Does the White House actually think it would be good for it to be struck down? Or at least, would it be objectively good for the Democrats going into next November?
Mickey’s a smart guy, but he’s too clever by half here, I think. I agree with most of the commenters. It’s a torpedo below his water line that can’t be undone now, and if it’s demonstrated to be unconstitutional as well, it just makes it that much worse, politically.
Well done, president Obama.
Whether it will do any good is a separate issue.
“There’s no freedom of speech here.”
Is Russia reverting to the Soviet Union?
Herman Cain is an attractive candidate, but his economics are pretty iffy.
Thoughts on the Andrew Bolt conviction from fellow thought criminal Mark Steyn.
There is no right to not be offended that supercedes freedom of expression (contrary to what is taught on many campi here).
“Should Obama try to emulate the way he thinks gays and Jews talk in his next address to them?”
Well, I think I’m not alone when I say this, but my answer is… YES! Absolutely. He should do that. In fact all politicians should give that a try. It’d be funnn-eee!
It would be really funny if he couldn’t pull it off, but tried anyway.
[Update a few minutes later]
Today’s questions for the president:
What evidence do you have that the preferred footwear of members of the Congressional Black Caucus is bedroom slippers?
At what point during your childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia did you adopt the speaking cadence of Al Sharpton?
Do you agree with Janeane Garafalo that some Republicans support Herman Cain “because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party”? Are Republicans who don’t support Herman Cain simply more honest racists?
Do you agree with Herman Cain that ”African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not considering a conservative point of view”?
What measurable benefits have accrued to black voters as a result of tendering 88 percent of their votes to Hubert Humphrey, 87 percent to George McGovern, 85 percent to Jimmy Carter, 88 percent to Walter Mondale, 86 percent to Michael Dukakis, 83–84 percent to Bill Clinton, 89 percent to Al Gore, 88 percent to John Kerry, and 95 percent to you?
Well, they don’t suffer from the ravages of high employment or low legitimacy rates.
The usual buzzphrases:
5) Lean, Integrated Teams with Accelerated Decision Making
4) Right Sized Documentation and Standards
3) Risk-Informed Government Insight/Oversight Model
2) Robust Designs and Margins
1) Evolvable Development Approach
[In reverse order, ‘cuz I pulled them off Ed Ellegood’s Twitter feed]
As I tweeted him back, those tricks never work. Not on a cost-plus program where you have to spread the pork.
What, if anything is really missing? If we dodged a bullet here (so to speak) I hope that it raises awareness of this issue for the future.
It’s really long past time for a special prosecutor:
So now the wheels have come off the official explanation for Fast and Furious. Of course, that explanation never made much sense in the first place.
For one thing, the ATF had no authority to track the guns once they were in Mexico; for another, nobody bothered to inform the Mexicans of this intrusion on their national sovereignty.
Further, we now know that a host of federal agencies (including the ATF, the FBI and IRS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration and, very probably, top officials at the Department of Homeland Security) were all in the loop at various levels, as was the White House.
So calling “Fast and Furious” a cockamamie operation gone wrong just isn’t going to cut it anymore.
There are two possible explanations. The first is that the anti-gun Obama administration deliberately wanted American guns planted in Mexico in order to demonize American firearms dealers and gun owners. The operation was manufacturing “evidence” for the president’s false claim that we’re to blame for the appalling levels of Mexican drug-war violence.
If this is true, then Holder & Co. have got to go — and the trail needs to be followed no matter where it leads. For the federal government to seek to frame its own citizens is unconscionable.
A second notion is that the CIA was behind the whole thing, which accounts for all the desperate wagon-circling. Under this theory, the Agency feared the los Zetas drug cartel was becoming too powerful and might even mount a coup against the Mexican government. So some 2,000 weapons costing more than $1.25 million were deliberately channeled to the rival Sinaloa cartel, which operates along the American border, to keep the Zetas in check.
Of course, there’s a third explanation — that both scenarios are true, and that those in charge of Fast and Furious saw an opportunity to shoot two birds with one Romanian-made AK Draco pistol.
Any administration defenders have a better explanation?