Magox

There were a few entertaining tweets in response to the WH press briefing. "All right, who let all these rich, middle-aged Chick-fil-a lovers into the press briefing room?"

I don't believe they are buying his "stylistic changes" statement he previously made.

They never do.

Yes. But what does that have to do with the rest of the media?

More like that they are passing out their talking points so that they can regurgitate their preferred narrative.

So the W.H held an "off-the-record" press briefing today. Whatever could they be telling them?

Really? http://www.nbcnews.com/ not even in their "political" page http://www.nbcnews.c...s/#.UY0YHkqMBpk

No where to be found on the front pages of the NY Times, WAPO, and CNN http://www.cnn.com/ http://www.cbsnews.com/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/ Let me know if you guys see it on their front pages. However, what you will find are editorials and several opinion pieces attacking conservatives on Benghazi.

If you don't mind I'm going to quote some of what is in that ABC news report:

If the W.H and State Department would have been forthcoming to begin with, this wouldn't be an issue any longer, however now that we do know that they did indeed purposely mislead the public for political reasons fearing backlash and incompetence, and that new information continues to keep dripping out, then to answer your question, no, no they haven't. Let's just remember that just yesterday Jay Carney said: Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/white-house-denies-changing-benghazi-intelligence-reports/#ixzz2StsArxC1

No, not just because he was black... They wouldn't of come out if Herman Cain was on the GOP ticket. But let's be real here, the fact that there was a legitimate black candidate running for office (unlike Jesse Jackson), they came out in record numbers,and when they saw him under withering attack over the past few years primarily from white GOP voters, they stuck together and made damn sure that their voices were going to be heard through their votes, and you and I both know that by and large, if there is a "legitimate" black candidate that believes in policies that they believe in, it is a largely monolithic voting block.... If Hillary runs I assure you that they won't come out nearly in the numbers that they did for Obama.

It really isn't that surprising, Romney won the district by 18 in a heavy black Democratic Turnout year.

B-Man This is what we've seen today http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/ And here is the amendment from Grassley that was approved. http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments/Grassley/Grassley1-%28HEY13237%29.pdf

Krugman still wrong Key takeaways: Oh the horror, rather than 1.3% drop in growth, it's 1%. Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/09/krugmans_still_wrong_118323.html#ixzz2SpBdLse7 $9 in tax increases to $1 in cuts??? And they blame the cuts for their protracted slowdown????

In other news, Benghazi is now a fading story, but Gun Control stories are back to trending higher again.

I don't believe blacks will come out nearly as high in numbers (% wise) for Hillary or any other white Democratic future nominee as they did for Obama, unless of course the candidate is black or has a strong "connection" with the black community.

No Problem B-Man

B-Man I looked into this a little more and here is what I found: Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2SomkXat2 So actually, they did make it a tougher border security measure, not just for the "high risk" measures that the National Review reported on but the entire "Southern Border"....The portion that they rejected from the Grassley amendment had more to do with setting up more requirements than what is being proposed for illegal immigrants to get green cards issued. You have to understand, the National Review has come out strong against any sort of pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants, so when you read anything from them regarding this topic, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Not saying that you have to dismiss what they say, just keep in mind what their position is regarding this topic. For instance in this case, they state: The amendment, offered by ranking member Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), would also require that heightened security measures be applied to all nine sectors of the Southern border, as opposed to just three sectors identified as “high risk.” Which is true, however that measure was already addressed today that achieves the same goal.

Here is what I have observed from the W.H press corps: When an issue arises that they care about, they will hound the W.H press secretary so much so that it becomes the predominant political topic in the country, and that they apply so much pressure on the W.H that they are forced to give a real explanation or in some cases force them to shake things that causes and creates meaningful action regarding that particular topic. (Remember Valerie Plame?) or (Biden got in front of the president on gay Marriage?) Obviously finding scandal with a conservative president tops the list. Or pushing the president on gay marriage issues, simply because that is a cause they believe is worth pushing. So in this instance, this is a potential scandal with a Liberal president. The desire to seek the truth on this issue, isn't quite at the vociferous level that it would be with a conservative president. But, they have to at least pretend that they are doing their duty. So what they do is they will ask the standard questions, to sort of the check the box that they are, you know, doing their job, and then that's it. No follow up. Nothing. They've done their job. The W.H understands this, they know that the W.H press corps is one of their allies, but they also realize that they have a duty to perform, so what they do is they send out prebuttals and talking points and attempt to create a narrative so that the media reports it with the narrative that they wish for them to report it as. Here is an example: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/white-house-slams-attempts-to-politicize-benghazi-163504.html?hp=r2 Now of course you have seen this "politicization" charge mimicked from Cummings and other liberal politicians. This is the narrative that they want everyone to follow to muddy the waters. So here is the first paragraph in the lead article in Politico today regarding Benghazi: Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/benghazi-hearing-house-oversight-committee-91066.html#ixzz2Sk5UkdFK This is just a small example, I could literally bring up many many instances. To begin the paragraph, this particular journalist, wanted to pass along the core message from the W.H. Which is that this was a "Political" hearing. Not just a political hearing, but a "very political" one. I have very little respect for the media. They are so in the tank for progressive causes and politics that it's pretty much a crock of ****.

My guess is that there will be a few articles that pertain to Benghazi tomorrow, with a few follow up questions during the press briefings and that will be that regarding Benghazi from the traditional media outlets.

I've largely stayed out of this discussion, but I've read up on it extensively reading and considering both sides of the argument. If you look at the data that has come out, and forget about all the talking points, but the true data that has been released, it's quite obvious that there was a deliberate attempt to downplay the terrorist attack of Benghazi, and not only downplay but purposely mislead the country right before the elections through the Susan Rice talking points. The W.H and State Department say it was altered by the intelligence community, yet there seems to be overwhelming evidence that it came from up above. If that is the case, which it appears to be, then it is indeed a cover up. The W.H and their progressive followers have successfully been able to discredit Conservatives on this issue, by simply stating that they are trying to politicize the issue. All you have to do is read many of the mainstream outlets, and half of their Benghazi related stories have more to do with the Republicans who are crying wolf on the issue. Yesterday alone, in Politico, there were 3 separate stories about Republicans who are criticizing the State Department, but none about the Benghazi details itself. In other words, the story was about the accusers of wrongdoing, rather than the story itself of wrongdoing. What the W.H and progressives are hoping is that they can muddy the waters enough, to where the facts get lost in their claims of Conservative politicization of Benghazi. Unfortunately, it has worked, and we'll see if this damning testimony will change the landscape.

Heritage foundation came out with a study today, citing that creating a pathway to citizenship similar to what is being proposed would add over the long-term over $6 Trillion to the debt. That's an awfully large and scary number. However, Paul Ryan, Conservative American Enterprise Institute, the CATO institute, Grover Norquist, Americants for Tax Reform, the Concord Coalition and Douglass-Holtz Eakin president of the American Action Forum have all come out and said that the Heritage Foundations study is a bunch of poppy rooster. In any case, it appears that there are many more studies that show that it will either be a wash or a positive for the economy than what the Heritage Foundation's report shows. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/06/conservative-leaders-slam-heritage-for-shoddy-immmigration-study/?hpid=z2 Also, it's kinda funny how the Heritage Foundation bemoans the CBO when Dynamic scoring isn't applied in "conservative" budgets, yet they don't apply Dynamic scoring to make their case regarding Immigration Reform. Sorta makes them hypocritical on this issue....Probably more so than that, it makes them extremely ideological, which tells me that they aren't motivated on the economics of this issue as much as it has to do with some other ulterior motive.

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions from the LGBT crowd regarding the CCM models of CO2 for the HIGW, maybe BFBF can get to us ASAP on that with an ETA PS BYOB

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/economy/050313-654674-retail-workweek-3-year-low-on-obamacare.htm?ref=HPLNews#ixzz2SX1AUssv