George Stephanopoulos; Democrat operative.

Stephanopoulos and ABC News now in a no-win situation..."George Stephanopoulos’s self-recusal from the GOP debates constitutes an admission of his lack of impartiality, but he refuses to take it to the logical conclusion and recuse himself from the presidential campaign. That is going to be increasingly difficult for him and ABC News to defend. If he admits to being tainted, then how can he be trusted to cover Hillary Clinton fairly?" . . .

"The interview (video here) with Peter Schweizer that Stephanopoulos conducted repeated the Clinton campaign talking points (”no evidence”) repeatedly, and was the most aggressive one that Schweizer faced. It was also a bit deceptive beyond the concealed conflict of interest, as Jeffrey Meyer of Newsbusters pointed out:" . . .

He apologizes, but for what?

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/05/15/130569

 Victor Davis Hanson: George Stephanopoulos’s Clinton Foundation Hypocrisy Is Staggering . . . "When he attacked Schweizer for a supposed conflict of interest in having been a Bush speechwriter for four months, he assumed that his own much longer tenure as a war-room political flak for Bill Clinton could never impinge on his own objectivity — much less provide the context for his recent donations to the Clinton family foundation."

Well, we've passed it and know what's in it. Now what?

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/752996

Nancy Pelosi Peers Into Her Cracked ObamaCare Crystal Ball Again   . . . "Before reading too much into Pelosi's dire forecast, remember that this is the same person who, in March 2010, looked into her crystal ball and discerned that, despite the intense turmoil and the public's clear disdain for the law, ObamaCare would become hugely popular once the dust settled.

" 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it — away from the fog of the controversy," she famously said.

"Well, the fog of controversy lifted long ago, but only 45% approve of ObamaCare, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll. The law is especially unpopular among the uninsured." . . .

Krauthammer: Save Obama (on trade); "Think long-term, because the U.S. relationship with Asia will outlast this president."

Charles Krauthammer

 

" . . . That free trade is advantageous to both sides is the rarest of political propositions — provable, indeed mathematically. David Ricardo did so in 1817. The Law of Comparative Advantage has held up nicely for 198 years.

"Nor is this abstract theory. We’ve lived it. The free-trade regime created after World War II precipitated the most astonishing advance of global welfare and prosperity the world has ever seen. And that regime was created, overseen, guaranteed and presided over by the United States.

"Like all modern presidents, Obama wants a deal. But he has utterly failed to bring his party along. It’s not just because for six years he’s treated all of Congress with disdain and prefers insult to argument when confronted with opposition, this time from Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren. It’s also because he’s expended practically no political capital on the issue. He says it’s a top priority. Has he given even a single televised address?"
 . . .
" That era might be coming to a close, however, as Democratic congressional opposition to free trade continues to grow." . . .

 Democratic infighting over a global trade deal is exposing both personal and policy issues between Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and President Obama. The Post's Chris Cillizza explains the feud.

Bill Looking Forward to Moving Back to the White House… If Only Hillary Will Let Him

 Class act Bill Clinton is cracking jokes about his own infidelity.

PJ Media   "Ah. It looks like Bill Clinton is in da house:

Bill Clinton hopes to be Hillary Clinton’s First Man in the White House, but there’s a big “if” … if she invites him to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. ”If she wins the election, the chances are 100 percent that I’ll move back,” the former president told David Letterman Tuesday night on “The Late Show.” ”By the way, if I’m asked!” he added with a smile.

"Ha-ha! Cracking jokes about cheating on your wife (because that’s what this all refers to of course): hilarious! Oh man, I can’t stop laughing. Especially because people in their position should try to be great role models for young generations. It’s killing me! Great fun!
Morality and the Clintons. They just don’t go together, do they?

. . . 

"In other words, Bill is full of it and he proves himself to be a utterly and completely immoral." . . .

Thomas Sowell on Race, Politics and Lies

 You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization -- including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain -- without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Townhall

 

"Among the many painful ironies in the current racial turmoil is that communities scattered across the country were disrupted by riots and looting because of the demonstrable lie that Michael Brown was shot in the back by a white policeman in Missouri -- but there was not nearly as much turmoil created by the demonstrable fact that a fleeing black man was shot dead by a white policeman in South Carolina.

"Totally ignored was the fact that a black policeman in Alabama fatally shot an unarmed white teenager, and was cleared of any charges, at about the same time that a white policeman was cleared of charges in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

"In a world where the truth means so little, and headstrong preconceptions seem to be all that matter, what hope is there for rational words or rational behavior, much less mutual understanding across racial lines?
. . . 

 

Guaranteed to get Dr. Sowell attacked by the Sharpton crowd and the Congressional Black Caucus:

The "legacy of slavery" argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

 

The train issue: More demagoguery from liberals

 

A Shameless Train of Thought  . . . "Democrats forget that President Obama promised us that our infrastructure problems were over the day he signed the trillion-dollar stimulus package with the Orwellian name of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009:

Because of this investment, nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our faulty dams and levees, bringing critical broadband connections to businesses and homes in nearly every community in America, upgrading mass transit, building high-speed rail lines that will improve travel and commerce throughout our nation.

The Left Won’t Let the Amtrak Tragedy Go to Waste   "It took just a few sorry hours for the news to become politicized. On Tuesday evening, we were told of a tragedy. An Amtrak train running between New York City and Washington D.C. had derailed disastrously at Philadelphia, killing eight and wounding two hundred. By Wednesday morning, tragedy had become transgression. Speaking from the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest explained that he didn’t know for sure why the train had crashed, but that it was probably the Republicans’ fault. “We have seen a concerted effort by Republicans for partisan reasons to step in front of those kinds of advancements” that would have prevented crashes such as this one, Earnest proposed slyly. His message: “Yeah, the conservatives did it.”

"Before long, this theory had become omnipresent on the Left.

  GOP Budget Scrooges Didn’t Cause the Amtrak Wreck   . . . "After investigators revealed that the train was traveling 106 miles per hour in a 50 mph zone and that Congress has poured billions into funding for safety features that haven’t been deployed on schedule, liberals backpedaled in search of other equally absurd arguments.

 

Krauthammer Rips Obama’s ‘Absolutely Pathetic’ Attempt To Reassure Gulf States

Daily Caller   . . . "In his comments at Camp David, Obama said that the U.S. stands “ready to work” with the gulf nations to “determine what actions may be appropriate” if the nations come under the “threat of such aggression” from the Iranians.
"Krauthammer told “Special Report” guest host Chris Wallace that Obama’s remarks were “absolutely pathetic,” adding that he’s “never seen a statement with more caveats in it.”

" Under the circumstances, it’s little wonder that Bahrain’s King Hamad preferred to go to a horse show [in] London rather than confer with Obama. Just as Israel has learned that the United States is more interested in a new Iran-centric policy than it backing its traditional allies, so, too, must the Arabs come to grips with a new reality in which their Iranian foe is no longer restrained by the United States.
 . . .

http://comicallyincorrect.com/

 Jonathan Tobin on  Obama’s Not-So-Ironclad Guarantee  ..."The wording of the president’s “guarantee” is a marvel of lawyerly ambiguity that any connoisseur of diplomatic doubletalk must appreciate:

In the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression, the United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners to determine urgently what action may be appropriate, using the means at our collective disposal, including the potential use of military force, for the defense of our GCC partners.

"Let’s unpack this carefully so we’re clear about what the United States isn’t promising its Arab allies. As even Obama’s cheerleaders at the New York Times noted, this “carefully worded pledge that was far less robust than the mutual defense treaty the Gulf nations had sought.” In the event of aggression, the U.S. isn’t going to spring into action to defend them. Instead it will “work” with them to “determine” what they might do. That falls quite a bit short of a hard promise of collective action, let alone the drawing of a line in the sand across which the Iranians may not cross. In other words, if something bad happens, Obama will talk with the threatened parties but he won’t say what he will do in advance or if he will do anything at all. If that is an “ironclad guarantee,” I’d hate to see what a less binding promise might sound like.
. . . 
 The upshot of all this then is:

 Under the circumstances, it’s little wonder that Bahrain’s King Hamad preferred to go to a horse show London rather than confer with Obama. Just as Israel has learned that the United States is more interested in a new Iran-centric policy than it backing its traditional allies, so, too, must the Arabs come to grips with a new reality in which their Iranian foe is no longer restrained by the United States.

This president just is not interested and is content to pass on these diplomatic land mines to the next administration . Obama will then gloat over how he left the world "at peace" only to have the new administration's "failed policies"ruin what he had done. He has spent almost seven years doing this with George Bush so we know the character of Obama. TD

 Obama promises Gulf allies he will talk and talk and talk in their defense 

 

. . . "Veteran Obama listeners have learned to watch for the Democrat's bold statements that also contain masked qualifiers. People recall his repeated assurances that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon. But now Obama emphasizes: "on my watch." Which has 615 days left." . . .

Iran fires on cargo ship while Obama assures Gulf allies he has their backs 
 "I would say that Iran has impeccable timing."  Read more: