Trump to #FatJudas: “Thank you for your soul, now go home.”

February 29, 2016

Oh, man, this is sweet. One of the great disappointments in recent days was New Jersey Governor Chris Christie turning his coat and endorsing Juan Domingo Peron… er… Donald Trump, a move clearly timed to distract from the beating Trump had taken at the Houston debate the night before.

Now, I’ve never been great Chris Christie fan, but I have had some modicum of respect for the man, given that he’s a reasonably successful Republican governor in a Deep Blue state. I disagreed with him a lot on policy –especially on Second Amendment rights– but I could also acknowledge his accomplishments.

That respect is now dead. Not only did a man sworn to support the Constitution of the United States endorse another man running openly as a tyrant, but to do so Christie had to jettison every single thing he said in criticism of Trump just weeks before, while he was still an active candidate. The self-serving hypocrisy is enormous, perhaps even more so than the Governor’s belt size.

And thus, to see him sent away like a potboy from his master’s table after introducing him at a rally in Tennessee was delicious. Watch, and enjoy:

In case you didn’t quite get that, Christie warmly introduces Trump, and then The Donald, (perhaps) not realizing the mic was so close and still open, says:

“Get in the plane and go home. It’s over there. Go home.”

And like a good little servant, Christie obeyed.

Hope it was worth it to you, Governor, because your political career is dead.

Now go home.

PS: Oh, yeah. About “#FatJudas.” That was the Twitter hashtag that sprang up after Christie endorsed Trump. Perfect.


For once, @statedeptspox Jen Psaki and I agree

December 5, 2014

Jen Psaki hashtag

We’ve met Jen Psaki before, when she and her deputy, Marie Harf, became the public faces of “Hashtag Diplomacy,” bringing the conduct of American foreign affairs to an embarrassing new low.

Now, I have to admit, I have some sympathy for Ms. Psaki; it can’t be easy to day after day repeat the fatuous talking points she’s given in defense of the administration’s incompetent foreign policy. And, in fact, the strain may be getting to her; after giving another non-answer to a reporter’s question, she admitted the talking point was ridiculous.

Only she forgot the mic was open:

After Associated Press reporter Matt Lee pressed her to comment on Egypt’s decision to clear former President Hosni Mubarak of murder, Psaki gave one of her typical non-answers read straight from the page:

“Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus on which Egypt’s long-term stability and economic growth depends,” Psaki said.

Lee was astonished at the response, and took the opportunity to point out that the answer was meaningless.

“Wow, I don’t understand that at all,” Lee said. “What you said says nothing. It’s like saying, ‘We support the right of people to breathe.’”

Psaki declined to give any further comment to reporters during the briefing. However, as the lights dimmed, Psaki was exasperated and told Lee how she really felt, not realizing her microphone was still on.

“That Egypt line is ridiculous,” Psaki said.


Check the Free Beacon for video of this unintentional moment of public candor.

via American Thinker and sodagrrl

(Video) Operation Hot Mic!

March 30, 2012

I was wondering when someone would make an ad about Obama’s offer of flexibility to the Russians, and now I have my answer:


via the geniuses at American Crossroads and Adam S. Baldwin.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

And just what does President Obama need “space” for?

March 26, 2012

"This thing hates me."

Oh, those wacky open-mic moments.

In South Korea on an official visit, the President was coming out of a meeting with Putin’s Chew-Toy Russian President Dmitri Medvedev for a joint press availability and —once again— didn’t realize that the funny thing with wires might actually be on.

Thus giving us this moment of presidential “D’oh!”:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

ABC’s Jake Tapper (1) relayed this White House attempt to pull the presidential foot out of the presidential mouth:

A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

As far as it goes, I agree with the “senior administration official’s” statement; major initiatives are hard to pull off in an election year, because anything you do is grist for your opponent’s mill, a hammer with which he can beat on you endlessly. It’s a truism of American politics and one reason why presidents don’t often get much accomplished in the final year of their first term.

But the official’s explanation also begs the question: Just what does President Obama need the space for? Just what was he discussing regarding missile defense? He’s already scaled back our promising program severely. What more was he discussing with the Russians that would be too hot for public consumption in an election year?

And why is he even discussing missile defense with Russia? Our program is aimed at one or a few missiles lobbed by rogue states, such as North Korea. Even if funded to the max, our missile defenses would be nowhere near capable of dealing with an arsenal the size of Russia’s. Nor is Russia even a credible threat to launch a first strike; the Cold War ended a long time ago, and Russia is in deep decline as a world power. This seems to be another example of Obama’s obsession with the strategic issues of the 1980s, when he was in college, the halcyon days of the nuclear freeze movement and arms-control agreements.

Oh, and just what does he mean by “all these issues?” What else needs to be put off until after his (God help us) reelection? What other of our interests is he willing to make a deal on?

Or maybe it’s the interests of others? This should make all those former possessions of the Soviet empire feel real secure.

William Jacobson is right: this moment of unintended transparency shows Obama will feel free to do whatever he wants if reelected. Remember, this is the man who wished he could “work his way around Congress.”  Unfettered by the need for reelection and with the broad powers the presidency has in foreign affairs, he may well get his wish — to the nation’s detriment.

Let this serve as a reminder that, no matter how unsatisfying the Republican candidates may be, the overriding goal is to defeat Obama in November.

And God bless open mics.

RELATED READING: If you want to understand the “strategic vision” of the liberal internationalists now running our foreign affairs, start with Krauthammer’s “Decline is a Choice.”

LINKS: Ed at Hot Air thinks Obama has promised a total cave-in on missile defense. Pirate’s Cove is “grateful.” Joel Pollak calls it a promise of surrender. Fausta asks a very good question.

UPDATE: The head of the House Armed Services Committee wants answers.

via Power Line

(1) Genuinely one of the best MSM reporters covering the White House.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)