate against them. If this is our threshold for calling "treason," then all of our leaders have been traitors for a long time. And hey, Republicans did it to Bill Clinton too. As the Washington Post puts it:

The folly here is not in Cotton’s decision to write the mullahs, but in Obama’s petulant response that Cotton and his colleagues were “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.” Please. The deal Obama is negotiating is opposed not only by Republicans in Congress, but also by leading Democrats, the government of Israel and most Arab leaders. Are they all “making common cause with the hard-liners in Iran” too? 

Rather than having a temper tantrum, Obama should emulate Clinton and use congressional and international opposition as leverage at the negotiating table to get a better deal with Iran. And rather than rail against those who are speaking out against his deal, Obama should ask himself why so many are going to such great lengths to stop it. The problem is not their criticism, but Obama running roughshod over the concerns of Congress and U.S. allies. The fact is that any deal Obama reaches that does not have broad bipartisan backing in Congress and the support of governments in the region is in fact “dead on arrival” — even if Cotton and company are too polite to put it that bluntly.

And to be fair, if any of the 47 called "treason" on one or more of those actions before this letter, they shouldn't be surprised. Soemthing something "chickens home to roost" something.

In other news:

- Hillary Clinton's press conference on her secret email server was a disaster. It's the same old Clinton, where obfuscation and technicalities should satiate everyone. Does anyone really want her to be President, or is it just a matter of Democrats resigned to the fact she'll win the nomination, and she's better than any Republican? Is that what it is? Even the White House doesn't know how to defend her on this.

- Gov. Martin O'Malley took a baby step forward in perhaps declaring his own run for the Presidency, willing to go on the record with a gentle disagreement on how Hillary's handled the email controversy.

BetFair's 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Watch

I'm glad BetFair exists. It gives us a little better idea where candidates may stand, as people put money on nominees. So how does it look right now?

1. Jeb Bush - 3.35 (12-5)
2. Marco Rubio - 7.8 (7-1)
3. Rand Paul - 8.2 (7-1)
4. Mitt Romney - 8.8 (8-1)
5. Scott Walker - 10.5 (9-1)
6. Chris Christie - 11 (10-1)
7. Ted Cruz - 15.5 (14-1)
8. Rick Perry - 18 (17-1)
9. Mike Huckabee - 21 (20-1)
10. Paul Ryan - 29 (27-1)

Next five:
Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Susana Martinez, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum

I gave my gut feeling on this topic a couple days ago, so it's nice to see confirmation on a lot of the positioning. It's been interesting to watch the Tea Party 4 (Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Lee) go four different directions. Lee's the only one clearly not running for president. Paul and Rubio have been tempering their responses to various issues, while Cruz is content to flamethrow. So far, the approaches by Paul and Rubio have been more effective.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's having a good showing early. He may find running too tempting a proposition to pass up.

Sometimes, Abortion Is Murder

Yes. Sometimes, abortion is murder. Does that seem harsh?

This post on Reddit is going viral. It's a love letter from a young mother who's about to abort her baby. She's not aborting because her life is in danger, or the baby has severe health defects and wouldn't survive anyway. She's aborting it because now is not a good time in her life right now.

Let's look at the problems with this.

She recognizes her baby as a person, a person she can talk to, who exists now, who is going to be killed in a few days, but a person whose spirit she will meet again. She believes she can abort the baby now for convenience, but next time it'll be the same baby, with the same spirit, and that baby will call her Mom. "Hi, Mom, thanks for killing me before I could be born the first time." This is a horrific delusion.

This is perfectly legal. Each person makes their own choice. My own moral fiber recoils at this deep lack of respect for human life, but hey that's just me. Birth control, birth control, birth control if you don't want to get pregnant. Adoption, adoption, adoption if now's not a good time for you. But if the baby's already growing, you don't just kill it. And the comments about doing what's best for your baby. How is killing it what's best for the baby?

How long after a baby is born should parents have the right to kill it? Is this not the next logical step?

The Amendment 3 Song

We were talking about Utah's Amendment 3, and someone asked, "What's Amendment 3?"

"What's Amendment 3?" I responded, which felt like the beginning of  a musical number. I have the tune in my head, but if you picture Robert Preston singing it, you'll be close.

In the Utah Constitution

They sought a resolution

To define the institution

Known as marriage to you and me

But with changing definitions

They gathered and petitioned

To not let the same-sex edition

Rise to the level of legality

The Amendment, it was passed

Man and woman only and at last

But the courts were then aghast

And had to decide if this could stand

And so throughout the nation

In every paper, on every station

They report renewed elation

As gay marriage passed throughout the land

Shot down! Denied!

Amendment 3 nullified!

Republicans, is this settled?

"Activist judges, they have mettled!"

We'll now debate it in our caucus

And neither Evans nor Dabakis

Can sway or calm the ruckus

Until the Supreme Court has their say

So we can stew and fret and wait

And have passioned debate

Until the feds inform the state

"Same-sex marriage is here to stay!"

*fanfare* *end song*

The Inevitable President Hillary, and Other 2016 Speculations

I can't say I learned anything new from Hillary Clinton's interview with Diane Sawyer. Hillary said she hasn't made up her mind if she's running for President in 2016. This, of course, is a lie, but it's a lie we dance around every mid-term. 2006, 2010, 2014 are the years for midterm swings in Congress, but they are also the years for people who have every intention of running for President to issue denials that they've made up their mind.

The remark that's received the most publicity is the one about her and Bill being "dead broke" when she left the White House. Yeah, right. Somehow they managed to make millions back. Even Chelsea made $600,000 from NBC for filing three reports. This is actually one good reason why a Republican needs to win in 2016. Do you value the press? Do you want the media to hold truth to power? They tend to be at their best when a Republican's in office. I predict Years 9-12 of a Democratic Oval Office will further erode the credibility of the Fourth Estate.

Now I actually think Hillary would have been a better President than Obama. She's better at building relationships. We needed him for the history, to help us get over the hump and actually have an African-American as President 150 years after Lincoln. We also needed to not have a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton daisy chain. Now that Obama's been in for two terms, Americans seem to be a little more ready to stomach another President Clinton. It's her election to lose. Of course, so was 2008's.

So maybe Brian Schweitzer and Elizabeth Warren will make it interesting on the Democratic side. As for the Republicans, they need their own Obama, that transformative figure that can inspire. Mitt Romney did not inspire. Never mind he was right about Russia and Iraq and several other things. You have to win first.

So who are the 2016 possibilities? Well, let's see.

NO WAY THEY RUN AGAIN

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul. Yes, Mitt won't run again. But I have no doubt he wants to help pick the next nominee.

THEY MIGHT RUN AGAIN

Rick Perry - The Texas governor is wearing glasses now to make himself appear smarter and more stately. Of the ones who ran in 2012, I see him as the most likely to give it another shot. I think this would be a big mistake, but never underestimate Texas.

Rick Santorum - Still a decent chance the social conservative gives it another try. It'd be a huge waste of money if he did.

Mike Huckabee - The host of his own weekly radio and weekend Fox News show will send out feelers to see if he would have a chance. His folksy approach is palatable, but I see 2016 as a year where Republicans do not want an also-ran.

THE "ESTABLISHMENT" NAMES

Jeb Bush - If Americans can stomach the thought of a second Clinton presidency, can they stomach the thought of a third Bush? Jeb's always been seen as the smarter brother, the one that should have run in 2000 had Florida played along. There's also no doubt in my mind he would have been a better president than W.  But Jeb's time has passed.

Chris Christie - The press loved the big guy for a while. But without Mitt Romney to kick around, MSNBC decided to become the Anti-Chris Christie channel. Plus many conservatives don't trust him.

THE LIKELY CANDIDATES

Ted Cruz - The divisive Tea Party hero would certainly be able to draw up passion from his base. He'd face opposition in places like New Hampshire and Michigan who view him as too extreme to win a general election.

Rand Paul - Rand will be an interesting one to watch. He can get some of the Libertarian cred thanks to his dad, some Tea Party cred, and he's shown the ability to breathe fire one day, then play nice with others the next. He'll be vulnerable in some primaries for not being as hawkish as other candidates, but in other primaries, that'll be one of his biggest strengths.

Marco Rubio - The Florida senator would greatly benefit if his friend Jeb would decide not to run and just support him instead. Like Cruz, he'd make history as the first Latino president. He's facing early opposition from the anti-amnesty crowd.

Scott Walker - The Wisconsin governor could be a real factor in 2016. He won a recall challenge handily in 2012 after slashing the state budget, and that emboldened his GOP supporters. He's shrunk the deficit there, so fiscal conservatives love him.

Bobby Jindal - Since his disastrous response to the State of the Union, he's kept his head down in Louisiana, just strengthening his resume. His handling of Hurrican Gustav was far better than how his predecessor had handled Hurricane Katrina. His approval ratings dipped after 2012 but have been coming up this year.

Paul Ryan - He's a national name now thanks to his Vice-Presidential candidacy, though I think many voters will remember he did nothing to move the needle in 2012 and how he let Joe Biden steal his lunch money during the debate.

John Kasich - I'll throw his name out there, because he seems to have built a very solid resume as governor. Kasich served in the US House from 1983-2001. He ran for President in 2000 but did badly and dropped out early to support Bush. He had his own Fox News Channel show for a while, and he worked at Lehman Brothers when the stock market crashed. His political rehabilitation as Ohio governor saw that state become one of the first to show true growth post-crash.

WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN?

There are a few women who could get into this election cycle.

Susanna Martinez - Hey, a twofer! A Latina woman. The New Mexico governor enjoys popularity in her state and has strengthened her bonafides in border security. She could get hit in primaries for New Mexico's low job growth, but between now and 2016 she has time to get that improved.

Nikki Haley - She's South Carolina's first female governor, and she'd be the first Indian American president, should she win. She's young; she's turn 44 in 2016. She attends Methodist and Sikh services, so she has quite a multicultural thing going on.

Mary Fallin - The Oklahoma governor could be tempted to throw her hat into the ring. She's popular at home, she (like Martinez and Haley) should be enjoying her second term as governor when decision-time comes around. She has some personal issues that some could make an issue of, but after Newt ran, that just dwarfs anything any other candidate will ever have to cop to.

Sarah Palin - She won't run, but she'll flirt with the idea through 2016 as she tries to sell a book or score another reality show.