Showing posts with label HOTAIR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HOTAIR. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Oh my: Pelosi calls for House ethics investigation of Weiner

I thought for sure the Democratic line on this would be, “It’s over, he accepted responsibility, let’s move on.” Nope. So worried are they about the fallout that they’re willing to prolong the story as long as they can if it means they can get on the other side of it and isolate Weiner in doing so.
Or is this simply Pelosi knowing/expecting that the GOP will launch an investigation anyway and figuring that she might as well stand up for “good government” while she can?
But after his news conference, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that she was calling for a House ethics committee probe into whether government resources had been mishandled.
“I am calling for an Ethics Committee investigation to determine whether any official resources were used or any other violation of House rules occurred,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi added that she was “deeply disappointed and saddened” for Weiner’s wife and constituents.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) agreed that an ethics panel must review the situation in order to “remove all remaining doubt about this situation.” “Ultimately, Anthony and his constituents will make a judgment about his future,” Israel said in a statement.
Hard to tell from the photos published by Big Government today whether he was using “official resources” to sext anyone, but if he was reckless enough to send outre stuff from e-mail/Facebook accounts bearing his actual name — here’s the latest from Radar — he was probably reckless enough to use government computers/phone lines at some point. Meagan Broussard claims that he once gave her a phone number that turned out to be for one of his offices, in fact. Which makes me wonder: Are we going to end up with an Ensign-type scenario here, where he hangs on hoping that the House ethics committee doesn’t find anything too damaging and then decides to resign when they finally do?
The “official resources” angle won’t hurt him much anyway. What’ll destroy him, of course, is if any of these women are underaged, a possibility which Weiner couldn’t categorically rule out when asked about it by reporters. (Behold this screencap for the ages.) Click the image below to watch the key exchange from the presser; should any of his “women” turn out to be girls, he’s finished. Exit question: Why wasn’t he more careful about hiding his indiscretions? Normally I don’t buy psychobabble about how some bad actors act recklessly because deep down they want to get caught, but … e-mailing barechested pics that clearly identify his face and sending raunchy messages from accounts bearing his name? Dude?

Friday, June 3, 2011

Video: Pawlenty, Huntsman considered health-care mandates

Thank Verum Serum for the Huntsman clip. We already knew about his flirtation with a mandate for Utah from HuffPo’s coverage a few weeks ago — the state didn’t end up adopting one, but apparently not for lack of Huntsman’s trying — but a long background piece based on people’s memories is one thing and a snappy two-minute video soundbite is another. Huntsman’s an impressive guy but I can’t answer the question of why, apart from his two years in China, anyone would strongly prefer him to Romney. Go watch Verum Serum’s mock campaign ad for him; he’s at least as RINO-y as Romney is, and per his mandate musings below, he’s even compromised on the single biggest Mitt-killing issue of the campaign. Where does he go from here? Hope New Hampshirites will ignore it and then try to ride a wave of momentum into South Carolina? Really?
As for the Pawlenty clip, I missed it when Ben Smith wrote about it on Friday but Time flagged it this evening. Like Huntsman and unlike Romney, T-Paw never signed a bill enacting any mandate. But then, that’s never been the key litmus test on this issue for conservatives. The test is whether a candidate would recognize the mandate as constitutionally repugnant (at least at the federal level) and an affront to liberty. Accordingly, you’d expect strong anti-mandate language from him and Huntsman — and instead you’re hearing warm, if noncommittal, praise. How are they going to affect high dudgeon about RomneyCare at the debates when Mitt can throw these clips in their faces? And what happens when Romney then turns to the crowd and asks the audience why, if they find health-care mandates so horrible, they’re so protective of Medicare? Under ObamaCare, you at least get to pick your own insurer; under Medicare, you’re stuck with the feds’ crappy plan, which doesn’t kick in until you’re 65, and the premiums are sucked out of your check every week in the form of FICA before you even see the money. Suggested campaign slogan: “Romney 2012: Who are you to judge me, Medicare junkies?”