It’s Three Kings Day, also known as The Epiphany (or Theophany in the East). Three Kings Day is a Christian feast day celebrated in many countries particularly those whose populations worship as part of the Eastern Christian Church. Three Kings Day is also a popular holiday in places like Puerto Rico. In the West, Three Kings Day is associated with the visit of The Magi to the infant Jesus:
The West historically observed a twelve-day festival, starting on December 25, and ending on January 5, known as Christmastide or the Twelve Days of Christmas. Some Christian cultures, especially those of Latin America and some in Europe, extend the season to as many as forty days, ending on Candlemas (February 2).
But today in the 2010 United States, we do not respect wise men, or women. We ignore the Frankincense, Myrrh, and Gold bearing Magi of yore. The Three Wise Men – Balthassar, Melchior, and Casper we put aside. For us in 2010 America, it is not Three Wise Men who guide us. In 2010 America it is Three Stooges Day, again.
* * * * *
On Three Stooges Day we have Dimocrats dropping like flies, from the stench of their deeds. As filing deadlines loom, more and more Dimocrats choose retirement rather than face angry voters. Last night began with Senate Dimocrat Byron Dorgan announcing he will not run for Senate from North Dakota in 2010 – score one for the Republicans. This was a shocker.
Almost immediately, Dimocrat Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado called it quits. It was a shocker. Fear not comedy fans, the Ritter shocker means that top billing in Colorado will likely go to the joke name, Hickenlooper.
After that shocker, came another shocker. Moe decided to quit. No more waitress sandwiches for Chris Dodd. Dodd took a hammer to the head for the good of the show. We laughed so hard we cried. Our ShamWow was soaked. We laughed and laughed:
The grim outlook for Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections just got a little worse. [snip]
Dorgan’s announcement was accompanied Tuesday by Michigan Democratic Lt. Gov. John Cherry’s decision to end his floundering bid for governor, and by the revelation that both Dodd and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter would announce Wednesday that they would not seek reelection. [snip]
In the meantime, President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s poll ratings have slipped across the board, generic polling is now generally more favorable to Republicans and a handful of promising Democratic House candidates have abruptly ended their campaigns.
We tried to stop laughing but could not. Late night became midnight and the laughs continued. We read hard hitting “news” to try to stop the laughter. But things got worse. We read of Obama stomping his feet and repeating at every occasion he would “not tolerate” this or that. Instead of conveying the fake sense of purpose and direction, all Obama induced with his “not tolerate” statements, was laughter. “That’s not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it” whimpered Obama and we fell to our sides with aching laughs. The “system did not work” and “that is not acceptable” Obama wheezed. Way to go tough guy – too bad you’re not in Chicago with your thugs – because terrorists just don’t believe you – they laugh at you.
By the time we got to the Obama ban on “finger-pointing” we could barely breathe. From “blame the staff” or “blame Bush” Obama, the very notion of no “finger-pointing” is a cue for the pies to start flying and the banana peels to incite slipping.
No one bothered to tell Nancy Pelousy to stop the “finger-pointing” because she was finger-pointing Obama’s way.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, piqued with White House pressure to accept the Senate health reform bill, threw a rare rhetorical elbow at President Barack Obama Tuesday, questioning his commitment to his 2008 campaign promises.
A leadership aide said it was no accident.
Pelosi emerged from a meeting with her leadership team and committee chairs in the Capitol to face an aggressive throng of reporters who immediately hit her with C-SPAN’s request that she permit closed-door final talks on the bill to be televised.
A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.
“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.
Nancy Pelousy might not be funny, with all her finger-pointing, but that C-SPAN business sure is a knee-slapper.
Brian Lamb has put President Obama on the spot. Lamb is the CEO of C-Span, and today he wrote a letter to the leaders of Congress asking them to allow cameras in the room for the final negotiations on the health care bill.
Brian Lamb’s plea has prompted the birth of a Facebook page to “let the cameras in”.
Obama was for C-SPAN televised everything before he was against it:
But that was then. Today, when asked for the 3rd time whether President Obama believes that the “standard” he set during the campaign for transparency on health care negotiations is being met by the current process (which now appears to include bypassing the formal conference process), White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a flaccid but telling response.
“I do not believe the American people have lacked for information on what’s in these bills – the political and policy arguments around different people’s positions – I think that’s been well documented,” Gibbs said.
With all due respect, the reporter did not ask Gibbs for his appraisal of what he thinks the public does and does not know about the health care bills. Rather, the question is very simple: will President Obama honor his campaign pledge and demand that the final health care negotiations are televised on C-Span? Judging from Gibbs’ response, the answer is an obvious “no.”
We turned to the vilest of courtesans to turn our laughter to anger. But even Sally Quinn failed to stop the laughter. She too had a Three Stooges Day anecdote to relate:
Now it turns out that there was a third uninvited guest at the White House state dinner for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, this one a member of the Indian delegation. It was enough of a shock that the would-be stars Tareq and Michaele Salahi had crashed. But a third? The Salahi story may have been delicious, but the implications of the appalling breach of security are immense. The president could have been assassinated. And had that happened, the Office of the White House Social Secretary would have been as culpable as the Secret Service.
Courtesan Quinn is demanding accountability – from Obama – what a laugh riot she is. She who pimped herself out for Obama and his thugs now wants accountability. Too late Sally. But courtesan Sally has lots of scores to settle and anecdotes to spill:
Many in Washington wondered why the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, did not resign over the state dinner security breach. At least Sullivan testified before Congress on the subject. White House social secretary Desirée Rogers came under fire after the Salahi scandal erupted. From the start, Rogers was an unlikely choice for social secretary. She was not of Washington, considered by many too high-powered for the job and more interested in being a public figure (and thus upstaging the first lady) than in doing the gritty, behind-the-scenes work inherent in that position. That Rogers stayed and that the White House refused to allow her to testify before Congress reflected badly on the president. He, not a member of his staff, ended up looking incompetent. Although it has emerged that a State Department protocol error is to blame for the presence of a third uninvited guest, both Rogers and Sullivan should step down.
Courtesan Quinn cannot tolerate a social secretary that is not from the Washington approved Madame’s list. Courtesan Quinn is also miffed that her pal Greg Craig, who stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back to benefit Barack Obama, was fired by Barack Obama. “It’s the judgement” says Sally:
When White House counsel Greg Craig was fired over disagreements about the timing and publicity of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, many Obama supporters were troubled. Craig was one of the most admired and trusted men in Washington. His firing was a turning point for a lot of people, who began to question the president’s judgment. Whether or not the Craig decision was the president’s idea, somebody else should have taken the hit for it. Although Obama had pledged during the campaign to close Guantanamo by year’s end, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Craig clearly had serious disagreements over how the issue was playing politically, and there were known to be strong personality clashes between the two. It was Emanuel who was responsible for Craig’s departure. He should have taken the hit and spared the president so much bad feeling.
The other laugh from Sally is the rib tickler Janet Napolitano “the system worked” because that made Obama look bad. As Sally put it “The rampant finger-pointing since then has made Obama look weak and vacillating.” Only now does the courtesan see the “weak and vacillating” that is Obama.
Oh Sally, you old whore, how you made us laugh. The demand for accountability and the “weak and vacillating” bedroom talk tickled our toes. And that assassination talk about those party crashers, what whoppers!
* * * * *
Ahh, assassination! Who would ever think assassination threats are funny? Ordinarily we do not think death threats are funny but the bozos and Daffy Ducks in the White House make us laugh – no matter how serious the topic. And Sally Quinn reminded us of how funny assassination talk can be.
In October 2009 we wrote seriously about the Obama death threats. It was not a laughing matter then. But as with everything Obama, that serious talk is now turned to comedy. Back then we stated that the hype of Obama death threats came from Obama supporters themselves:
As Obama supporters witness the bumbling boobery of their Mess-iah, and as Obama supporters witness the lack of “change”, the SNL “Jack Squat” Obama, the Obama who has done nothing but betray them repeatedly, as Obama supporters see former allies angry with Obama for his lies and betrayal, the Hopium addled need a justification for their Obama worship.
By creating non-existent “death threats” against Obama, his former and current supporters want to justify in their minds that they were not wrong about their Mess-iah Obama. Obama supporters want to believe that they were right that Obama is, contrary to all evidence, a world historical figure, a transformational hero, a great man of history – so they desperately try to link Obama, via death and the non-existent death threats, to assassinated genuine world historical figures.
Obama supporters, witnessing the collapsing support for Obama, witnessing the lack of achievement, witnessing the lack of “hope”, witnessing the lack of “change”, have themselves created the “death threats” in order to assure themselves that Mess-iah Obama is a great man of history – so Obama supporters themselves and for themselves and their hero create non-existent death threats. It is necrophilia narcissism.
Mark Sullivan, the target of courtesan Quinn’s ire, testified before the House regarding the party crashers at the White House in December. We recalled that testimony and laughed and laughed some more. Previously the propaganda from the Hopium guzzlers was that Obama was so great there were a great many threats against his life. The piano players at the TPM whorehouse wrote:
The Boston Globe reports that a new internal Congressional Research Service report and government sources say there are an unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama — and that the Secret Service is insufficiently funded and staffed to deal with them.
According to The Globe, a report issued by the Congressional Research Service shows that the Secret Service is investigating more threats against government officials than ever before, and questions whether the 144-year old agency should continue probing financial crimes, as was its original mandate.
That’s right, don’t investigate financial crimes because Obama is so precious.
But the truth, according to Mark Sullivan of the Secret Service (the one courtesan Quinn wants out) is that there is nothing special happening and TPM and the Hopium guzzlers had to eat crow along with the Hopium:
Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, testifying today about the state dinner security breach, refuted stories that President Obama has received more threats than previous presidents.
“The threats are not up,” Sullivan said, adding that they receive about the same amount of threats against Obama as they did for presidents Clinton and Bush.
There have been a few reports this year claiming that threats are up drastically, which the Secret Service has disputed. Ronald Kessler, published a book this year claiming threats were up by 400 percent.
Even NBC had to report that Obama was not in particular danger.
There were genuine assassination threats against Hillary Clinton but we did not hear whining or fear from Hillary. There were genuine death plots in Louisiana in 2007 and more recent hush-hush death threats and plots.
Well, that was a downer. Then we remembered the latest protect-Obama-article in the New York Times as well as Andrew Sullivan (not Mark Sullivan, but Obama lover Andrew) and the laughs returned. This is what the New York Times reports in the upcoming Sunday Magazine cover story:
The evening before he was sworn into office, Barack Obama stepped out of Blair House, the government residence where he was staying across from the White House, and climbed into an armored limousine for the ride to a bipartisan dinner. Joining him in the back seat were John Brennan, his new counterterrorism adviser, and two foreign-policy advisers, Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert. The three men with the president-elect were out of breath, having rushed more than a mile from transition headquarters on foot after failing to find a taxi in Washington’s preinaugural madness. As the motorcade moved out, they updated Obama on gathering evidence of a major terrorist plot to attack his inauguration. After a weekend of round-the-clock analysis, the nation’s intelligence agencies were concerned that the threat was real, the men told him. A group of Somali extremists was reported to be coming across the border from Canada to detonate explosives as the new president took the oath of office. With more than a million onlookers viewing the ceremony from the National Mall and hundreds of millions more watching on television around the world, what could be a more devastating target?
“All the data points suggested there was a real threat evolving quickly that had an overseas component,” Juan Carlos Zarate, President George W. Bush’s deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, told me in November. As the inauguration approached, signs of a plot “seemed to be growing in credibility and relevance.” Another senior Bush official involved in those tense events a year ago said last fall that protecting the new president was not enough. Even a failed attack would send a debilitating message to the world. “If something happens on the podium and there’s chaos,” this official told me, “that’s the first time you see the new president, and you really don’t want that.”
The threat seemed to weigh on Obama. He canceled a practice session to go over his inaugural address with aides at Blair House. [snip]
There was little Obama could do but ask questions and rely on the people who had been fighting this fight for years. His advisers worked side by side with the outgoing administration. The two teams gathered in the Situation Room of the White House shortly before the inauguration to sift through what was known and to hash out what should be done about it. The final iteration of Bush’s team sat across the table from the brain trust of Obama’s administration — Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley and their colleagues on one side, Hillary Rodham Clinton, James Jones and their colleagues on the other.
Clinton immediately put her finger on the problem. According to participants, she asked, what should Obama do if he is in the middle of his inaugural address and a bomb goes off somewhere on the mall? “Is the Secret Service going to whisk him off the podium so the American people see their incoming president disappear in the middle of the inaugural address?” she asked. “I don’t think so.”
That scamp Hillary. How she must have laughed once she got home as she pictured Obama and Michelle – arms and legs akimbo with their buttocks protruding from the sides of the podium, shaking from fear.
Then it struck us, between laughs, that those Somalis, and the recent Detroit airplane attempted bomber were all “of color”. We thought of the troubled Andrew Sullivan and Dumb White People. Poor Andrew, those dumb black people of his imagination weren’t so dumb after all. Here’s what dumb ol’ Andrew wrote:
It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.
What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
Unfortunately, that “young Pakistani Muslim” along with that “young Nigerian” along with that “young Somali” (not to mention young Yemeni and young Saudi) is not fantasizing along with Andrew Sullivan. As we mentioned at the time those young angry men and women did not care about the skin color of Colin Powell or Condolezza Rice.
What we needed was a president strong enough to fight and experienced enough to know how to fight. We needed a president smart enough to know how to fight and when to fight and not to be afraid to fight. We needed a president and we got a joke. We needed a wise Magi, and got a dumb stooge.
On Three Stooges Day, those thoughts finally got us to stop laughing.