Let's have the traditional "David, we hardly knew ye" open thread.
« ORCA: Romney The Manager Outmanaged (Just Killer-Whale Me Now) | Main | Fun With Numbers »
The comments to this entry are closed.
From a Times piece, probably by Shane,
Government officials said that the F.B.I. began an investigation into a “potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Mr. Petraeus. In the course of their inquiry into whether a computer used by Mr. Petraeus had been compromised, agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns. About two weeks ago, F.B.I. agents met with Mr. Petraeus to discuss the investigation. [my emphasis]
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Google richard Helms/Cynthia McKelvey and contrast and compare. Maybe it's the times ,maybe it's the lack of discretion,and just maybe it's Benghazi.
Posted by: Clarice | November 10, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Actually it was more informed then that, so it couldb't be Shane;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Well one comes to this confusing piece, from the archives;
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/18/style/miss-chlumecky-bride-of-lawyer.html
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 09:54 AM
Hate go off topic (has anybody ever really meant that?) but awoke to 1/2 inch of global warming this morning. About the earliest snow I can remember ever getting here.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 10, 2012 at 09:55 AM
what is so bad about the fiscal cliff? Taxes increase to the Clinton era and spending is cut by $110 Billion. I like the spending cuts very much. And the taxes will help us understand what effect tax increases will have on the economy. The new taxes will at least reduce the deficit.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 09:57 AM
An this was a contemporaenous accout,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,844710,00.html
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 09:58 AM
So the larger issue, is did this play into Petraeus acqueiescing to the early withdrawal,
why wasn't he a bigger player with the blown GID plot, why did the drones not target AAS,
or Abu Ahmed's camps.
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM
We're early and this qualifies as one of the stupidest articles, not written by Milbank
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/06/3084893/obama-romney-had-the-cleanest.html
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM
I bet Obama knew about Petraeus's compromised situation and ghat is why he was picked to go to CIA.
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM
narciso, that's the second Mrs. Helms' son from her first marriage.
Posted by: Clarice | November 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM
And the taxes will help us understand what effect tax increases will have on the economy. The new taxes will at least reduce the deficit.
Everybody knows what impact taxes have on the economy, dunce. Go the fuck away.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Other thread, CH.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Oops somehow I ended up on the wrong thread, never mind.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Question for all of you--Petraeus testified before the House Committee and told them that the video was the reason for the attack on The Embassy. Was he being blackmailed to say this, and, if so, by whom?
Posted by: sailor | November 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Larry Kudlow on WABC radio this morning calling for immigration reform and a path to citizenship for illegals. Says republicans have to get IR "thru their thick skulls". ( I do not agree, for what it is worth. )
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM
To me the big issue is who in the media knew and suppressed it until after the election.
Posted by: bunky | November 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM
"The new taxes will at least reduce the deficit"?..........
All right, I admit I have not had such a good laugh sice Tuesday.
Posted by: Kat | November 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Was he being blackmailed to say this, and, if so, by whom?
I think the meme is that he was too distracted by chasing tail to look into what was actually happening.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | November 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM
The country is better off with higher taxes and a balanced budget than a huge and growing debt that threatens to destroy us all.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Bunky
The correct answer is, all of them. Perhaps Fox was embargoed, they are after all perceived as the enemy.
Besides, after all they have done to cover for o, what does it matter?
Posted by: Kat | November 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM
"... All right, I admit I have not had such a good laugh sice Tuesday. ..."
what is so off base about that? The status quo does not work. Growing the debt by $1T per year is financial suicide. And cutting taxes is kind of nuts in that it would increase the deficit by even more over the first few years.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM
"awoke to 1/2 inch of global warming this morning"
Have you tried Viagra?
Posted by: Bobby Dole | November 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM
I threw a dart that I picked from the LWJ and I 'hit' Bin Qumu, and I didn't have the 60 page LOC report
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM
The only way Republicans could have gotten credit for immigration reform from Hispanics was to pass something reasonable when they controlled congress and the presidency. Bush came up with a lousy bill and it deservedly died.
If they do it under Barry they will get zero electoral credit.
Stupid party redux.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM
How far back has this been going on,
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Kudlow must be back on the sauce if he's pushing amnesty, something Rove and McRINO agree on.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM
--"awoke to 1/2 inch of global warming this morning"
Have you tried Viagra?
Posted by: Bobby Dole | November 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM--
Global warming? Jokes are usually funnier when they make sense.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Yeah let's get comprehensive immigration reform and Jebby Bush for President. What could go wrong with that?
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM
The country is better off without F,S,L governments taking 45% of total productivity.
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Steve, this was calculated million times: the new taxes comprise minuscule amount of fed expenditures. I would have to look up the real number but it was certainly less than weeks of spending. Against that you have all the people who stop spending and investing because they are afraid of losing jobs, or lost them already, raising prices of food and energy. The effects on economy will be fully negative, but it is what' s you want and you are going to get it. Let's talk in 12 months time, shall we?
Posted by: Kat | November 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM
If Petraeus was having this affair before being appointed DCIA, wouldn't it surface during the vetting process?
Posted by: Rocco | November 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM
"... The country is better off without F,S,L governments taking 45% of total productivity. ..."
If you are convinced of that call the democrats bluff and support large tax increases for the next 2 years. The economy will tank and democrats get all the blame. Republicans then win big in the next election.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Kat are you from eastern Europe?
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM
The country is better off with higher taxes and a balanced budget than a huge and growing debt
What makes you think that higher taxes will necessarily lead to a balanced budget, rather than more spending and maybe even higher deficits?
Posted by: Eric in Boise | November 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM
"... Let's talk in 12 months time, shall we? ..."
exactly. Let taxes go up to a level that balances the budget. If the economy still grows then we have to rewrite the laws of economics.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM
CH,
Yes
Posted by: Kat | November 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM
It should, Rocco. But I believe the story is it happened after he was heading the Agency. At that point I believe even he has an internal control officer he must disclose it to but only to vet for possible paramour espionage and Paula, a West Point grad, doesn't seem a likely Mata Hara.
Posted by: Clarice | November 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Kudlow is all in on amnesty and open borders. He has Matt Lewis on who is mimicing David Frum who says the conservatives in the media are profiting while leading the party astray.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM
I thought so; you have the demeanor of somebody who has been through economic hell and doesn't want it repeated here. Hopefully it won't but right now it's not looking good.
Anyway I appreciate your perspective and am glad you post here. Ignore the troll.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM
What makes you think higher taxes will lead to higher tax revenues???
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM
If one enjoys pitch dark humor;
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/33462.html
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Btw a salute to all Marines today.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Steve, for that to happen the would have to raise taxed to above 100%. Which means that only all wages would go to the treasury but they have to start on the assets of all the citizens. And it still would not be enough. I have run now, but it is not difficult to look up the real numbers. No math higher than arithmetic required, either.
Posted by: Kat | November 10, 2012 at 10:54 AM
I'm discouraged also steve about Kudlow's views on immigration but I'm hoping its like gas and he gets over it.
CNBC has a campaign going on calling it "Rise Above" and compromise on the fiscal cliff we're approaching. Have read stories pro and con for going over it but the one below is particularly cynical:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-09/obama-wants-drive-over-cliff
I don't think O will be reasonable in any negotiations with the House...at all.
Posted by: glasater | November 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Steve, you need to read a bit more about the only cure to our economic disaster, a growing economy and then read the Laffer Curve and more on Supply Side Economics....you have too much of a dearth of knowledge to offer solutions.
Posted by: westie | November 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Maybe a little too naive take, however it puts things in perspective
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/09/gen-david-petraeus-s-resignation-fuels-conspiracy-theories.html
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM
What I'm interested in knowing is why the FBI was looking at Petraeus's biographer to begin with. And just stumbled across emails between them. What caused them to start investigating her?
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM
from ORKA thread
dear Porchlight,
I knocked on ~1200 doors all across the Virginia CD#2 (Southeastrn VA). We were particularly sent to "problematic" areas; areas where there was uncertainty regarding whether there was majority support for Mr Romney and more generally, Republicans.
My experience was about 60% support for Mr Romney, generally enthusiastic support, about 20% refused to answer or were for the resident, and about 20% not home.
I detected NO/NO indications that the so-called "base" would stay away from the polls. None whatsoever.
Posted by: Sandy Daze | November 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM
From narc's Chicago Boyz link:
Until Nooner falls off her nonexistent high horse on the Tea Party, she deserves every bit of ridicule I throw at her.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM
"... Steve, you need to read a bit more about the only cure to our economic disaster, a growing economy and then read the Laffer Curve and more on Supply Side Economics. ..."
What do the text books say about growing the debt by $1.2 T per year? It can't be a good answer. Individually, if we are worried about the impact of higher taxes on our earnings, then we have to weigh that concern with an equal or greater concern that the debt will result in an economic meltdown that harms us even more.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Whenever Democrats talk about spending "cuts" it should be in quotes, with an eye roll. It either means smaller increases, phony accounting gimmicks, or cuts in the few things that government should be doing like defense, and therefore not sustainable.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM
So off topic it is in outer Siberia, but the other night you guys that have met each other personally indicated you call each other by your JOM name. I wondered if any of you that have met up with daddy call him daddy?
Posted by: Sue | November 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Akin. was the candidate that McCaskill herself
promoted, that said despite his 'gaffe' he was more impressive and three dimensional, than the media gave credit for.
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM
So, is the biographer a Mata Hari or a Wallice Simpson? :)
FWIW I think the good general is telegraphing his intentions to testify--unencumbered by the threat of blackmail. He didn't have to mention the affair to the public if he had decided to go quietly into that dark night. His testimony prior to this was not under oath IIRC, and his "flash mob" quote is rather intriguing, in that flash mobs require a certain degree of planning to be effective.
Posted by: OldTimer | November 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Steve, the problem with growing debt is the higher taxes that are required to pay it off. So raising taxes is just implementing the bad outcome. The only way to avoid the negative consequences of higher debt is to cut spending and have stronger economic growth. The latter is best achieved by reduced regulation and cutting tax rates.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM
"Jokes are usually funnier when they make sense."
The microman doth protest too much, methinks.
Posted by: Bobby Dole | November 10, 2012 at 11:06 AM
That's what I was thinking OT. I thought I read somewhere that she was embedded with him in Afghanistan and assumed the affair began there. I just can't understand why he would resign by admitting the affair. Couldn't he have just cited personal reasons and spared his wife the embarrassment? His admission has me wondering if he's planning on spilling the beans about Benghazi.
Posted by: Rocco | November 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Trying to get back on topic.
The United States, thanks to Petraeus and his infidelity, may have been spared yet another non-natural born citizen taking the highest leadership role our nation has to offer.
That is assuming he doesn't run as a Democrat...
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 10, 2012 at 11:09 AM
From the Charlotte Observer
"In September, she also co-hosted a fundraiser for wounded warriors during the Democratic National Convention, and used her connections to get comedian Jon Stewart to attend. They had met during the book tour when she appeared on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and bested the host in a push-up competition."
Read more at LUN
apparently she met Petraeus and Harvard in 2006 and he agreed to mentor her
p
Posted by: Laura | November 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Yes narc, the lovely Miss Bruce has discussed the chicanery that the donks engaged in to ensure that Akin was the flagship garbage scow of the party of stoopid's fleet to capture the Senate. Like an idiot I came to his defense but the Repubs got really played in Missouri. And elsewhere.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM
That's entirely possible from the LUN, her donsulting work through the Jebsen center,
along with her military background, was the access point, but as with Hastings and McCrystal in a different sense, too much
access is dangerous,
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM
"... The only way to avoid the negative consequences of higher debt is to cut spending and have stronger economic growth. ..."
I agree. But the democrats control the country. the only way we get back in control is if the democrats tank the economy. If we support tax increases the theory says the economy will suffer and the democrats get voted out in 2 years.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Apparently theFBI investigation was triggered by weird emails sent to Petraeus's friends in government via one of his computers. Turns out Broadwell was sender. See below.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/10/another-interesting-detail-about-petraeus-and-broadwell/
Posted by: NJ Jan | November 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Well once he's the nominee, one has an obligation to support him, Rove 'pulled the football' yet again,
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Some mentoring.
OT on con law-I know now why bo doesn't want to take no for an answer on Goodwin Liu. He has essentially come up with a theory on how to get to positive liberties/ affirmative obligations using the national citizenship language of 14th Amendment.
Tiptoeing through the footnotes again. Now to find the Howard Zinn article mentioned.
Posted by: rse | November 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Unless Petraeus is playing 8 dimensional chess extremely well, he's looking like a bigger asshole than Mark Sanford.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM
With 23M unemployed and 50M on foodstamps I would suggest the economy is already tanked. Did not seem to matter Tuesday; apparently enough women to keep the looters in charge don't care.
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Big surprise in local murder investigation!
Statement from the Police:
http://lamesa.patch.com/d/articles/hate-crime-in-iraqi-woman-s-killing-el-cajon-police-say-no-arrest-husband
Let's see if we can find any police statements from any other "domestic violence" cases where the cops reach out to the Christian community.
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM
((Whenever Democrats talk about spending "cuts" it should be in quotes, with an eye roll))
and as Mark Levin argued in the RCP video I linked to in the previous thread, whenever Republicans lobby for spending cuts and at the same time for amnesty for illegal immigrants -- which will increase the cost of entitlements and the welfare state -- they are idiots.
Posted by: Chubby | November 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM
The party of stoopid never learns that lesson.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM
His admission has me wondering if he's planning on spilling the beans about Benghazi.
A gesture so futile it would make the Charge of the Light Brigade look like the blitzkrieg into Paris. Petraeus could produce video of Obama saying "offer no assistance to the white devil American crusaders who have encroached upon the soil of Mother Africa; they will suffer Allah's judgement", and then guess who will win the election last week?
Posted by: bgates | November 10, 2012 at 11:24 AM
"... With 23M unemployed and 50M on foodstamps I would suggest the economy is already tanked. ..."
I think the economy is doing ok. A lot of oil and gas drilling due to tremendous innovations from the private sector. The wizards at the Fed are printing money to pay for a big chunk of the deficit without triggering inflation. I don't know of anyone unemployed in the NY tri state area I live in.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Looks like I have some reading to do.
Link at the link:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/11/attempt-to-commit-crime-by-ny-electors.html?m=1
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Chubby, will you relink the Levin commentary?
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM
((Like an idiot I came to his defense but the Repubs got really played in Missouri. ))
and to think, all we had to do was follow the lead of la Palin who supported not Akin but the Tea Party candidate. I also admire how she so graciously distanced herself from Romney, perhaps she had a premonition of train wreck. I have said before that she has impeccable political instincts. I remember being peed off because she wasn't a speaker at the convention; in retrospect, I believe she wanted it that way.
Posted by: Chubby | November 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM
What was Clarice's Heritage link on Obamacare OldTimer was talking about?
Posted by: Jim Ryan | November 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM
http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn1105 is the zinn article on what they want from SCOTUS and the courts.
Off to read Liu's 55 pager YLJ article.
Just some insights from following through on some angles on the reseg conferences and the books being generated laying out the blueprints, there has already been a lot of community organizing going on in these inner city schools around all the need to change society to eliminate the effects of privilege.
The Rep's need to better appreciate what happens when they put up easy to caricature candidates when we have so many kids being deliberately kept ignorant so their worldviews can be deliberately manipulated. Some of this is hard to read because I know where the actual source of the "You can't learn effectively" actually is. These teenagers don't. Their parents don't.
This is precisely what Axelrod knows exists because Ayers helped create it along with others. The book I am working on lays out how bo took on his African Ameican identity deliderately after he came to Chicago including quotes of approved uses of the relevant dialect. Minorities are thus wide open to manipulation around "Hope and Change."
Posted by: rse | November 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM
If the electorate was intent in taking an asp to it's bosom like Cleopatra, there's nothing that could be done, but that shouldn't have been the default premise.
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM
I'll try TK, but sometimes, narciso tells me, my links don't work. LUN
if it doesn't work, you just have to go to the RCP video page, it is one of today's featured videos.
it's well worth a listen, even though you detest him
Posted by: Chubby | November 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM
CH @11:01--I'm reading thru the comments so quickly that I thought your comment said "...falls off her bar stool..." guess I should read slower. : )
Posted by: marlene | November 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM
One is remeinded of the Gen Ralston matter, he was up for JCS, but a similar matter flagged him.
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM
or more slowly? Need more coffee!
Posted by: marlene | November 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM
"I don't think O will be reasonable in any negotiations with the House...at all."
Cuz the Republican House is a bastion of reason.
The end game is we're going over the cliff/down the slope. Everyone knows it. The trick is making it seem like it's the fault of the Republican house...yeah.... the Republican House..... One of the most obstructionist, radical and destructive legislative bodies in the history of this country.
That'll be hard.
Posted by: Dublindave | November 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM
"...and then guess who will win the election last week?"
I hold out hope for the Monday that follows the second Wednesday of December.
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM
The current deficit is $1.089 trillion per year. The effect of the proposed tax hike (on the "top two percent"), per the CBO, is approximately $42 billion (Table I, 2013 data, 330-288=42).
It ought not take an abacus to figure that 1.089 trillion minus .042 trillion is going to leave the trillion-dollar deficit essentially unchanged . . . but apparently that's too complicated for the President (and steve).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM
This is the story so far;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/10/fbi-probe-petraeus-emails-purportedly-led-to-discovery-extramarital-affair/
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Thanks Chubby. I will post my destruction of Levin later.
Off to the dump.
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Wait what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ralston
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM
the only way we get back in control is if the democrats tank the economy
Steve is right. I have a plan. First we'll use anti-war sentiment to get Democratic control of the House in the midterms, and try to somehow maneuver them into installing an easily ridiculed left-of-Lenin decimillionaire as Speaker. At the same time, the Dems will take the Senate, and probably install a loathsome creature of unions and the mob as Majority Leader. It'll still be too hard to pin blame on them with divided government, so we'll have to somehow lose the next Presidential election to them.
What would be perfect would be for the Dems to discredit themselves by nominating somebody who embodies all of the horrible things about their coalition - a corrupt big city pol who became a millionaire who's somehow also a snooty academic and yet is clearly uneducated about basic economics, world history, and the American way of life. Maybe even openly contemptuous of those things. Oh, and he should be a giant hypocrite who tells people to hate rich Republicans who don't "sacrifice for the common good" while he parties with richer Democrats and almost ostentatiously refuses to say a word to help...I don't know, some poor relation. If there was a Democratic politician like that who somehow had starving relatives in Africa or something ridiculous like that....Ah, now I'm writing fiction.
Anyway, we get some real life person as close to that nightmare as possible into the White House, I bet he and his party end up wrecking the economy. Higher unemployment than even the end of Bush's term, lowered family income, all kinds of terrible stuff.
Then, once we do all that, once the country sees what happens with the Democrats in charge, we're a sure thing.
Posted by: bgates | November 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM
"... The effect of the proposed tax hike (on the "top two percent"), per the CBO, is approximately $42 billion ..."
So support more tax hikes. Support the seizing of the endowments of large universities. Call the democrats bluff.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Who knows which way is up;
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/10/another-interesting-detail-about-petraeus-and-broadwell/
Posted by: narciso | November 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Here's Clarice's link:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/09/morning-bell-what-does-the-election-mean-for-obamacare/?roi=echo3-13770131986-10242244-3dfa61a0eb3ab080f5971a7b8c23515b&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
...And on Petraeus.
The Biographer seems to enjoy skirting the edges of danger. Perhaps she's more like the lady in Fatal Attraction that the other two I mentioned above...
Posted by: OldTimer | November 10, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Chubby, I believe Palin would have done whatever the Romney campaign wanted her to do. If she would've done something independently of them, the screaming about her going off message and attention-mongering would've been immediate and shrill.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Interesting, from NJ Jan's link
However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption.
And..
At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573
Posted by: Rocco | November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM
So support more tax hikes.
Brilliant. How many tax hikes do you need to make the budget balance? And on whom? I'll wait, while you do the arithmetic.
And do you really think the Democrats, who've just sold the electorate on a tax hike on the "top two percent" are suddenly going to raise taxes on everyone else? Somehow I don't think so.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM
I'm with you CH. Why is it--besides the fact that she's so darn gorgeous--that she's become a target of so many vicious.people hurling baseless charges?
Posted by: Clarice | November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM
"I detected NO/NO indications that the so-called "base" would stay away from the polls. None whatsoever."
Sandy,
The withdrawal of consent by the governed fell much harder on the Democrat Party than upon the GOP. The fabricators of public opinion did not expose the withdrawal of consent prior to the election and both they and the MFM are studiously ignoring the depth and breadth of the phenomenon today.
The California SoS finally put up results and the tally of the total vote with 100% reporting is 28% lower than 2008. Only 44% of those eligible bothered to show up in California. The withdrawal of consent is reflected nationally in the drop in participation rate from 62.2% to 54% at the current tally. That tally is not going leap by "millions and millions".
One implication of the withdrawal of consent is going to be much lower tax revenues, regardless of rates. Californians are actually in the forefront in their demonstration of contempt for their government through outright tax evasion and there is no reason to suppose it will not increase with the re-election of the Kendonesian commie.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM
--So support more tax hikes. Support the seizing of the endowments of large universities. Call the democrats bluff.
Posted by: steve | November 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM--
We could name it the Weimar Strategy.
It's sure to end well.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 10, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Rocco, for the moment at least, I am taking all details about this with a large grain of salt under the assumption that the sharks are out to destroy him and do not care if they are peddling lies or not.
Posted by: Clarice | November 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM