Where Are My Keys?

I'm still trying to figure this out..

Is the point of this campaign ad from Barack Obama to tell us that he'll kill Bin Laden again in his second term?

 

I guess it is the one thing Obama has to run on that people agree was a "win"-taking out OBL.

He certainly can't talk about the robust economy, which came in below expectations.  Again.  Can't talk about the strong jobs market, which is stagnant.  Can't tout his success with GM, as we are still on the hook for billions.

So the next best thing?  Tell us that if faced with the choice again, Obama would still whack OBL, and Romney might not.  Sounds like a sure fire winner to me.

If this is the best that the Administration has (after the "dog on the roof of the car/Obama ate a dog" fiasco), it's going to be a painful night in November for the President.

The word of the CBO is gospel, right Lefties?

At least that is what you told us during the Obamacare debate.  Still feel the same today?  If not, why?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Obama’s 2013 budget will hurt the economy in the long term, arguing the larger deficits it would produce would reduce the amount of capital available to businesses.

After five years, the CBO says, the Obama proposals would reduce economic output by between 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent.

Larger deficits caused by the budget would cause the government to issue more bonds, sucking up private capital to finance its debts and thereby reducing the funds businesses could use to expand and hire, the CBO said. An increased tax on capital gains included in the president's plan would also tend to reduce private capital, it says.

Amazing, ain't it?

In about a week, the NYTimes was able to track down and interview the hooker at the center of the Secret Service debacle, yet we still haven't seen Obama's college transcripts almost 30 years after he attended school.

I guess it just means that it's easier to find a hooker in Colombia, than it is to find a report card from Columbia.

Who knew.

Funny, isn't it?

The Obama Campaign celebrate the 6th "birthday" of Romneycare, yet completely ignored the second birthday of Obamas "signature legislation".

With the Obama folks (and the Left) constantly reminding us that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare, why do they choose to acknowledge one, but not the other?

The "hot mic" strikes again..

It's funny how the "real" Obama comes out only when he thinks no one is listening.  Joe the Plumber, "bitter clingers", Netanyahu, and now telling Russia he'll give them the farm come November 2012.

If he feels his positions are the correct ones, why does he not yell them from the highest rooftops?

Funny, isn't it?

Somehow we know all about Herman Cain's alleged mistresses, we know about Newt's "swinger" issues, and now we hear from some of Santorum's fraternity brothers.

Yet, we've never heard a peep from any of Obama's high school basketball teammates, any buddies from college, nothing from any former student in any of his classes he taught.

Isn't that odd?  How is the media able to find people from Republican's pasts, but not one thing (positive or negative) about the most powerful man in the World?

Think waaaaaay back to January 7th..

There was debate moderated by George Steponallofus, which featured a decent amount of time being focused on contraception.  Remember how it caught everyone by surprise?

 

Was this a "trial balloon" furnished from the Obama Administration?  It does raise an interesting question.  Is it possible that Boy George just happened to pull a non-issue out of his back pocket, which became an issue a month later, or was it just a coincidence?

I'd usually say "coincidence", but with the news of JournoList 2.0 coming out over the weekend, it does make one wonder.

It's too bad our "journalists" have lost their way over the years.  Any Republican running for anyoffice should be prepared to get suckered in by the MSM at some point in their quest for public office.

Notice anyone missing from this list?

See if you notice the same missing "top politician who lead double lives" that I did.  I wonder why he didn't make the cut?

Please explain to me why this is a bad idea?

Why is it a bad idea to test to make sure recipients of our tax dollars aren't under the influence of illegal substances?

The past year has seen an unprecedented wave of Republican bills to drug test the poor and jobless. It also saw a smaller wave of Democratic bills that said in response, "No, you pee in the cup."

One of the most recent retorts comes from Georgia, where last month Democratic state Rep. Scott Holcomb introduced a billrequiring members of the local legislature to prove they're not Legislating Under the Influence. Holcomb told HuffPost he came up with the idea because he was struck by a bill from his Republican colleagues to drug test welfare applicants.

"I was really struck by how awful it was," he said. "I wanted to bring some attention to it."

Why is it awful, Mr. Holcomb?

Fake names are perfectly fine..

At least during a recall election in Wisconsin:

WISN reports that the Government Accountability Board will only check the addresses and dates that accompany the signatures. It will "flag" names that seem suspicious — e.g. Mickey Mouse — but "will not strike them without challenge." To initiate a recall election, there will need to be 540,208 valid signatures, so significantly more than that will probably be submitted.

The GAB plans to hire about 50 temporary workers to conduct the review of what it expects could be up to 1.5 million signatures.

Judge Thomas Barland, a GAB board member, asked what was being done to prevent the temporary workers being hired to review the petitions from attempting to sabotage one side or the other. All people hired will be subject to the same background check that GAB staff are to ensure they don't have a partisan background, Buerger said.

There are a lot of partisan citizens around here. I assume they don't all have a "partisan background," whatever that means.

The goal is to have the petition review done in public, but because where that will be done hasn't been determined, it's not yet known how broad the access will be, Buerger said.  Electronic copies of all the petitions submitted will be available upon request, he said.

The board plans to ask a court for an extension of 60 days, instead of just 31 days, to finish its review. Challenges must be made within 10 days after copies of the petitions are given to the targeted office holders, but an extension to that is also expected to be sought.

So the burden is on the target of the recall to find the duplicate signatures and phony names, for maybe over a million signatures, on a tight deadline! By "electronic copies," I assume they mean scans of the handwritten signatures. I want typed-out names, so you can use a computer to do targeted searches. I mean, I'd like to know if anyone signed my name and address, but how would I check? Read the handwriting on all of the pages?

Funny how the Left screams about "disenfranchised voters" come every election, but are strangely silent when it comes to the glaring issues with these signatures.  I wonder if a citizen in Wisconsin can sue to have the process slowed down during the time between signatures have to be submitted, and when they have to be accepted.

I'd think it's a fairly easy argument for someone to make, that their voting rights are being trampled by a obviously flawed process.

Is this really the standard folks in Wisconsin want to have for something as important as who stays in office?