Quote of the Day: “You’ve got to be kidding” edition

**Posted by Phineas

America’s top issue

In the wake of President Obama’s shellacking at the hands of Governor Romney in last week’s debate, the Obama campaign has sought to show Americans that they are focused like a laser on the issue we all deeply care about.

What is that issue, you ask? A $16 trillion-dollar national debt that growing by the hour? A trillion-dollar budget deficits that show no sign of ending? A resurgent al Qaeda? Chinese aggression in East Asia? A failing war in Afghanistan and the potential loss of all we gained by our sacrifices in Iraq? Scandals in the Departments of Justice and State that have cost human lives?

Don’t be silly, silly! The President and his campaign are fighting for what truly matters: Big Bird.

“I will say it doesn’t change the fact that there’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane,” [campaign spokeswoman] Psaki continued.

Psaki reminded reporters again of the campaign’s “love for Big Bird and Elmo,” then defended the concept of the ad.

“This election is about serious issues,” she noted. “That’s what the President talks about every day. That’s what his focus is on every day.”

It’s been said that the moment the McCain campaign lost the election in 2008 was when he made himself look ridiculous by suspending his campaign and heading for Washington during the September fiscal crisis. While this isn’t nearly as dramatic, people may just look back on the decision to make Big Bird a major talking point as the moment Obama lost 2012.

(And how Psaki could say that without choking with embarrassment or the reporters laughing in derision, I have no idea.)

UPDATE: Yep. This may be the moment they lost it. When even Chris “Tingles” Matthew says this is a Mickey Mouse issue…

UPDATE II: My friend Michael Ledeen compares this to Jimmy Carter and his killer rabbit.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Photo of the Day: The Obama/Romney debate summarized in one “priceless” graphic

Via my friend Tim Sozio on Facebook:

So much truth here!

Need I say more?

Related Reading:

Great trend here in the polling, but keep fighting the good fight! It ain’t over.

Benghazi Consulate Massacre: Embassy told by State, “Stop pestering us!”

**Posted by Phineas

Oh, this just gets better and better. Not only did State pull security teams (note: plural) from Libya over a period of months, but, according to an interview of LTC Wood by CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson (1), State finally told them to quit asking, and don’t you dare go to the Department of Defense:

ATTKISSON: Do you feel like there was a disconnect between what you saw on the ground and what the State Dept. folks thought was going on in Libya?

WOOD: There was certainly no disconnect in our transfer of information to them. They were getting the information on the situation on the ground. We sent it up through State Dept. cables and I sent it up to the military side on the D.O.D. side. So, there was awareness of what the situation in Libya was about.

ATTKISSON: How did you get the word that your team would not be allowed to stay?

WOOD: We knew that was coming through the cables and the draft cables that were going back and forth. The requests were being modified to say ‘don’t even request for D.O.D. support’.

ATTKISSON: So State Dept. was telling the folks on the ground in Libya ‘don’t continue to ask for this help’?

WOOD: Correct.

The Right Scoop has the whole interview. Be sure to watch it.

This is a bureaucratic snafu of monumental proportions, one that eventually cost lives. It looks like the knowledge of the people on the scene was disregarded in favor of a small-footprint, diplomatically-correct approach of relying on local security. And no one in the higher reaches of the bureaucracy and the political appointees above them wanted to hear any dissent.

The hearings at the House Oversight Committee tomorrow should be quite a show.

via Ace

RELATED: Did Libyan tribal politics leave the consulate without adequate protection? It seems two local militia leaders were upset we were backing a candidate they didn’t like for prime minister, so they threatened to pick up their guns and go home:

The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.

The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty.

The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi employed a militia called the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade” for security of the four-building compound. In addition, there were five Americans serving as diplomatic security and a group of former special operations forces that acted as a quick reaction force on the day of the 9/11 attack. Members of the militias led by bin-Ahmed and al-Gharabi overlapped with the February 17 militia, the cable says.

This underscores the folly of not listening to our people in Libya, who knew the fractious, fragile state of politics there, and instead insisting on sticking to the preconceived notion of relying on Libyan militias. As this cable and the rest of the article by Eli Lake shows, the plan had serious flaws, to say the least.

Flaws that got Americans killed.

Footnote:
(1) Between this and her work on Operation Fast and Furious, Attkisson is rapidly becoming one of my favorite MSM reporters.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Backlash against black actress & Romney supporter Stacey Dash shows failure of ID politics

In case you missed it, this happened:

“Clueless” star Stacey Dash recently tweeted her support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, accompanied by a patriotic swimsuit picture of herself.

But now her political viewpoint has become the subject of online attacks, with many expressing crude distaste that she isn’t endorsing President Obama – and race has become a key motivator behind the digital abuse.

“You’re an unemployed black woman endorsing Mitt Romney. You’re voting against yourself thrice. You poor beautiful idiot,” one Twitter user wrote, while @Black Voice wrote, “Stacey Dash had a perm since birth. I knew I couldn’t trust her.. lol.”

Others accused the actress of “voting for white supremacy,” claiming she “is white with a dark tan,” and calling Dash a slew of offensive names.

Several other Obama supporters even went as far as to encourage “the old hag” to “kill herself.” One suicide encourager is listed as a doctor and politically active Democrat in Washington D.C., and although he reportedly has deleted the inflammatory “kill yourself” tweet, it was captured by social media news site, Twitchy.com.

I watched a lot of this unfold over the weekend on Twitter, and what you just read above is only a VERY small sampling of the vicious hate she was subjected to over voicing her support for Mitt Romney, and most of it came from black liberals who called her a “race traitor” for “turning her back” on a “black President.” Of course, when you questioned them on if they thought white people were “turning their backs” on their race by voting for Obama, you were met with either silence or the same mindless hate (and hypocrisy).

This even though President Obama is technically a Caucasian African-American (right, New York Times?), but why let that little technicality get in the way of a race-based lynch mob conducted by black liberals against another black person who failed to “stay on the plantation” by not supporting Obama?

This is where the abject failure of identity politics screams the loudest and looks the ugliest. Because the left has invested so much time, energy, effort, muscle, and money over the last several decades into pitting “victim’ groups of black people, women, gays, etc, against each other, the inevitable result is that when one doesn’t “fall in line” with the rest in “the group”, it’s immediately assumed that person is a sell-out, a traitor. All of this because one “victim” dared to think differently. For black people who philosophically align themselves more so with Republicans and conservatives than they do with Democrats and liberals, the backlash is especially bad – where insults of “OREO” and “Uncle Tom” and “house slave” fly with wild abandon.

And who are the first ones to swoop in and defend blacks (and gays, women, etc) who “stray from the left wing nest”? Not many (if any) from the so-called “party of tolerance” but instead the party that supposedly “hates” those victim groups and “actively works against them” (if the left is to be believed). Why doesn’t the left step in and defend “minorities” who don’t toe the liberal line? I’ll tell you: When it comes to the black community and Democrats, it’s ALL ABOUT VOTES. White Democrats will not defend black Republicans from the disgusting hostility they face from black liberals because they’d rather not offend those black Democrats whose votes they so desperately need. Instead, they stay quiet, allowing without question highly intolerant liberals in their party to spout off lies and smears against people who simply made different political choices. This is poisonous and makes it so we can’t have candid, open, honest discussions about race in America.

Am I saying white Democrats should defend a black Republican’s ideology? Of course not. I just think they should to step up en masse and demand a REAL new tone from “their side” in these situations and a focus away from zeroing in on that person’s race. Instead, they should ask questions as to what would make that person not want to be a Democrat (chances are it doesn’t have much at all to do ith race). But they can’t – and won’t ever – do that because they know it’s that much harder to win if outraged black Democrats stay home on election day. As a result, conservative black people who think differently from liberal black people are sacrificed on the altar of the left’s political obsession with identity politics, leaving America stuck in the past – and ensuring that we can’t move forward on the issue.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: NEVER let the left convince you they’re more “open-minded” and “tolerant” of differing viewpoints than the right are. Incidents like the unfortunate one with Ms. Dash continue to demonstrate that such assertions are outright lies – and ones on which they must ALWAYS be called out.