Jay Carney announces his WH Ministry of Truth resignation

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
WH spox Jay Carney

Stop the spinsanity … please!
(Photo via Slate)

Or, as it’s more commonly known in polite circles: “Press Secretary.” Via NPR:

Jay Carney, who fielded reporters’ tough questions for more than three years as White House press secretary, will resign.

President Obama interrupted the Friday media briefing to make the announcement.

“Jay’s had to wrestle with this decision for quite some time,” Obama said, announcing the move.

“Jay has become one of my closest friends,” he said.

Carney said he’d asked to leave in April and that he would depart officially in mid-June.

“It’s been an amazing experience. Just so fulfilling,” he said. “It’s been a privilege and it continues to be a privilege to serve.”

Josh Earnest, Carney’s deputy, who currently holds the title of White House special assistant to the president, will become the new press secretary.

Obama described Earnest as “a straight shooter and a great guy.”

In other words, meet the new boss – same as the old boss.   I’m just wondering if Earnest will prove to be as much of an unconvincing liar, blathering mouthpiece, and ineffective front-man/spinmeister for the Obama White House as Carney was.  Tweet of the Day on this via Ben Shapiro:


Heh.

Carney will exit his role as WH press secretary in mid-June.

Hat tip: Memeorandum

Michael Bloomberg: Liberal intolerance on campus is … intolerable

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Liberal academic bias

Very real. Extremely disturbing.
(Image via the Washington Times)

In an editorial published at Bloomberg View – which was adapted off of a commencement speech he gave yesterday at Harvard, Michael Bloomberg makes some surprisingly good points about the intolerance of liberals at colleges across America towards conservative thought (via):

There is an idea floating around college campuses — including here at Harvard — that scholars should be funded only if their work conforms to a particular view of justice. There’s a word for that idea: censorship. And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism.

In the 1950s, the right wing was attempting to repress left-wing ideas. Today, on many campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas, even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species.

Perhaps nowhere is that more true than here in the Ivy League. In the 2012 presidential race, 96 percent of all campaign contributions from Ivy League faculty and employees went to Barack Obama. That statistic, drawn from Federal Election Commission data, should give us pause — and I say that as someone who endorsed President Obama. When 96 percent of faculty donors prefer one candidate to another, you have to wonder whether students are being exposed to the diversity of views that a university should offer. Diversity of gender, ethnicity and orientation is important. But a university cannot be great if its faculty is politically homogenous.

In fact, the whole purpose of granting tenure to professors is to ensure that they feel free to conduct research on ideas that run afoul of university politics and societal norms. When tenure was created, it mostly protected liberals whose ideas ran up against conservative norms.

Today, if tenure is going to continue to exist, it must also protect conservatives whose ideas run up against liberal norms. Otherwise, university research will lose credibility. A liberal arts education must not be an education in the art of liberalism.

This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw, or have their invitations rescinded, after protests from students and — to me, shockingly — from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.

It happened at Brandeis, Haverford, Rutgers and Smith. Last year, it happened at Swarthmore and Johns Hopkins. In each case, liberals silenced a voice and denied an honorary degree to individuals they deemed politically objectionable.

As a former chairman of Johns Hopkins, I believe that a university’s obligation is not to teach students what to think, but to teach students how to think. And that requires listening to the other side, weighing arguments without prejudging them, and determining whether the other side might actually make some fair points.

If the faculty fails to do this, then it is the responsibility of the administration and governing body to step in and make it a priority. If they do not, if students graduate with ears and minds closed, the university has failed both the student and society. If you want to know where that leads, look no further than Washington.

PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston responds:

I am aware that Bloomberg remains a hypocrite on guns who believes that his use of wealth to push his policy preferences whether people want them or not will buy his way into heaven, even though he doesn’t really believe in God. He’s a small man with a gargantuan ego. But when he’s right, he’s right, and in this speech, he’s right. His commencement address is an important one.

Yes.  As the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day. While Bloomberg is frequently wrong – more wrong than right, in fact, at least in this instance he hit it on the mark.  Well done. For a change.

Hillary: House GOP is “playing politics” on the backs of dead #Benghazi Americans

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi

HIllary Clinton testifies on Benghazi. – January 2013

Just in case you thought possible 2016 presidential contender La Clinton was going to maintain a moderate tone on the issue that is turning into her defining moment as Sec. of State, her upcoming book makes it clear she most definitely will not:

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans,” read an excerpt from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s book which deals with the response to the Benghazi attack. In that excerpt from the book Hard Choicesreleased exclusively to Politico, Clinton attacked Republicans for playing politics with the investigation into the attack .

“It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country,” Clinton said of what she called the “political slugfest” that the investigation has become. “Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

While Clinton took responsibility for the attack and its aftermath, she scolded the press for propagating a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit.”

She added that there is no reason for the continued investigation. “Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered question,” Clinton wrote. “But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.”

There’s also a huge difference between candid, truthful answers and dishonest political spin, ma’am.  But …. I know, what difference at this point does it make, right?  The families of the victims, and the American people, deserve the truth about what happened to the four murdered Americans and the administration’s disastrous response to it.  But apparently Mrs. Clinton believes that when it comes to Congressional investigations and oversight, you should simply take the statements of her and her former State Department team … and the administration … at face value, because they just tried to do “what’s in your best interest.”  I don’t think so.

I suspect Fox News’ Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren will ask her about this in their upcoming interview with her in mid-June.  Hope so, anyway.