Bob Woodward getting the Gerald Walpin treatment

During a February 27th appearance on Morning Joe, Watergate icon Bob Woodward said that the action / inaction of Barack Obama relative to not sending a carrier to the Persian Gulf because of the sequestration cuts was a 'kind of madness'. It didn't take long for the White House to pull out the long knives and go after Woodward. Remember, this administration will say or do whatever it wants in order to protect and defend the progressive agenda.

One of those tactics involves impugning Woodward's mental faculty by implying that he is too old to remain relevant as a journalist. David Plouffe - one of Obama's hatchet men - used twitter to attack Woodward, saying (via Twitchy):

"Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated."

Even Media Matters' Eric Boehlert went after Woodward's age for the same reason, despite having praised the former Watergate reporter ten days earlier (via Breitbart):

"funniest/saddest part is porr Bobby Woodward STILL doesn't seem to understand what sequester means"

Boehlert posted that tweet with the hash tag, timetoretire.

So, because Woodward made an intellectually honest critique of Obama, he had suddenly become senile. This is not a new technique from the Obama camp.

Does anyone remember a guy named Gerald Walpin who was the Inspector General for AmeriCorps back in 2009? That scandal unfolded when Walpin wouldn't back down relative to charges that Obama friend and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson had misused taxpayer funds. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) pressed for more information about Walpin's abrupt firing by the White House, which was required by law to give Congress a 30 day notice of its intention to terminate any IG.

Guess what rationale the White House gave for firing Walpin. Yep, his age.

Via Hot Air at the time:

The Obama administration has tried to justify its firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin by strongly implying that the 77-year-old attorney suffers from senility.  Norman Eisen, the White House lawyer who drafted a required notification to Congress, accused Walpin of being “confused and disoriented” at a May 20th meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Check out what the Washington Examiner's Byron York had to say about Walpin's firing:

Walpin and the management of the corporation clashed repeatedly over his investigations into AmeriCorps projects. The disagreements came to a head at a May 20 board meeting when Walpin, by his own account, "lectured" board members for going along with the corporation's politically appointed management and closing out his investigation of Kevin Johnson's educational organization, St. HOPE, which received about $850,000 in AmeriCorps money and misused at least half of it.

"Jerry can never get to the point where you can agree to disagree," the board member said of Walpin. "You either agree with him, or he keeps beating you up."

The board member says at one point in the meeting, Walpin seemed to have trouble concentrating. "There were long pauses on his part," the board member says. "He clearly was not able to answer the questions we were putting to him."

The White House later accused Walpin of being "confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions" at the meeting. Walpin concedes he was not feeling well but does not recall serious problems.

The Obama administration will stop at nothing to get what it wants. Had Walpin backed down, he would have been completely sane. Ditto for Woodward not the 69 year-old icon not challenged the president. It's beyond obvious that this administration is more than willing to assassinate someone's character if that someone says or does something the administration doesn't like, to include exercising one's first amendment right, as was the case with Woodward.

In Walpin's case, it was apparently just for doing his job.

Third Strike and he's out: The Meteoric Rise and Fall of Ben Carson?

Less than one month ago, Dr. Ben Carson's stock with conservatives shot into the stratosphere after a thirty minute speech at the Washington Prayer Breakfast. Never before had someone so eloquently and politely embarrassed Barack Obama while sharing the same room. I remember pumping my fist a few times while watching that speech. Conservatives began to entertain the idea that Carson would be presidential material in 2016.

Now, er not so much. In fact, the degree to which Carson seems to have diluted and convoluted his message is more than just a little vexing. It's as if he doesn't want conservative support.

My antennae first went up with Carson back on February 17th during his appearance on ABC This Week, just ten days after his speech. Take note beginning at the 1:45 mark, when Carson says we need to 'tone down the rhetoric' and 'discuss things in a reasonable and rational way'. He then advocates for both sides coming together rather than 'one side or the other side winning'.

Exhibit A (strike 1):



Does this mean Carson believes Capitalists can compromise with Marxists? Because of how well Carson did at the prayer breakfast, he seemed to receive a bit of a pass there but conservatives are a little hypersensitive whenever the 'both sides need to come together' rhetoric starts. Such thinking includes a premise that says both sides are equally to blame. That is a false premise indeed. Anecdotally, just look at how Obama ran his presidential campaign compared to how Romney ran his. Obama's campaign lied about Romney being a murderer and a felon while Romney's campaign wouldn't tell the truth about Obama - that he's a socialist.

Here is Exhibit B (strike 2).

It occurred on the Andrea Tantaros show. During the interview, the topic of CPAC came up. Specifically, the group's decision to exclude New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and GOProud - the largest conservative homosexual group - from speaking at the event was discussed. After talking about the cultural underpinnings of our society, Carson bemoaned the exclusion of Christie and GOProud. Take note at the 3:00 mark. This is where Carson alienates social conservatives while championing fiscal conservatism.

Then, at about the 4:47 mark, Carson utters words that conservatives are simply loathe to hear:

"You need to make the tent as big as you possibly can."

Ah, the hypocrisy of the big tenters... They always seem to bemoan the alienation of groups that are socially liberal but never seem to care about alienating social conservatives.



In Exhibit C (big fat strike 3), we find Carson with a fork stuck in him.

During an interview with Glenn Beck, the talk show host asks Carson about the second amendment and whether people like Beck should be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon. Carson's answer is so ridiculous, you just have to see it for yourself.



h/t Hot Air