How Google honors Vetrans

From Instapundit:

Is there ANY question that Google is run by a bunch of progressives?

Millennials Can Rescue Cities from Their Leftist Rulers

From National Review:

Most American cities have been ruled by left-wingers for decades, and a good case can be made that this has contributed mightily to their decline. Of course, this has done no favors for groups — minorities, the poor, blue-collar workers — that urban progressives count as loyal political allies.

Many Millennials are, so far, enrolled in this coalition but, if they’re paying attention, might be wondering why. On two key issues, the Left is unalterably out of step with most twentysomethings’ beliefs and interests.

First consider New York mayor Bill de Blasio’s recent attempt to defend his city’s taxicab cartel and stifle the fast-growing ride-sharing service Uber. His Honor lined up enough city-council votes to cap the size of Uber’s fleet (among other things) and then, while on a junket to Rome, went on a populist rant to justify his regulatory offensive, decreeing that “the people of our cities don’t like the notion of those who are particularly wealthy and powerful dictating terms to a government elected by the people.”

Which turned out to be exactly backward. Uber and its (mostly Millennial) subscribers mounted a relentless PR counterattack, punching holes in the mayor’s assertions about the need for more regulations and making clear that they don’t like terms being dictated by the government. The chastened mayor backed off, promising to study the matter for a few months. In the unlikely event that this study is honest and objective, it would teach the mayor some very important lessons — foremost, that Millennials’ embrace of “Sharing Economy” firms like Uber does not merely make their lives easier and save them money. It helps save cities and, indeed, the planet.

Uber and its rival Lyft do not just bring competition (read: lower prices, better quality) to monopolistic markets.

Liberals are against things like Uber because it reduces the opportunities for graft.

The Coming (And Hilarious) Democrat Implosion

From Kurt Schlichter at Townhall:

Republicans fear a repeat of 1992, with a squishy Bush at the head of the ticket watching helplessly as some populist businessman/novelty act hands the election to a Clinton. But Democrats should fear the far more likely repeat of 1968.
....................

Back in 1968, the Democrat Party was divided between liberals who loved America and liberals who hated everything about it. The situation is a little different now, with today’s Democrat Party divided between liberals who hate everything about America and liberals who really, really hate everything about it.

That does summarize the Democrat Party, which is essentially a bunch of progressives and socialist.

Hillary doesn’t need this. Her poll numbers are plummeting – gee, who would have thought that a corrupt, condescending, commie shrew might be unpopular? Hillary is America’s First Wife, a sour, sexless, disapproving presence eager to spend the next eight years telling us all how we are failing to measure up to her exacting standards.

She’s also what passes for diversity among the Democratic candidates, and then only because she is one of those woman women, the kind of woman that has woman DNA and not just a whim to be a chick today.

"corrupt, condescending, commie shrew" ................ so spot on!

Employees Hired to Drive Drunk California State Senators Home at Taxpayer Expense

From Breitbart's Big Government:

As a result of too many high profile drunken driver arrests involving California legislators, state senate officials have hired designated driving employees to drive home inebriated lawmakers.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León refused to discuss details of the program. “We’re not going to provide comment, because it’s a security issue,” his spokesman, Anthony Reyes, said.

The Sacramento Bee reported that four lawmakers in the past five years have been accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Known as “special services assistants,” the designated drivers work in the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Office and are responsible for providing “ground transportation for Senate members.”

The Bee reported that the two employees—a retired Assembly sergeant-at-arms and a retiree from the Department of General Services—are paid $2,532 per month, of course at taxpayer expense.

So that's almost $61k a year in salary, before benefits, to drive these drunks home.

That's a lot of Uber trips.

How Liberals a ruined College

From Kirsten Price at The Daily Beast:

For many Americans the term “speech code” sends shivers up the spine. Yet these noxious and un-American codes have become commonplace on college campuses across the United States. They are typically so broad that they could include literally anything and are subject to the interpretation of school administrators, who frequently fail to operate as honest brokers. In the hands of the illiberal left, the speech codes are weapons to silence anyone—professors, students, visiting speakers—who expresses a view that deviates from the left’s worldview or ideology.

College has now become an extension of K-12 indoctrination centers for liberal policies.

No, Obama Isn't 'Worse Than We Thought'

From The American Thinker:

When I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 along with all the kiddies that swarmed into my polling place, I did not do it because I had any confidence in him. I voted for Obama because I wanted Democrats to be in charge of U.S. foreign policy so that they could get beyond the inanity of Bush Lied, People Died and deal with global reality rather than talking-point reality.

What I did not appreciate was that Democrats had, in the 2000s, diligently unlearned the economic lessons of the Reagan Revolution.

The truth about Barack Obama is not, as Peter Wehner understandably wails, that “Obama is Worse Than We Thought.” The truth is that Barack Obama has ruled as a remarkably faithful liberal president. Practically everything he has done is right out of the standard liberal playbook and reflects conventional liberal thinking. Obama is not worse than we thought. Liberals are worse than we thought.

I disagree, he is exactly what I and many others feared he would be, "a remarkably faithful liberal president." But none of us realized that he could destroy so much is such a small amount of time.

More Smart Cars Tipped in San Francisco

From Breitbart California:

San Franciscans, who often pride themselves on their sophistication, have taken to a more sophisticated prank than their rural counterparts who favor cow tipping: Smart car tipping. Over the weekend, two more of the two-seat Smart cars were tipped over in the Twin Peaks and Cole Valley neighborhoods.

The Smart cars, which weigh between 1,600 and 1,800 pounds, were tipped in the middle of the night. They follow four tipped cars that were overturned in April.

The act is considered felony vandalism by police.

In April, Andrew Smith commented when his Smart car was overturned that the spree of tipping cars might have been from natives hostile to the tech boom: "The Smart car and the gentrification of San Francisco are linked in some people's minds." Shelley Gallivan, another victim, said, "My husband Chris said don't put it there, someone's going to hit it… It's a bummer because this is going to cost thousands of dollars."

Snicker.

Watch What You Say, The New Liberal Power Elite Won’t Tolerate Dissent

From Joel Kotkin at the Daily Beast:

The new liberal ruling elite, a mix of academics and cultural powerbrokers, is like the old clerical orders—wielding it’s wealth and power to enforce “truths” and punish dissenters.

In ways not seen since at least the McCarthy era, Americans are finding themselves increasingly constrained by a rising class—what I call the progressive Clerisy—that accepts no dissent from its basic tenets. Like the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France, the Clerisy increasingly exercises its power to constrain dissenting views, whether on politics, social attitudes or science.

An alliance of upper level bureaucrats and cultural elites, the Clerisy, for for all their concerns about inequality, have thrived, unlike most Americans, in recent years. They also enjoy strong relations with the power structure in Washington, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street.

As the modern clerisy has seen its own power grow, even while the middle class shrinks, it has used its influence to enforce a prescribed set of acceptable ideas. On everything from gender and sexual preference to climate change, those who dissent from the official pieties risk punishment.

This man is a true intellectual. He does not let party affiliation color his views. He tells it like it is.

Liberal Austin homeowners surprised to find they have to pay all the taxes they voted for

From Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air:

NIMBY, literally.

“I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchen Gardner, an Austin artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8,500 this year.
“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.”

I’m really just bringing this to your attention for this quote alone. Voting and paying are different endeavors entirely. Often, when one has to pay for the things one has voted to fund, that decision becomes less flippant. This is a comment, less on the specifics of Texas’ or Austin’s tax system than the blaring disconnect between liberals in Austin who are voting for higher taxes and the actual paying of the taxes. Which, as it turns out, is painful, discouraging, and can be a detriment to the fabric of the city.

I find the disconnect stunning. I want someone to ask her, "Who dis you THINK would pay all the taxes? The Rich only?"

Does Matthew Yglesias Ever Tire Of Being Embarrassingly Wrong About Everything?

From The Federalist:

Matthew Yglesias is very smart. How do we know? Because he works for Vox, and Vox hires only the “smartest thinkers” and asks only the “toughest questions.” Seriously, that’s their motto:

The Vox wonks, 'the smartest thinkers asking the toughest questions,' tackle vexing issue of Gwyneth Paltrow. http://t.co/S9BYBbzGQr
— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 11, 2014

Thankfully, I have a pretty tough question for one of the web start-up’s smartest thinkers: What does it feel like to be so consistently wrong about so many things?

He wrote an article for Slate Magazine lamenting how difficult is was to start a business. Something that virtually every businessman knows, but virtually every Liberal doesn't.

The topic du jour is the standard of care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Secretary Eric Shinseki was just forced to resign from his position as head of the agency due to reports of widespread fraud and corruption throughout the department. And not just typical government corruption where bureaucrats enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers who fund them. At the VA, dozens of veterans died while waiting for care. VA bureaucrats hid waiting lists and forged data in order to collect extra bonuses. Although the problems were known for years, nobody did anything to fix them. That kind of corruption.

What does this have to do with Matt Yglesias? It turns out that one of the nation’s smartest thinkers made a lot of noise about how the VA is awesome. How awesome? So awesome that maybe the entire U.S. health care should be modeled on the VA.

Seriously. He wrote that. Many, many times. He even mocked anyone — even a prominent doctor! — who had the audacity to question the quality of care provided by the VA to the men and women who volunteer to put their lives on the line for the country.

The things is Liberals don't have to prove results, since they have good intentions.

I have a simple solution. We create a two tiered health care solution. Force those members of Congress, who voted for Obamacare, the members of the media who are cheer leading for single payer, et al, to join the VA and let the rest of us stay with the plan that we like and want to keep.

See how long they last?

Predictably, liberal are calling for more gun control laws after UCSB shooting.

So a few days after another crazy person shoots and kills a few people, Liberals are calling for more gun control laws.

So, let's see if the latest attempt to restrict the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, the bill proposed by Senator Joe Machin (D-WV) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) would have prevented the tragedy.

1.) Universal Background Check/Registration -- Liberal want all purchasers of any firearm to pass a background check before being allowed to take possession, even when one person is selling the firearm to another person.  These are called private party sales.  Liberals want these transactions tracked and all firearms registered, since it allows for easier confiscation of the firearm at a later date.  Since the shooter/stabber/crasher purchased 3 handguns from 3 gun stores in Kalifornia, he had to submit to 3 separate 10 day waiting periods, after purchasing the each pistol, but before pick-up.   The shooter PASSED all 3 background checks.

FAIL

2.) High Capacity magazine limits --  Liberals choice an arbitrary number, 10, as a limit to magazine capacity.  The Gun Control proponents argue that bad guys use "high capacity" magazine to spray lots a bullets, very quickly, to cause the maximum amount of carnage.  So by limiting the capacity of the magazine, it will reduce the number of casualties at a mass shooting, since the bad guy is going to have to change magazines more often.  However, since the murderer resides in Kalifornia, he is prevented from purchasing "high capacity" magazine.  The Police only found 10rd magazines in his car, BUT he had 41 - 10rd magazines.

FAIL

3.)  The law was primarily an "Assault Weapons ban", which was to prevent further ownership of certain rifles with cosmetic features that scare liberals, which include collapsible stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, accepts high capacity magazines, and foregrip. Well, this kid used a pistol, which the Heller SCOTUS Decision determined ownership is a constitutional right and therefore cannot be banned.

FAIL

4.)  Some wording in the bill included language addressing mental illness, but it was not clear how that would restrict/prevent the purchase of a firearm.  The murdered was under the care of a multiple therapists.


Liberals are chomping at the bit, that the mass shooter is a follows a stereotype that they can demonize:

1.)  A conservative or a Tea Party  --  The murderer's father is a movie director.  Some of his recent work included the recent "Hunger Games" sequel.  Basically, a good Hollywood Liberal.

FAIL

2.) An angry white guy --  The murderer's father is a Brit, but his mother is Ethnic Chinese Malaysian.

FAIL

3.)  From a poor family --  Again, Hollywood Director Father.  The murderer was driving around in a $40K BMW.

FAIL

4.) Misogynist --  Before he went on his shooting spree, the murdered stabbed his 3 - roommates.  He also shot a male customer of the market, and ran over a male bicyclist.

FAIL

Limbaugh Wins Book Award, Liberals Throw Tantrum

From Ace of Spade HQ:

The bias in coverage of this in the LA Times is jaw-dropping. First, look at the photo. It's obvious they went out of their way to find the most unflattering photo of Limbaugh they could find to use with the article. Yes, they want you to know that Rush is a seething, hate-filled rage-monster:

In accepting the award, Limbaugh was typically combative (if somewhat more subtly than usual standards).

So just what did the seething, hate-filled rage-monster Limbaugh say?

“I love America. I wish everybody did,” he said. “I hope everybody will. It's one of the most fascinating stories in human history ... and it's a delight and it's an opportunity to try to share that story with young people so they can grow and learn to love and appreciate the country in which they're growing up and will someday run and lead and inherit.”

That's it? That's "combative"? Really? Jeez, what a bunch of pussies.
Then there's this:

Limbaugh said: “If your children have read 'Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims' or if they are reading 'Rush Revere and the First Patriots,' second book ... and if they would like to vote, simply go to RushLimbaugh.com and we've got a link that will take you right to the voting page.”

So Rush won because he stacked the deck. And by the way, it is important for you to know that the book is crappy:

At Kirkus Reviews, Limbaugh’s nomination for the award prompted editor Vicky Smith to take a new look at the Limbaugh books. She found poor production qualities and a notable lack of proofreading

So to recap: The seething, hate-filled rage-monster Rush Limbaugh wrote a crappy book that won an award because he rigged the voting for his crappy book, which incidentally is crappy.

The LA Times refers to this as "news."

Only because a guy with has the "wrong" opinions won.

Krauthammer - Democrats will ‘rue the day’ they stood by while Obama flouted the law

From the Daily Caller:

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer warned Democrats they will “rue the day” they failed to even once oppose President Obama’s lawless disregard for the constitutional separation of powers, noting his actions establish a precedent a Republican president will one day exploit. ...................

“It’s not just that he’s negligent in executing his job,” he said. “He’s being unconstitutional. And if it becomes a habit — which it’s becoming, and that’s the problem — it’s going to establish a principle that a Republican will come into office and he will say, ‘I campaigned against capital gains taxes, so I’m going to order the FBI not to collect it.’”

“That’s not how you — if that were to happen, you could be sure that the liberals would be screaming,” he claimed. “That’s the point. This is eroding the rule of law in a systemic way, time after time.”

Krauthammer later explained that Democrats “will rue the day that they did not, at one point — any point, on immigration, on sentencing, on any of the things that Obama has done unilaterally — simply stand up and say, ‘It ought not be done this way.’ And it’s a precedent that’s going to haunt us in the future.”

In theory, Krauthammer is correct, but the media won't mention the Dear Leader doing it beofre. It will be framed as Republican overreach.

*shiver*

From Ace of Spades HQ:

Truth be told, I think he’s still skeeved out by the sight of these two cuddling at a pre-Oscars party:

She could have just about any man in Hollywood and she chooses Jeff Spicoli?

Considering that her mother shot and killed her father for beating her AND she STILL chooses to date the asshat, maybe all those theories about single, never married women approaching 40 being bat sh*t crazy aren't so far off.

Liberals Have Got What They Asked For

From Christopher Chantrill of American Thinker:

Liberals get what they want, good and hard. Or at least the “under” people in the over-under Democratic Party get it good and hard, while liberals sail onwards and upwards through successive revolving-door government-university-foundation-bankster sinecures. Only the 1% need apply.

Take Obama. Liberals got exactly what they wanted: America's First Black President. But they also got an Affirmative Action president who didn't have the wisdom or the authority to change the battle plan once he got into power.

It mattered that Obama went full-ahead on the Democrats' agenda for Obamacare, “stimulus,” green energy after the worst financial crisis in living memory. The economy needed repair, not more of the same.

It mattered that Obama failed to secure Bush's stabilized Iraq and blundered around in Afghanistan. Obama could have bailed on his “right war” hypocrisy, but didn't.

Now, with Ukraine, it matters that Obama rescinded the promised ABM systems for Eastern Europe. Liberals have been telling us for decades that great power chess is old school. Peace process, that's new school. So now we have bad actors running amok.

Bottom line when liberals get what they want is that the American people get hammered, big time.

It's like the ancient chinese proverb, "Be carefull what you wish for, for you may get it."

The Golden Gated Communities -- Will progressive governance turn Northern California into Detroit?

From Kevin D. Williamson at National Review:

Though its charms are wasted on me, San Francisco obviously is enormously appealing to a great many people, as is the Bay Area in its entirety. There are some rough spots, to be sure, but the great swath of territory that runs from San Francisco to San Jose before taking a U-turn up to Berkeley contains a great deal to recommend itself: untold high-tech wealth, a stimulating intellectual climate, world-class educational and cultural institutions, beautiful waterfront properties, and municipal infrastructure that is much better than the American average. As one of my progressive correspondents put it, the high price of San Francisco real estate should communicate to a market-oriented critic such as myself that the city is doing something right. And there is something to that, but there is an important limitation to that analysis. California is a great place to live if you are rich.

And California is not very rich.

The median income for a three-member household is only $67,401 in California. That is not a terrible figure, but it is a bit less than the considerably less glamorous Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ($68,848), only about 30 venti frappuccinos per year ahead of Nebraska ($67,235). That figure is considerably lower than in, say, Wyoming, where the median three-member household takes in nearly 10 percent more each year, and it is far, far behind Alaska, where the median three-member household could buy a new Ford every year and still have as much left over as its California counterparts.

Of course, California has some very poor spots, and your typical Silicon Valley grandee does not spend very much time so much as downwind of one of them. But there is trouble in the happy valley, too. San Jose boasts one of the nation’s highest median household incomes at $81,000 a year — pretty heavy money for a midpoint. But the median price of a single-family house in San Jose is $775,000, or just over nine and a half times the median income. By way of comparison, in Austin, San Jose’s high-tech Texas cousin, the ratio is only 4 to 1 — even as the Texas capital sees record housing prices. In San Francisco, the ratio is 10.2 to 1; in Houston, it’s only 4.3 to 1.

That means that the median family in San Jose could never responsibly purchase the median house in San Jose: Saving ten years’ pre-tax wages and betting it all on a single investment — in California real estate, no less — would be enormously risky. No responsible mortgage lender (if there is such a thing) would approve that loan. ...................................

Is San Francisco the progressives’ best counterexample to the devastation in Detroit? Ask again in 20 years.

I don't think it will take that long.

"I Have Never Fought the Word 'Genius' When People Have Said That About Me"

From Newsbuster.org via Ace of Spades HQ:

First of all, before I link it, do yourself a favor and guess who said it.

It's not unguessable. You might not guess it, but when you see the answer, you'll say "Oh of course."

It's not Obama. I'll get you off that particular trail so you have a better chance. .............................

To avoid putting you on the wrong track, I will tell you this person is insane to believe that he avoids anger, but it's completely inevitable that he should believe this about himself.

Okay, that's plenty of information. Now guess this douchebag.

On the cover of the latest Esquire magazine is this quote from ESPN host Keith Olbermann: "I’ve never fought the word genius when people have said that about me." In a "What I've Learned" interview, Olbermann added, "But what it is is instinct and a set of skills that are working so fast you don’t know they’re working."

Keith also declared "I have a leafy brain, according to the theory of the leafy brain. I associate things that many people never put together." This sounds like someone's brain on leaves...and a lighter.

He is always the adult in the room, and there is no one dumber than television executives, who have just never figured out how the word genius applies to him: "Don’t assume that anybody above you actually knows what they’re doing. And if you find somebody who does, stick to them like glue. Because the further you go into your career, the more you will discover to your absolute horror that you are the adult."

Talk about a total lack of self awareness and narcissism, he must be related to Alec Balswin ! ! ! !

Uh oh, Wendy Davis’ life story not what it seems

From Legal Insurrection:

Wendy Davis rose to national prominence when she conducted a filibuster to block a Texas bill restricting non-medically necessary abortions after 20-weeks. For that position, which is wildly unpopular, Davis became the next Elizabeth Warren — the Great White Hope in pink sneakers.

Erick Erickson dubbed her “Abortion Barbie,” which led to howls of sexism. But as I explained in Why is “Abortion Barbie” off limits for Wendy Davis?, Barbie and Ken analogies in politics are quite common. Erickson’s remark was directed not at Davis’ gender, but her self-professed ignorance of the Kermit Gosnell House of Abortion Horrors. That someone running on a pro-late term abortion platform didn’t know about the biggest abortion story of the year made her look, well, like a plastic impression.

Like Elizabeth Warren, whose life story does not hold up to scrutiny, Davis appears to have narrative problems, as detailed today by The Dallas Morning News, As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred:

The basic elements of the narrative are true, but the full story of Davis’ life is more complicated, as often happens when public figures aim to define themselves. In the shorthand version that has developed, some facts have been blurred.

Davis was 21, not 19, when she was divorced. She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter.

A single mother working two jobs, she met Jeff Davis, a lawyer 13 years older than her, married him and had a second daughter. He paid for her last two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard Law School, and kept their two daughters while she was in Boston. When they divorced in 2005, he was granted parental custody, and the girls stayed with him. Wendy Davis was directed to pay child support.

To summarize the rest of the article, which of course you should read in full, her second husband paid her way through her last two years of college and all of Harvard Law School, he raised their two daughters for whom she didn’t even fight for custody. She left her husband the day after he made her last student loan payment:

"When she was accepted to Harvard Law School, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there…. Over time, the Davises’ marriage was strained. In November 2003, Wendy Davis moved out.

Jeff Davis said that was right around the time the final payment on their Harvard Law School loan was due. “It was ironic,” he said. “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.”

Will it matter? A misleading personal narrative didn’t hurt Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and doesn’t hurt her among progressives because they don’t care any more than they cared about Bill Clinton abusing his power over a young female intern to elicit sexual favors.

But Texas isn’t Massachusetts, and the Texas electorate doesn’t sleep with copies of The Nation and Mother Jones under their pillows.

The Drive-By-Media protected and enhanced the life story of Elizabeth "Fauxcohotas" Warren and as the article say, it's Texas not Massachusetts. Assuming Davis survives the primary, will she lose by 20 points? and the Drive-Bys will be asking themselves, "What happened?" and then write the loss off dues to a bunch of un-educated rednecks. Kudos to the Dallas Morning News for doing their jobs and digging into this woman's past.

Another thing that bothers me, the 2nd husband's comment, “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.” It that all he has to say? I would have been livid about cashing in my 401(k) and taking on debt so my now ex-wife could go to college and law school, only to leave right after the last loan payment was made ! ! ! !

I remember when I was a high schooler and hearing stories to divorcing women retelling their stories about supporting their husband through college and medical/law school, only to be dumped for another woman and demanding that they get a slice of the ex-husband's future earnings. These women were backed by groups like NOW and others of their ilk. Where is the outrage for a woman doing the same thing to a man?

Crickets!

Cuomo — Pro-life people have “no place in the state of New York”

From Hot Air:

Forty-eight percent of Americans and all priests and nuns are no longer welcome in the Empire State, according to its governor. Delivering a monologue on Republicans with all the hyperbole of an MSNBC anchor and none of the charm, Cuomo offered this:

You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”

Imagine if Rick Perry said the same thing about Pro-Choice people? He would be declared as intolerant! ! !

Where is the outrage of the Drive-By-Media?

Crickets

The Week in Pictures -- Aging Boomers Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog: