Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Videos: Dueling Tea Party Arguments on Boehner Plan

Here is a good juxtaposition between two opposing Tea Party views. One is held by Rep. Lt. Col. Allen West (R-FL) and the other by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In many ways the line of distinction begins with a premise that says the anticipated 'crisis' that will befall America on August 2nd is real. If you're a Tea Party member and you believe that it is real, you're likely inclined to side with West. If you don't believe it's real, you'll likely side with Paul. There is another aspect to West's argument that's worth noting and it has to do with who will be blamed if no deal is done.

West points out that the House passed Cut, Cap, and Balance. Not only did the Senate refuse to vote on it, but Harry Reid offered no alternative. West says if Boehner's bill passes and suffers the same fate in the Senate, it will demonstrate that any calamity would be a direct result of an intransigent Senate, not an uncompromising Tea Party. West then throws on another relevant factoid about the Senate - it hasn't met its Constitutional obligation of passing a budget in well over 800 days.

First, Allen West's take:

Here is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). If you're in the camp that says the debt ceiling crisis is nothing more than fear mongering, you might agree with Paul. One of the things he's been railing on should stick in the craw of every American. When Boehner says that his plan cuts $1 Trillion in spending over 10 years, he's not talking apples to apples. As Paul points out, Boehner's talking about cutting $1 Trillion from the $7 Trillion of projected spending increases over the next ten years. In that regard, Boehner and any establishment Republican who avoids enunciating that fact is engaged in quintessential deceit.

Here is Paul's take:

h/t Hot Air

Videos: John McCain Mocks Tea Party

When you watch these clips, it demonstrates just how far this country has moved away from the establishment mentality since 2008. The notion that the Republican Party would nominate a man like John McCain as its presidential candidate is so far removed from reality in 2011 that it seems like there should be much more time separating us from that election. The Senator from Arizona rarely, if ever, displays this level of scorn for his Democrat opponents because, well, he likes to 'reach across the aisle' in search of compromise.

When it comes to the Tea Party demands relative to the debt ceiling, they're just 'hobbits.'

At another point during McCain's rant, he accused the Tea Party freshmen of 'deceiving' the American people into believing that a Balanced Budget Amendment has a chance of passing. Talk about irony. Never before have I heard Senator McCain say that it is deceptive to tell the American people that any proposed spending cuts aren't really cuts at all. They're simply reductions in projected future spending.

Some on the right argued that McCain's primary opponent in 2010 - J.D. Hayworth - had no chance against the Democrat nominee and that was reason enough to vote for McCain. As I've said for a very long time, the Tea Party would have been better off if McCain had been defeated by a Democrat. At least such a person would actually represent his own party.

This is disgraceful:

h/t The Blaze

James Murdoch to be Called out by News of the World Attorney?

Earlier this month, when James Murdoch sat in front of Parliament to explain what he knew and when he knew it, the predictable defense ensued. Appearing very contrite, the younger Murdoch explained that at his level in Newscorp, he simply didn't know about what was going on under his nose. He sought plausible deniability and some may have been inclined to give it to him. That number may be on its way toward a sharp decrease if what former attorney for News of the World, Tom Crone says is true.

Via WSJ:
LONDON—Tom Crone had insight into how the dirt was dug—and defended—at the News of the World, the now-closed tabloid at the center of the U.K. phone-hacking scandal.

Now he may be on a collision course with James Murdoch, the deputy chief operating officer of News Corp.

Mr. Crone, who was the top lawyer at the tabloid, joined forces last week with its former editor, Colin Myler, to challenge the testimony Mr. Murdoch gave at a parliamentary committee hearing two days earlier.

The two men said that in 2008 they had informed Mr. Murdoch—who was then overseeing News Corp.'s European and Asian operations—of a key 2005 email that suggests that interceptions of voice mails at the paper went beyond a single reporter and a private investigator.

Mr. Murdoch, who is News Corp.'s deputy chief operating officer, said last week he first saw evidence of that in late 2010.

Mr. Crone served for more than 25 years as a lawyer for the News of the World and its sister paper the Sun, earning a reputation as a shrewd hand in defending the racy British tabloids.

As the paper's in-house lawyer, he met with the News of the World editor on close to a daily basis, regularly attended editorial meetings and would typically read controversial stories before they ran, a person familiar with the matter said.

"Tom would be at the center of a lot of matters, the equivalent of a cabinet secretary," said Graham Shear, a partner at law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP, who often faced off against Mr. Crone in legal disputes.

News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Crone, who left the company earlier this month when the News of the World was shut down, didn't respond to requests for comment.
A stickling point for James in this scandal has been his signature on checks that, in effect, bought the silence of those who knew of NOTW's wrongdoing.
The dispute over how early Mr. Murdoch knew about the email could boil down to what was said in the spring of 2008, when Mr. Murdoch met with Messrs. Crone and Myler to discuss settling a suit filed by Gordon Taylor, former head of a U.K. soccer union. According to a person within News Corp., the discussion occurred in a single meeting that lasted less than 30 minutes, where no minutes were taken, and the company has found no documents exchanged with Mr. Murdoch related to the meeting's discussion.

The 2005 email contains transcripts of more than 30 voice-mail messages related to Mr. Taylor. The email—sent from a junior News of the World reporter to a private investigator, mentioning a senior reporter in the text—suggests that two tabloid employees other than the one who had been convicted in 2006 for phone hacking knew about the tactic. Mr. Murdoch says he authorized a roughly £700,000 ($1.1 million) settlement without being aware of the email, which was the key piece of evidence driving the lawsuit.

The existence of Mr. Taylor's settlement, and the e-mail with his hacked voice mails, didn't become public until a July 2009 article in the Guardian. That marked a key moment in the long-running phone-hacking saga, because it suggested evidence that contradicted News Corp.'s long-held contention that phone hacking had been an isolated occurrence.
Signing checks for such large amounts while denying knowledge of the details surrounding what they were for strains credulity but proof that James Murdoch had been informed of the scandal as long ago as 2008 would be much more difficult to explain away.

h/t Drudge
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive