Is she the world’s biggest blunderer?

That’s a pretty high bar in a world with Barack Obama, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius…

I could say that she’s the most overrated one, but that’s true of a lot of Dem pols, too.

The Democrats need a Howard Baker.

Unfortunately, Democrats with principles (other than political victory) seem to not exist.

I would note that the Republicans took a long time to finally get on the ball, compared to Watergate. This August will be the fortieth anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, at exactly the same time in the presidential cycle that Obama’s in now.

[Update a few minutes later]

Where was Obama?

Americans have a right to know where their president was while a terrorist attack was taking place — and the daily diary will provide that information. There will be a record if Obama held a secure video teleconference (SVTC) with his military commanders in the region or even spoke with them by phone. There will be a record if he met or spoke with his national security adviser to discuss the unfolding attack, and how many times he did so. If properly kept, the logs will show precisely what Obama was doing — whether he was carefully monitoring events on the ground or was otherwise occupied.

…During Watergate, Richard Nixon had his infamous 18 1/2-minute gap. When it comes to Benghazi, Obama has an eight-hour gap. That gap needs to be closed.

If Obama has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear.

I think it’s similar to his unwillingness to release his college transcripts. Or let people see the Khalidi birthday-party video. There’s something there they don’t want us to see.

Can Congress sue the president for not faithfully executing the laws?

Sure seems like it to me. It would be nice to see what the Founders intended: checks and balances between the branches, instead of between political parties.

Apropos of nothing in particular, David Rifkin is one of my attorneys in the Mann suit.

[Update a while later]

Why are the House and Senate surrendering so much power to the Executive branch?

The American people do not understand what their congressmen and women are saying. Simply put, the legislative branch is legislating the American people out of their favor with bills that both they, and the American people, cannot understand. Legislators need to understand their own bills. The American people need to understand. The American people want to understand. The president is more appealing and more trusted than the Congress because his message is simpler. The president’s message, delivered in friendly, fatherly sound bites, is comprehensible to the people. It is clear, concise and easy to understand. Congress’ message with 2,700 page bills and 1,200 page bills is simply incomprehensible, unfathomable. Consequentially, legislators are deemed untrustworthy by the American people.

The legislators in the legislative branch need to act and they need to act quickly, very, very quickly. They need to pass rules that limit their own largess in order to prevent the progressives’ “legislators are corrupt” campaign from succeeding. They need to save our country by returning the people’s house to the people. They have let it be run by lawyers. They have leveled Americans’ trust with legalese.

The legislators need to simplify, simplify, simplify. They can start by reducing the number of pages in their bills and by summarizing their objectives. Comprehensive bills are compromising our republican form of government. The American people are turning to the wrong branch of government – the executive branch, the president, the branch that is most vulnerable to tyranny and corruption. Ironically, the American people are trusting the branch that can enact the most uncensored control over the people if left unchecked.

Maybe no so much any more, though, fortunately. At least judging by recent polling.