One more from the “Secret Lives of Presidents” calendar

I just love these! This is the historical tidbit printed on today’s page:

Jack Kennedy had wit, intelligence, and personal magnetism.  But he was no Washington heavyweight, and he needed all the  help he could get in the 1960 presidential campaign.  According to many historians, that help came from some pretty shady characters.  With the assistance of Frank Sinatra, a close Kennedy pal who rubbed shoulders with the Italian mob, Joe Sr. arranged a meeting in Chicago with Sam Giancana, one of the natioin’s most powerful mafiosi. In the meeting, Giancana pledged to Joe Sr. that the mob-controlled unions would turn out in force to make sure the election went Kennedy’s way.  Giancana believed that a Kennedy administration would take the heat off the Chicago crime outfit in return for the mafia’s help.  In a victory with a margin of less than 120,000 votes nationwide, Giancana’s help proved invaluable.

Just who was that liberal in the front row of Obama’s presser last night?

The guy who claims he was “assigned” that seat? It’s far left talk show host Ed Schultz. Here’s a flashback to some of Ed’s more memorable moments:

Schultz claims that he “earned” that seat.  Furthermore, he “called Politico’s Jonathan Martin a “punk” and a “nitwit” for asking if it was an assigned seat.”  Hmm.

Who was the other liberal pundit at Obama’s presser last night? Liberal Sam Stein from the HuffPo, who Obama called on to ask a question.  Stein’s a proponent of investigating the Bush administration (which is what his question related to).

What did we learn here? That when it comes to politicians and pundits, the right should “not listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get things done” but the left (read: President Obama) can invite and call on left wing pundits at press conferences (but Bush couldn’t).

Got it.

Flasbhack: April 2008 – Schultz calls McCain a “warmonger” at Barack Obama campaign rally

The arrogance of Chuck Schumer

Listen up, all you “chattering classes” who dared to disagree with the ObamaMessiah on the stimulus bill:

Not only do the American people “not care” about pork, per Schumer, but according to our “brilliant” President, if you supported this bill you were a genuine “patriot.”

So this is how it’s going to be? Thanks for letting us know so early on in your administration, Mr. President.


Obama’s “bipartisan” “hopeful” rhetoric – in a nutshell

Sorry for the late start to the blogging, but it’s been a busy morning. I just updated the Hot Headlines section with five new stories from the morning news, FYI.

David Keene sums up what a lot of Republicans/conservatives across the country are feeling over Obama’s phony promises of “bipartisanship” and “hope” prior to the election in contrast to the doom and gloom scenarios he tells us on a daily basis will happen if we don’t do “something NOW.” Here’s a preview:

Even those who disagree strongly with their views have to admire the tenacity with which Democrats have fought for government solutions over the years. They’ve ignored the evidence of what works and doesn’t work as well as the views of mere voters. Liberals have explained away every excess of government and every boneheaded result of the policies they espouse. When the regulations they’ve championed distort markets and create unintended problems, Democrats blame the markets themselves and seek even more regulation. When foreign leaders act like the thugs and criminals most of us believe them to be, liberals excuse their behavior as a natural human reaction to us.

Now, finding themselves in power, liberals (or progressives, as they now call themselves) seem to believe Republicans and conservatives should conclude from the result of one historically rather close national election that they should abandon their beliefs. Many of them, like Mr. Obama himself, are angry that this isn’t happening. What is happening is that Mr. Obama’s idea of a “bipartisan,” “post-partisan” or “trans-partisan” America is becoming clearer every day; it’s an America in which everyone, regardless of party, agrees with him.

Mr. Obama’s anger was on display last week as he attacked those who dared disagree with him, blaming them for the nation’s current problems and suggesting that if things get worse, as he sadly predicts they will, it will be their fault and not his. It was on display when he attacked radio host Rush Limbaugh, of all people, for being critical of what he and his administration want to do for us, and it is on display as his supporters in and out of Congress suggest that people like Limbaugh must be denied access to the airwaves because they have the temerity to actually continue to disagree with President Obama.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Who watched the President’s presser last night? Any thoughts?