What could be worse than Hillary 2016?

Smitty suggest Janet Napolitano might run if………

Via Drudge:

So, what happens if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run in 2016?
It is hard to imagine the presidential field without a woman contender, and here’s one to keep your eye on: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Napolitano is quietly making it known that she is considering the race, and there is reason to take her seriously.

Yeah, I can see the GOP, Tea Partiers, and basically anybody else with a functioning brain being more than a little motivated to work against Big Sis if she’s on the ticket.

Now, if she brings on Bill Maher as VP, would the double negative somehow work?

Napolitano/Maher 2016? Or maybe I should say Dumber than a Tree Stump/Ultimate Douche Nozzle 2o16? And the campaign slogan would have to be If you See Something Say Something

Senator Bob Menendez hooker scandal? UPDATED!

RS McCain has the scoop

Dominican hookers, to be specific. This is what we’re hearing about the sex scandal involving a “powerful senator” in a sex scandal being touted by Drudge, with a story by the Daily Caller promised late tonight.

Domincan hookers you say? Maybe they are just doing the Horizontal Bop with a man who American hookers just will not do?

Well, do not expect this to get much attention from the media types, unless it is a headline that reads something like Humanitarian Bob Menendez reaches out to help underprivileged Dominicans.

This update just in, Bob Menenedez is accused of not only having sex with the hookers, but screwing them out of money too, sounds like a Democrat to me

In interviews, the two women said they met Menendez around Easter at Casa de Campo, an expensive 7,000 acre resort in the Dominican Republic. They claimed Menendez agreed to pay them $500 for sex acts, but in the end they each received only $100.

The women spoke through a translator in the company of their attorney, Melanio Figueroa. Both asked that their identities remain obscured for fear of reprisals in the Dominican Republic.

When shown a photograph of Sen. Menendez, the women said they recognized him as the man with whom they’d had sexual relations at Casa de Campo this spring. Both said they were brought to the resort with the understanding they would be paid for sex.

Neither knew the identity of the man at the time. Both claimed to recognize him later as Sen. Menendez.

“He called him[self] ‘Bob,’” said one.

Who knows if these allegations are true, if they are, well, men paying for sex is not too uncommon and Menendez is single, divorced, so it is not like he is cheating, but still, this is not the way a United States Senator ought to conduct himself., especially on a trip funded by our tax dollars. Stacy McCain asks a pertinent question, one that hits on the accusation that Menendez cheated these women out of money.

What would Lilly Ledbetter say?

What would she say indeed!

Ah, I love it when “entitlements” and invented “rights” bite Democrats in the ass!

This is priceless, absofreakinglutely PRICELESS!

 

From CBS Charlotte, we learn [tip of the fedora to the Drudge Report]:

The Democratic National Committee is taking flak from women’s groups for the lack of child care that is being provided at the convention. The Charlotte Observer reports that children will not be allowed access on the floor of the Democratic National Convention and that daycare will not be provided for delegates who bring their kids.

Women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem and several National Organization of Women chapters have called out the DNC for the “discrimination against mothers with young children.”

Love it! The Democratic party spends every day telling different groups what they are owed by governemnt. they spend every day creating fictional “rights” health care, college educations, birth control, child care, and, wait, did I mention child care? Well that chicken has certainly come home to roost. Bob Belvedere is laughing his arse off over this too

Delegate Susie Shannon feels the DNC is putting her in a tough position because she is bringing her 4-year-old along.

“The Democratic Party shouldn’t put you in a position where you have to choose between your child and participating in a political convention,” she told The Charlotte Observer.

Uh-hum…[clears throat]…Mzzzzzz. Shannon, ah…well…what in the Hell are you doing bringing a friggin’ little kid to an adult convention, huh? What’s with this [pun intended] childish Hysteria ['I have to choose between my child and going to the Democratic Convention! (places back of palm on forehead and faints)]?

Give me a break.

Get up off your smug, arrogant little arse, Susie-Q, and hire a Goddamn baby sitter.

By the way, blue Sue: how do you feel about having to be forced to choose between your child and your career? What?…sorry, I didn’t hear you…oh, okaaaay…that’s different…I see…say that again…oh…that’s a different situation because you have ‘a right to be fulfilled’ and your ‘career is the one thing that completes’ you…okay, I get it……….idiot.

Preach it Bob!

Thee is a lesson here, one that every Liberal ought to heed. When political parties begin promising to meet this need, and provide for that need, and start telling everyone that anything they want is a “right” people start buying it. And when people start buying those lines, they begin expecting more, and more, and more. Then they demand more, and more, and yet more. And the more they demand, the less government can deliver, and, well, I doubt any Democrat will ever learn that lesson, until the country crashes off a fiscal cliff, and then it is just too late isn’t it?

The end of Newt? UPDATED

Does ABC News hold the death card that will “end Newt’s career”?

UPDATE: An ABC News executive told The Associated Press the network is likely to air the interview Thursday on “Nightline.” The Blaze’s earlier report and background on the controversy follows below.

According to Drudge Report, Marianne Gingrich — ex-wife of GOP candidate Newt Gingrich — dropped what sources claim is a game-changing bombshell about the former House Speaker — one that could “end” her ex-husband’s career. The two-hour long interview, conducted last week by Brian Ross, is said to contain “explosive revelations” that will “rock the campaign trail.”

The controversial nature of the interview is now causing major waves at the network, according to sources, and a “civil war” has since exploded at ABC on exactly when the tell-all will air.

Drudge reports that executives at ABCNews say it would be “unethical” to run Marianne Gingrich’s interview so close to South Carolina Primary and that a tentative decision has been made to broadcast the interview next Monday after all votes have been counted.

Well, we know that Newt was a bad husband, so there has to be more, a lot more if this story could end his career. Or is ABC just hoping that just the mention of a “bombshell” will do the trick. I have feared Newt’s baggage, and I suppose we will find out soon if my fears were well founded.

Right now, and I hate saying this, it appears that we could be, after South Carolina, down to Newt and Romney. If this news is truly a bombshell though what then. Let’s say Newt gets destroyed by this interview. Does Santorum rebound? Will Romney have  cakewalk from here out? Could there be one last shot for Perry? Likely not, since the voters seem to written Perry off for some unforgivable sin. Frankly, I am stunned that the base turned on Perry so quickly, and so permanently.

One last thought. How valid will this story be? Would Newt’s ex try to destroy him by lying? Clearly he was a cheat, but we already know that. Would she be willing to add “facts” to kill Newt’s chances? I always question the timing these types of interviews. If there was something so bad that it will nuke Newt, why was it not shared before this?

UPDATE! Hot Air reports via Howard Kurtz that the interview will reveal nothing new.

Good lord. After all the hype tonight, is this thing actually going to be a giant nothingburger? Howard Kurtz:

A knowledgeable insider says that Newt Gingrich’s second wife does not say anything in the taped interview with ABC News that she hasn’t said in previous print interviews. But to repeat her account of how their marriage failed—because the then-House speaker was having an affair—in a form that can be endlessly replayed on television could prove a serious distraction for the presidential candidate two days before the South Carolina primary.

So maybe this is just a publicity deal for her? Or maybe the thought is that this will hamstring the Gingrich “surge”. Guess we find out soon enough