Wait, what's all this? Conservative congressperson John King (R-NY) wants to investigate Fox News and Wall Street Journal-owner Rupert Murdoch over something 9/11-related.
I don't get it. Murdoch isn't a Muslim, is he?
New York Republican Pete King is calling on the FBI to investigate whether Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation hacked into the voicemail accounts of Sept. 11 victims, calling the allegations of the scandal "disgraceful."
"As I see it, I would expect more things to be coming out over the next several weeks," King told Politico. "And as we approach 9/11, the tenth anniversary, it's even going to get worse."…
A number of Democratic senators are also calling for inquiries into the scandal. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, asked for an investigation on Tuesday into whether American phones were hacked by News Corp. reporters. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) says she supports Rockefeller. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J) wants authorities to look into allegations that News of the World reporters bribed London police for information about the British royal family.
Jeeze! Can you even imagine what would happen if Rupert Murdoch was actually held accountable for something his place in this News of the World scandal (which, oddly enough, isn't getting much play with the New York Post or Fox News) just like any other person would be?
No, me neither.
Can't wait to find out why all of these investigations are unpatriotic wastes of taxpayer money being foisted onto an unwilling public by socialist upstarts. I can't wait! I keep refreshing the Wall Street Journal opinion page, but it's not there yet.
Tags: 9/11, Barbara Boxer, Fox, Frank Lautenberg, House of Representatives, Jay Rockefeller, John King, New York Post, Rupert Murdoch, Senate, Wall Street Journal
Since about the time that Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential, liberals have been wringing their hands out of concern that Barack Obama would not win re-election. And you really can't blame them — they've been conditioned to worry about everything except actual the important stuff like pyromaniacal illegal aliens and the ever-encroaching specter of socialism.
Now Karl Rove has just revealed — via Rupert Murdoch's Rupert Murdoch-ized Wall Street Journal — that he used his super secret special brand of math to figure out that Barack Obama will not win a second term.
That should really make a lot of liberals feel a lot better about their chances in 2012, because Hahahahahahaha Karl Rove!
President Barack Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012. The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He's defending unpopular policies. And he's made bad strategic decisions…
Mr. Obama has made a strategic blunder. While he needs to raise money and organize, he decided to be a candidate this year rather than president. He has thus unnecessarily abandoned one of incumbency's great strengths, which is the opportunity to govern and distance himself from partisan politics until next spring. Instead, Team Obama has attacked potential GOP opponents and slandered Republican proposals with abandon. This is not what the public is looking for from the former apostle of hope and change.
Oh, man! I sure hope President Obama is taking heed to all this FREE! advice he's getting from this clearly non-partisan expert on political strategy and ethics.
"Hmmmm… Karl Rove recommends I not campaign for re-election. We'd better take this excellent advice under serious advisement." — Barack Obama (probably)
I'll bet you a lot of Republicans are really mad at Rove right now for giving the game away.
Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images News/Getty Images
Tags: Barack Obama, Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch, Wall Street Journal
First, to Mr. Obama's staff: The Norwegian Nobel Committee didn't want to wake the president to tell him about his prize earlier this year, but there shouldn't be any reluctance to reassure the nation after a terrorist attack. Also, why not resolve to have a few less "historic" moments? How many can one president really have, anyway? A little more grace toward his predecessor would help him, as would less TV time. He is wearing out his welcome and his speechwriters—judging by the quality of their work lately.
And it goes on (and on and on) from there.
Here is a resolution for the Wall Street Journal op-ed page: why not re-name yourself Karl Rove's Facebook Wall Journal if you are going to keep posting his sad, angry feelings every damn week? Also, your copyeditors should resolve to remember that it's Santa Claus, not Santa Clause (sixth graf, Karl's quip about Desiree Rogers "checking lists twice," ho ho ho!).
At the very end of this thing Karl does, indeed, put forth some resolutions for himself, namely "to speak well of Mr. Obama more frequently" and "to curry favor with liberals by being more critical of my fellow conservatives." This is either a baldfaced lie or a baldfaced joke. It's so hard to tell, with that sneaky Karl Rove.
Tags: Barack Obama, Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal
Bipartisan debate, proposed legislation, presidential addresses, blah blah. What does an unemployed Alaskan woman think about health care reform? That is the real question. Gosh, if only we knew an unemployed Alaskan woman with access to a typing machine.
Mentions of Ronald Reagan: 1
Mentions of death panels: 1
Mentions of God/Jesus Christ/Trig Palin: 0. There is a reference to "the weakest among us," but that could also mean Todd, maybe.
Total score: 2 (?) out of 3
One strange thing I just noticed — Sarah Palin seems to have figured out a hack that lets her post her Facebook notes on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page. How the hell did she do that? And where is the "Don't Like" button?
Tags: Facebook, Health Care, Sarah Palin, Wall Street Journal
"Dick Cheney in 2012" Is the Funniest/Saddest/Funniest-Again Thing We've Heard from the GOP All Week So Far
Are you wearing your laughing pants? Because, if not, you'd better go change into them or else you're gonna get laugh juice all over your stoic pants…
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Monday that — if the 2012 election were to turn to national security — "it's hard to think* of a better candidate… than Richard B. Cheney."
Hahahahahahahaha! Ha ha ha! Hahahaha! Ha!
But while his headline — "Cheney for President" — provoked guffaws in some quarters, several of the party's most well-regarded strategists and pollsters are actually taking the idea deadly seriously.
Hoooooo! Hahahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Haaaaaaa!!!
"The Republican Party needs to move forward and build on its past, not return to it," Alex Castellanos, a frequent CNN analyst and GOP messaging guru, told the Huffington Post via email. "But if the agenda turns to security, Obama is mired in a no-win mess in Afghanistan, and the Obama administration hasn't created a single job in four years after indebting the nation for generations, maybe Dick Cheney could run on a theme of 'Change'."
Shit. I just got sad juice all over my laughing pants.
* I'll bet the phrase "hard to think" comes up often in James Taranto's conversations.
Tags: Dick Cheney, Republicans, Wall Street Journal