REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

Newt Gingrich Calls it Quits

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 02 May 2012 20:51:45 +0000

Better late than never?

I suppose one could make the argument that Newt was merely being Newt; or that he was getting out on his terms. I typically wouldn’t buy those arguments; but I don’t have anything better to offer, so what the heck? Millions in debt, ever-dropping in the polls, and waaaayyy behind in delegates; the former Speaker announced Wednesday that it was finally time to throw in the towel.

CBS NEWS: With millions of dollars in campaign debt and just two Republican primary victories under his belt, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich finally called it quits Wednesday, suspending his campaign for the presidency so he could go back to being an “active citizen.”

“Today I am suspending the campaign, but suspending the campaign does not mean suspending citizenship,” Gingrich said in lengthy remarks to a bank of television cameras. Gingrich told reporters last week he would make his departure official this week.

Gingrich deemed the campaign “a truly wild ride” during the appearance in Arlington, Virginia, saying, “I could never have predicted either the low points or the high points.”

POLITICO: Although he did not officially back Mitt Romney, he offered lukewarm words of praise for the man who beat him for the GOP presidential nod, saying that “this is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan.” Given that it is a choice between Romney and President Barack Obama, Gingrich argued “the gap” between the two “is as wide as any point in American history.”

He called the campaign a “truly wild ride.”

I’ve posted below a brief clip of Newt’s remarks. You can thank me later. I’m not sure what the former Speaker thought he was accomplishing with an emptying of the ideas pool on his way out, but I can tell you it was the longest concession speech this blogger remembers watching. Painful on so many levels.

Politico already has up a “Best of Newt 2012″

Junior Seau Dead at 43 from Apparent Suicide

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 02 May 2012 20:31:13 +0000

Twelve time NFL Pro Bowl linebacker Junior Seau is dead at the age of 43. Police have confirmed earlier reports that the death is being investigated as an apparent suicide. The former San Diego Charger, Miami Dolphin, and New England Patriot was found at his Oceanside, California home Wednesday morning by a woman who told the police she was his girlfriend with a gunshot wound to his chest.

Cable news outlets just finished running an impromptu and emotional press conference in front of Seau’s home. I have to admit, it was extremely hard to watch. I’m anything but a Chargers fan – or a Dolphins or Patriots fan either for that matter – but I was a fan of Junior Seau as he was a star among stars for my generation. He will be missed. R.I.P.

The Chargers released the following statement:

“Everyone at the Chargers is in complete shock and disbelief right now. We ask everyone to stop what they’re doing and send their prayers to Junior and his family.”

NY TIMES: He is survived by three teenage children: a daughter, Sydney, and sons Jake and Hunter.

Seau is the second retired N.F.L player to commit suicide in the past few weeks. Ray Easterling, a safety for the Atlanta Falcons in the 1970s and a plaintiff in a high-profile lawsuit against the N.F.L. over its handling of concussion-related injuries, died last month of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The circumstances of Seau’s death instantly raised comparisons to the former ChicagoBears star Dave Duerson. In February 2011, Duerson shot himself in the chest, saying in a note that he wanted his brain donated to the study of football head injuries.

video platform video management video solutions video player

Marco Rubio Foreign Policy Speech at Brookings “There is Still Only One Nation Capable of Leading” (VIDEO)

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:00:12 +0000

“In confronting the challenges of our time, there are more nations than ever capable of contributing, but there is still only one that is capable of leading.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) gave a much-anticipated foreign policy speech Wednesday at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. While many have been speculating that the speech was an “audition” for a coming role and Mitt Romney’s Vice President, I’m inclined to believe the young senator is merely attempting to expand his reach and influence.

As to the speech, I watched most of it live and would give it a solid B+. I’m sure that too will be a topic of much debate in coming days. The McCain crowd will probably say he didn’t go far enough and the Paul wing of the Party will probably call it treasonous. I thought it was solid and for a first major speech on foreign policy, I’d say he hit it out of the park.

What Rubio represents is a sense of optimism in all things American. His message is that this country is and always will be what it has been and should be… just so long as we don’t lose Faith in the things that have made us great. In the years that I’ve been following his career, I’ve disagreed with him on a number of issues; but I’ve never for even a moment doubted whether or not this guy gets the quintessential ”It.”

—

Here’s a link to a short highlight version or watch the full thing below.

You can read the entire transcript of the speech here…

Linked at The Lonely Conservative. Thanks.

—-

A few of the high points…

Now, lest anyone accuse me of claiming that American power has ushered in the biblical promise of a “new heaven and a new earth,” let’s stop and remember that the world America made is better, but it is not perfect. But it has been a vastly more peaceful and prosperous age than any other age in recorded history.

So this is the world America made, but what is the role for America now? Is now finally the time for us to mind our own business? Is now the time for us to allow others to lead? Is now the time for us to play the role of equal partner?

I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of lives is directly impacted by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Our cost of living, the safety of our food , and the value of the things we invent, make and sell are just a few examples of everyday aspects of our lives that are direcly related to events abroad and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here are home.

The next question I am asked is why doesn’t someone else lead for a change? Why do we always have to be taking care of all the problems in the world? Isn’t it time for someone else to step up?

I always begin my answer to that question with a question of my own. If we start doing less, who will start doing more? For example, would a world order where China, at least as we know it right now, was the leading power be as benignly disposed to the political and economic aspirations of other nations as we are?

We hold out hope for a new China of tomorrow, but for now we must deal with the China of today.

Finally, I am asked, if we still have to lead, can’t we at least be equal partners with someone else? In fact, shouldn’t we rely on other nations to carry more of the burden? After all, we all know that they resent us telling them what to do, right?

In this new century, more than ever before, America should work with out capable allies in finding solutions to global problems. Not because America has gotten weaker, but because our partners have grown stronger. It’s worth pointing out, that is not a new idea for us. Our greatest successes have always occurred in partnership with other like-minded nations. America has acted unilaterally in the past – and I believe it should continue to do so in the future — when necessity requires. But our preferred option since the U.S. became a global leader has been to work with others to achieve our goals.

So yes, global problems do require international coalitions. On that point this administration is correct. But effective international coalitions don’t form themselves. They need to be instigated and led, and more often than not, they can only be instigated and led by us. And that is what this administration doesn’t understand. Yes, there are more countries able and willing to join efforts to meet the global challenges of our time. But experience has proven that American leadership is almost always indispensible to their success.

Everywhere we look, we are presented with opportunities for American leadership to help shape a better world in this new century. We have to view these opportunities within the context of the fact that in every region of the world, other countries look apprehensively on the growing influence of newly emerging powers in their midst, and look to the U.S. to counterbalance them.

Iran’s dangerous nuclear ambitions are about more than just weapons. Iran wants to become the most dominant power in the Middle East. But given Iran’s history of human rights abuses, fomenting Shia versus Sunni conflict and sponsorship of terrorism as a tool of statecraft, the world must never allow that to happen. Fortunately, preventing a dominant Iran is a goal we share with virtually every other nation in the region. Certainly we welcome Russia’s and China’s cooperation in facing this challenge. But the prospect of a nuclear capable Iran is so unacceptable that we must be prepared to act with or without them. We have a host of willing partners in every region of the world who share our concerns and are relying on our leadership to compel Iran to abandon its ambitions.

Preferably, we can succeed through coercive means short of military force. We should be open to negotiations with Iran. But always remember that they should not be deemed a success when they only lead to further negotiations. Stronger pressure shouldn’t be postponed in the expectation our forbearance will encourage Iran to act in good faith. Nothing in our experience with Iran suggests it considers such gestures as anything other than a lack of resolve on our part.

Ultimately however, we must remember that their ambitions so far have come with a high tolerance for pain. Therefore, even as we work through the United Nations and with the international community on sanctions and negotiations, we should operate on a dual track. We should also be preparing our allies, and the world, for the reality that unfortunately, if all else fails, preventing a nuclear Iran may require a military solution.

Our goal for our own region should be pretty straightforward: a coalition of neighboring democratic nations that trade freely and live peacefully with one another.

I disagree with the way in which the current administration has chosen to engage. For while there are few global problems we can solve by ourselves, there are virtually no global problems that can be solved without us. In confronting the challenges of our time, there are more nations than ever capable of contributing, but there is still only one that is capable of leading.

And I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at all. Who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go “abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”.

I disagree because all around us we see the human face of America’s influence in the world. It actually begins with not just our government, but our people. Millions of people have been the catalyst of democratic change in their own countries. But they never would have been able to connect with each other if an American had not invented Twitter.

Even in our military engagements, the lasting impact of our influence on the world is hard to ignore. Millions of people have emerged from poverty around the world in part because our Navy protects the freedom of the seas allowing the ever increasing flow of goods between nations.

We do these things because we are a compassionate people. And we also do it because it is in our national interest. Because perhaps more than any other nation on the earth, we understand that a world that is freer, more just, more peaceful and more prosperous poses less of a threat.

I know this is a time of great uncertainty. A time when many wonder if America is in decline. As Bob Kagan points out in his book, however, there have been other times when we felt less than confident about the future. We need to look no further than the decade of my birth for an example.

Senator Bob Corker: We Can’t Trust the Senate to Live Within Its Means (VIDEO)

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:22:02 +0000

“You absolutely cannot trust the United States Senate to live within its means.”

Say what you want about Senator Corker, but the guy is among an ever-dwindling group of ”grown-ups” still walking the halls of the United States Senate when it comes to getting the country’s financial house in order. He may not always represent the model conservative this Tennessee constituent longs for; but on fiscal matters, he rarely finds himself on the wrong side of things.

From Senator Corker’s YouTube Channel: April 25, 2012 – In remarks on the Senate floor today, Senator Corker said the postal reform bill, s. 1789, is further proof that “you absolutely cannot trust the United States Senate to live within its means.” The postal reform bill violates budgetary limitations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and would add $11 billion to the federal deficit.

I’ve only loosely followed this debate the last few days, but I’ll try to limp through the basics. Senate Republicans attempted to block a Harry Reid-driven postal reform bill from coming to the floor with a point of order challenge to the proposed legislation because they said S. 1789, would add to the deficit in violation of last year’s Budget Control Act; and add $34 billion to the nation’s debt.

THE HILL: After brief debate, the Senate voted 62-37 in favor of waiving the point of order, just narrowly meeting the 60-vote threshold. Nine Republicans voted with Democrats to waive the point of order: Roy Blunt (Mo.), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), John Hoeven (N.D.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Pat Roberts (Kansas) and Olympia Snowe (Maine).

That’s a Murderer’s Row of Moderates if I’ve ever seen one…

The Senate voted on 16 amendments to the reform bill (8 passed/8 did not) and the Body was set to pick up the rest on Wednesday. Here’s a list of the proposed amendments.

Here’s the debate in a nutshell…

[Senator] Sessions argued the bill would require the Treasury to repay $11.4 billion in money that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) overpaid to its employee retirement system, and would let the USPS defer $23 billion in payments to its retiree health benefit plan. In each case, Sessions said those funds would have to be offset by new government debt, but should instead by offset by spending cuts.

Rep. Susan Collins (R-Maine), one of the sponsors of the bill, repeated her arguments from Monday that the Congressional Budget Office analysis saying the bill costs $34 billion is “misleading.” She said that the funds involved come from the USPS, and that returning them would not amount to any new burden on taxpayers.

“There are no taxpayer dollars authorized by this bill or appropriated by this bill,” Collins said.

“Any new burden” on taxpayers… Now I understand. Haven’t we heard that before?

Obama Rolling Stone Interview Ready for the Fight “Longest and Most Substantive Granted in Over a Year”

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:41:15 +0000

CBS NEWS/ AP/ ROLLING STONE

President Barack Obama is once again the feature story in the latest edition of Rolling Stone Magazine. I’m certain you’ll all be tripping over one another to run out and buy a copy. Truth be told, I might. It may be worth something if it’s his last interview with the once-iconic magazine before leaving office in January. Either way, I’m still thumbing through it and will share highlights when and if I find them.

Just in case you forgot. Here are a few of the “probing” and “pointed” questions the magazine asked the president the last time he graced the cover…

Rolling Stone Magazine (October 2010)

When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side.
When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?
How do you feel about the fact that day after day, there’s this really destructive attack on whatever you propose?
Does that bother you?
Has it shocked you?
What do you think the Republican Party stands for today?
What do you think of the Tea Party and the people behind it?
Do you think that it’s being manipulated?
What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?

—

Highlights from Ready for the Fight

Gotta love this…

The hourlong discussion was the longest and most substantive interview the president has granted in over a year. When executive editor Eric Bates and I joined him in the Oval Office, he began by signaling his staff to push back his schedule. “Just call Secretary Clinton’s office and tell her we’re going to be about 10 minutes late,” he said.

Dude has more time for Rolling Stone than anyone else???

—

At least we know the folks at Rolling Stone are consistent… (See Above)

Let’s talk about the campaign. Given all we’ve heard about and learned during the GOP primaries, what’s your take on the state of the Republican Party, and what do you think they stand for?

Doesn’t all of that kind of talk and behavior during the primaries define the party and what they stand for?

How does that shape the tone and tenor of the debate that’s going to take place during the campaign?

In working with the Republicans in this term, it seems clear that the traditional rules of give-and-take politics have changed – that the Republicans have been playing a “lose-lose” game with you. What’s your relationship with the GOP leadership at this point? A little frosty?

Is there any way to break through that obstructionism by Republicans?

—

In fairness to Rolling Stone and JANN S. WENNER - who wrote the article/conducted the interview – the questions turn away from direct Republican bashing after that. I think it’s also worth mentioning that she and Rolling Stone are in the business of selling magazines. I say that because if there wasn’t a fair amount of political red meat thrown in there, folks like me would have never read the article in the first place and certainly would not be sharing them with their readers. I get it. Doesn’t mean I have to like it; but I get it.

I also “get” why the president decided to do this interview. And I’m certain it’s no coincidence that it is hitting the shelves the same week he’s on a three-state pander to the youth vote tour. The day after he slow-jammed on Jimmy Fallon, he’s the cover story of Rolling Stone… I think someone’s maneuvering hard for the 18-25 vote. Well played, sir.

Only problem: getting them out of bed to actually vote.

—

Subsequent topics of note:

The “War on Drugs”
Marriage Equality
Racial Politics and Race Relations
Occupy Wall Street
Syria, Israel, Iran
What shows do you watch?
What’s it like being told every day how bad you’re doing?
Do you read Paul Krugman?
Playboy?

—

Here’s one Q&A you’ll most certainly be hearing more about…

James Hansen, NASA’s leading climate scientist, has said this about the Keystone pipeline: that if the pipeline goes through and we burn tar sands in Canada, it’s “game over” for the planet. What’s your reaction to that statement?

James Hansen is a scientist who has done an enormous amount not only to understand climate change, but also to help publicize the issue. I have the utmost respect for scientists. But it’s important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do. That’s their national policy, they’re pursuing it. With respect to Keystone, my goal has been to have an honest process, and I have adamantly objected to Congress trying to circumvent a process that was well-established not just under Democratic administrations, but also under Republican administrations.

The reason that Keystone got so much attention is not because that particular pipeline is a make-or-break issue for climate change, but because those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared and concerned about a general lack of sufficient movement to deal with the problem. Frankly, I’m deeply concerned that internationally, we have not made as much progress as we need to make. Within the constraints of this Congress, we’ve tried to do a whole range of things, administratively, that are making a difference – doubling fuel-efficiency standards on cars is going to take a whole lot of carbon out of our atmosphere. We’re going to continue to push on energy efficiency, and renewable energy standards, and the promotion of green energy. But there is no doubt that we have a lot more work to do.

READ MORE…

Newt Gingrich to Officially Suspend Campaign Tuesday; Endorse Mitt Romney?

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:01:03 +0000

“I think obviously that I would be a better candidate, but the objective fact is the voters didn’t think that.”

Newt Gingrich will reportedly suspend his campaign for the Republican nomination next week – most likely in his home state of Georgia. After losing soundly to Mitt Romney in all five primaries Tuesday night, a concession seemed inevitable. But this is Newt Gingrich and I think we all know that only Newt will decide when enough is enough. There’s that… and the fact that his campaign is reportedly “millions” of dollars in debt. (I think the most reasonable figure I’ve seen puts the bill somewhere north of $4 million.)

Maybe the tortoise just ran out of track?

CNN: Newt Gingrich will officially end his bid for the Republican presidential nomination and formally express his support for Mitt Romney next week, two sources close to Gingrich tell CNN.

While details are still being worked out, Gingrich is likely to hold his final campaign event Tuesday in Washington, DC where he will make the announcement surrounded by his family and supporters.

It is not surprising that Gingrich is suspending his campaign for the White House as he has all but acknowledged it is winding down and Romney is the presumptive GOP nominee.

“When he says he is transitioning, what he means is that he is trying to determine as a citizen how he will pro-actively help Mitt Romney become president and the Republican Party win back the Senate and help (House Speaker) John Boehner keep his majority in the House,” said one of the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

So, it’s back to Newt the Party spokesman… Or Newt the Party critic? Or Newt the Author? Newt the Historian? Newt the Romney Surrogate?

Who knows at this point? Frankly, I’m not even sure if Newt knows.

Think about it. He’s spent months hammering Romney in ways that Santorum never even dreamed of and Romney was in large part responsible for derailing his campaign with truckloads of cash after South Carolina. Can the two really mend those fences?

–

RS McCain has an update:

UPDATE: While everybody’s busy scripting their Downfall video parodies, here are more details from inside the bunker:

Newt Gingrich plans to formally leave the Republican presidential race next Tuesday, senior campaign aides told Fox News, after struggling for months to turn around his sagging bid for the White House. . . .
Gingrich’s exit is a stark turnaround from his public posture just a few months back, when in December he confidently declared following his rise in national polls that [he was] “going to be the nominee.”

—

By way of Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

“Fox News is reporting that Gingrich will officially concede on May 1, and will “more than likely” endorse Romney at the same time.”

—

Gingrich being Gingrich on the way out. Courtesy of National Journal:

“I think you have to at some point be honest with what’s happening in the real world, as opposed to what you’d like to have happened,” Gingrich said. “Governor Romney had a very good day yesterday. He got 67 [percent] in one state, and he got 63 in other, 62 in another. Now you have to give him some credit. I mean this guy’s worked six years, put together a big machine, and has put together a serious campaign.

“I think obviously that I would be a better candidate, but the objective fact is the voters didn’t think that,” Gingrich said. “And I also think it’s very, very important that we be unified.”

Gingrich said he will continue to campaign in North Carolina through the week “as a citizen,” and that “we’re working out the details of our transition and we’ll have information for the press in the next couple of days.”

Two Gingrich campaign officials confirmed to CBS News/National Journal that Gingrich will suspend his campaign and will likely endorse Romney on May 1 in Washington.

Arizona Immigration Law Goes Before Supreme Court: Obama’s Lawyer Disappoints, Again

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:30:19 +0000

Chief Justice Roberts: “It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally.”

If that’s all you heard about today’s Arizona Immigration Law (SB1070) oral arguments, I think you might be able to draw the conclusion it was not a good day for the Solicitor General before the Supreme Court. Sadly, for Donald B. Verrilli Jr., resistance came from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer”

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

AP: Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.

“You can see it’s not selling very well”

“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

It wasn’t all bad for the Obama administration’s top advocate.

WASHINGTON TIMES: The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.

Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrillisaid adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He saidCongress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.

“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.

The Court is expected to announce a decision on the AZ law before the end of its summer term. Considering a ruling on the Affordable Care Act is also due out around that time, it could mean some extremely tense days around the White House – and the Halls of Congress for that matter. If ObamaCare goes down and SB1070 is upheld, I’d expect a firestorm of “activist judge” rhetoric that could potentially factor in to November elections.

President Obama on Jimmy Fallon; Slow Jams the Student Loan Republican Bashing News; Full Interview Added (VIDEO)

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:15:39 +0000

Earlier today, as I signed off and headed out for a run, I said that I would not be watching the President on Jimmy Fallon. I guess I lied. I watched it. Every Tuesday can’t be Fat Tuesday around here. I was bored.

Yes, I watched it; and since I’m a country-loving patriotic American, I actually got a little excited when I realized the president was about to come on stage – even though I disagree with just about everything he’s says, does, thinks about, or says that he thinks about doing. It’s the President of the United States for crying out loud. And it’s late night television. For a dude that sleeps about 3.5 hours a night, that’s like catnip.

In full disclosure, I’m also a bit of a fan of Jimmy Fallon. I wasn’t exactly pleased to hear that he would be taking part in the president’s “Pander to the Youth Vote” three-state tour to promote continuing low interest rates on Stafford loans re-election bid; but I like the guy, and typically find his show funny more often than not – despite the Michele Bachmann bashing his house band The Roots and lead drummer Questlove did during the early primary season.

As I’m sure you’ll see on half a million sites in the days to come, the President opened his appearance with a “Slow Jamming the News” segment that was neither funny nor entertaining. I’ll spare you the political details I’m certain you’ll find elsewhere; but let’s just say I’m pretty sure both Sasha and Malia were screaming “Lame” at the television while they were watching from 1600.

From HuffPO:

One of the highlights of the night came when the president was fielding questions from Twitter. Of course, the first question was about legalizing marijuana – which he kinda sorta punted on with the a token apathetic liberal response. He was then asked why anyone should vote for him; rather than presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

The President proudly boasted that he could give an answer in 140 characters or less. That turned into about three minutes of talking. Fallon estimated and called it 3000 characters.

The President quipped that it was a Tweet that “referred you to a Facebook Wall.”

Redemption…

I thought the most telling moment of the evening came as Fallon said goodbye to the president and thanked him for taking the time to make an appearance. Jimmy said, ”We dont’ take sides politically on this show, but it was great to have the president of the United States with us.”

The crowd cheered.

And then a promo for “Tomorrow’s Guests” appeared on the screen.

“Cast of 30 Rock, Reverend Al Sharpton…”

Need I say more?

That’s Tina Fey, Alec Baldwin, and Al Friggin Sharpton. Can you really claim impartiality when you have the trifecta of Hollywood liberalism on your show the night after you devote an entire program to President Obama and Slow-Jamming the news
—

—
From Lady Liberty:
#WarOnStudents Continues; Adds Our Ears To Casualty List

Tuesday Afternoon Quick Hits

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:44:35 +0000

I’m off for a run and an afternoon away from the computer; but before I headed out, I figured I’d share a few links from the best and the brightest of the Daily Reads. Hope everyone’s enjoying their Tuesday. Be sure to set your DVR for Mitt Romney “A Better America Begins Tonight” victory speech in Blue State Country and the Jimmy Fallon – Questlove – President Obama – lovefest later on tonight.

Be sure to let me know how that goes.

RS McCain’s selling Mother’s Days Jewelry for Amazon… and college tuition for his kids. Maybe he should hit up Michelle Obama. He’s also got a post on Obama’s One Success. (Here’s a hint. It has something to do with Mexicans going the other way for a change.)

The Sun is shining in Adrienne’s world, so she’s got cats. Yes, cats. I don’t get it either; but I like her, so she gets a link. She also has an incredibly heartfelt personal story that offers some perspective on the Zimmerman/Trayvon story… Zimmerman: “I didn’t know if he was armed”…

Chris at WyBlog’s got some good news for the 50% of college graduates that can’t find a job…

Lonely Conservative breaks the news that The War on Terror is Over? Free beer for everyone. There’s also a guest post by Mike Jones: The Life and Times of Sour Milk

Left Coast Rebel says “News of the Tea Party’s Death is Greatly Exaggerated.” Thank God. Where was I going to wear my “Don’t Tread on Me” T-Shirt? Dean @LCR has “Obama Then and Now – Part 236”

Motor City Times has the “How To” video everyone’s been waiting for… Video: How to Weaponize Office Supplies

Ed Driscoll and Ace have a horribly under-reported story: Third Racially-Motivated Attack in which ‘Justice for Trayvon’ Explicitly Cited

20 Blacks Beat White Interloper With Makeshift Bludgeons; Victim In Critical Condition; One Attacker Said, “Now That’s Justice For Trayvon”

The Gill Report has the video…

—

–

Dick Cheney on VP Pick: “Most Important Criteria is Capacity to be President” (VIDEO)

T CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:55:45 +0000

Former Vice President Dick Cheney – still recovering from his recent heart transplant – is the latest prognosticator to weigh in on Mitt Romney’s eventual Veep short list. While I’m relatively quick to dismiss most commentators and their opinions on this matter, I hold VP Cheney’s opinion in extremely high regard. For what it’s worth, I view Cheney as the greatest Vice President selection of my lifetime; and that includes the first Bush. Cheney was chosen to help George W. Bush effectively govern. He had no aspirations of someday becoming President. He just wanted to do his job and go home. Sure, he checked a few of the obligatory boxes, but he was competence personified… that is before the MSM turned him into something else.

CNN: ”I’ve been involved in a couple of vice presidential searches, some more successful than others,” Cheney said at an event for students at the Washington Center. His remarks were carried by C-SPAN.

In 2000, Cheney led the vice presidential search for then-candidate George W. Bush that culminated in his own selection as running mate.

He continued, “The thing that I think is important to remember is the decision you make as a presidential candidate on who your running mate’s going to be is the first presidential level decision the public’s going to see you make. It’s the first time you’re making a decision you’re going to have to live with. It gives the public a chance to see you operate and see what you think is important, what kind of individual you choose to serve as your running mate, what are the criteria.”

“I think the single most important criteria has to be the capacity to be president,” Cheney said. “That’s why you pick them. I think lots of times in the past that has not been the foremost criteria.”

“As you watch the talking heads out there now, they’re saying you’ve got to pick a woman, a Hispanic, someone from a big state. They’re all interesting things to speculate about but it’s pretty rare that the election ever turns on those kinds of issues.”

—

H/T Washington Examiner via Right Scoop: