Well, he can’t discuss his record. So let’s talk … beer!

“Four more beers!” they cry.

Details of the White House home brew piqued my husband’s interest last night. “Why is this even a story?” he asked.

Because they can’t discuss his record. Shaggy dog (on the roof) stories ensue instead.

The details, however, are interesting:

 President Barack Obama has stocked up on a new all-American campaign prop — White House-brewed beer.

During his bus tour across the battleground state of Iowa, the president on Tuesday gave a bottle of the brew, known as White House Honey Ale, to a patron of a Knoxville, Iowa, coffee shop when the subject of beer came up.

While it was the first time the branded beer grabbed wide attention from the press corps on the campaign trail, a White House official said the president and first lady have made a habit of occasionally traveling with bottles of the beer made at a small brewery at the White House.

The beer, which comes in both a light and dark variety, is made by the White House chefs who use traditional beer-brewing methods

The honey portion of the drink is taken from first lady Michelle Obama’s garden beehive near the White House Kitchen Garden on the south lawn.

Taxpayers are not footing the bill for the beer, as both the cost of the equipment and the cost of brewing the beer is paid for by the Obamas personally, the official said.

Emphasis mine. All-American. President giving beer. Made by White House chefs. Tradition. Honey from Michelle’s garden. How lovely. And they’re footing their own bill for a change. (How odd).

What’s the kicker? Oh just wait for the conclusion:

“It’s true, at the State Fair, instead of saying ‘four more years,’ they were saying, ‘four more beers.’ So I bought him four more beers. Told him he had to register to vote, though, to get one of the beers,” Obama told a laughing crowd.

Isn’t that illegal? I digress:

Connecting with the beer drinkers’ vote is a tactic not used by Obama’s Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, a Mormon who does not drink alcohol.

This is why the Obamas are making such a big deal of the home brew. This is why they’re travelling with bottles of beer: to make a rather subversive point about Romney’s Mormonism. They could do it with coffee. Or soda. But beer is the most effective way to show how “out of touch” he is while they follow the “traditional All-American home brewing” methods.

I’m not fooled. But how many would be? What’s next, a reporter pointing out that Romney wouldn’t hold a beer summit (thank God)? Or the usual test pre-election, “With whom would you rather sit and have a beer?” would have to be hypothetical since, you know, Romney doesn’t drink. How far will the media carry this? Maybe not as far as previously thought.

Cross-posted at Pundit & Pundette.

Advertisement

When the White House Press Corps openly laughs at you…

You’ve probably told a whopper. Or a few. From the Washington Examiner, the White House can’t seem to get the Fast and Furious story straight:

And when Carney said that Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege over documents subpoenaed by Congress was “entirely about principle,” reporters openly laughed.

Whoops. The sad fact remains that most of the losers laughing will still vote for The Most Transparent Administration Evah.

This was after being twice corrected by Jake Tapper about the origins of Fast and Furious and the name of the Border Patrol agent killed as a result:

Next, Carney was forced to back off his attempt to pin Fast and Furious on the Bush Administration. “It originated in a field office during the previous administration.  It was ended under this administration, by this Attorney General,” Carney said. ABC’s Jake Tapper quickly observed that “The operation began in fall 2009.”

[…]

As Carney continued to field questions, he appeared to forget the family name of border patrol agent Brian Terry, who was death ignited the investigation after he was killed by drug smugglers armed with weapons obtained through Operation Fast and Furious.

“We have provided Congress every document that pertains to the operation itself that is at issue here when you talk about the family that you referred to,” Carney said. When Tapper provided him the name, he repeated it — “the Terry family.”

Smartest people in the room, eh? What an embarrassing administration.

UPDATE: linked by Pundette as a “Recommended Read” AND in this fabulous post. Read it. Thanks!

Linked by Pirate’s Cove. Thanks!

“The media is so in Mr. Obama’s pocket that it might as well be lint.”

Heh.

So says the one and only Ben Stein in discussing the leaky-administration. He writes:

What I really do love is that at the same time that Carl and Bob are attacking Nixon, the peacemaker, they are “warning” journalists and legislators not to jump all over Mr. Obama and Mr. Eric Holder for their leaks about national security matters, orchestrated to make Obama look tough on defense matters.

Obviously, these leaks are illegal. They are breaches of not one but many laws against releasing classified information. Will anyone go after the Obama White House for it? Will anyone outside the Tea Party dare to suggest that the Obama White House is a criminal enterprise for this? Of course not. The media is so in Mr. Obama’s pocket that it might as well be lint.

Read the rest. Mr. Stein’s grasp of history–and role in it–weaves Watergate into current events seamlessly.

Surreal: WaPo could care less about any Obama BFF offer to pay for Reverend Wright’s silence, but oh my, that Romney is suspect because of a nineteenth century Mormon-militia massacre

Journalistic integrity on display.
Headline: Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith tangles with a quirk of history.

From the headline, I assumed a direct connection. How silly of me:

CARROLLTON, Ark. — On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers.

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.”

Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons “evil.”

“There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them,” said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train, which was known as the Fancher-Baker party. “The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got.”

There aren’t many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country’s first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult.

Five paragraphs to tie Romney in as a cultist. The angst the WaPo staff feels on behalf of poor Mitt, who is obviously doomed because of his religion? But wait:

And yet, there is scant evidence that Romney’s religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor.

Dammit!

Ann Romney spent WAY too much money on a shirt (that would have been FABULOUS on Michelle O!)

Because we all know Ann Romney is evil and rich whereas Michelle is FABULOUS at all times (NB: In case you’re wondering, “fabulous” must be read in best parody sing-song attempt to further mock the media hacks who live by such gross double standards.)

Or, as Lonely Conservative put it: Media Suddenly Takes Interest in in the Price Tag of Clothing of  Candidate’s Wife

ABC interviews the horrified designer of a $990 shirt Ann Romney bought off the rack:

The fashion house that makes the nearly $1,000 blouse worn by Ann Romney on morning television earlier this week tells ABC News that they had nothing to do with the wardrobe choice, remarking that they’d prefer to stay out of politics.

“We had nothing to do with it,” a rep for designer Reed Krakoff said. “She must have bought it from Saks or Bergdorf’s, we definitely didn’t send it to her.”

“It’s 100 percent a Reed Krakoff shirt, but we 100 percent didn’t send it to her,” the rep added. ”We don’t get involved politically.”

Translation: Dammit, why could Michelle not have worn our shirt?! It would have been FABULOUS!

No one cared Michelle’s ugly sweater cost over 2 grand.

Or, as Lonely Conservative reminds us, the hideous $500 sneakers worn to a homeless shelter.

No, we’re the tone-deaf  ones.

When the box doesn’t fit

Bend and stretch.

Justice is colorblind. Too bad our society no longer is after the multi-culti hogwash that has bread out of us the notion that we are all American, but we are now a check-the-box ethnicity. The folks who went out of their way to brand George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” as opposed to “Hispanic” will now have to eat their words.

Why?

Turns out he’s black, too. Is it enough that it’s check-the-box-black?

Waiting for the race baiter Al Sharpton to apologize in 3, 2…

Media bias: liberals can’t handle the whole truth, so how can it be distorted?

Heh. Via memeorandum, the BuzzFeed headline: By Historic Standards, Obama Is In Trouble. The graphic which engenders such hand-wringing:

The kicker [emphasis mine]:

Modern presidents who got re-elected were all leading in the polls at this point in their presidencies — as were some who lost anyway.Obama is in a statistical tie with Romney in the first Gallup daily tracking poll of the general election, and that might not be enough.

True enough, it is within the margin of error. Statistically, it is a tie. I find it amusing, nonetheless, that the lead belongs to Romney, not Obama, and yet that cannot be mentioned. Do not utter the words and they shalt not come true.

NBC deceptively edits to help what, start a race war?

This peeves me beyond belief. What happened to reporting? I know it’s a dead art. But editing in this case didn’t provide brevity or clarity, it’s just misleading. Via Instapundit, the scoop from The Hollywood Reporter:

In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The full version, though, unfolds like this:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

Instapundit quips:

It’s as if they’re pushing a predetermined narrative regardless of the evidence or something.

UPDATE:  Reader Michael Costello emails:  “ABC did the same thing.  Aren’t these the same people who accused Andrew Breitbart of deceptive editing?”  Yeah, go figure.

Predetermined narrative aside, doesn’t it give you warm fuzzies to know that millions of people trust this as truth when it’s anything but?

UPDATE: linked by Chris Wysocki at Theo Spark. Thanks!

The sky is blue, the NYT publishes more prejudice against Catholics

Except this time, the brushstrokes are broad. In trying to figure out how on earth Rick Santorum has captured the evangelical vote, we receive yet another intolerant gift from the NYT:

After more than a century of widespread antipathy between Catholics and evangelical Christians, a Catholic with Italian immigrant roots from the industrial Northeast has emerged as the favored presidential candidate among evangelicals, even in states he lost over all, like Ohio and Illinois. On the eve of Louisiana’s primary on Saturday, Mr. Santorum had won a plurality of the evangelical vote in 9 of 16 states, according to exit polls by Edison Research.

“Santorum represents a game-changer,” said D. Michael Lindsay, the president of Gordon College, a Christian school near Boston, and an expert in evangelical voting patterns. “His candidacy has the potential to reshape conservative political alignment, securing once and for all evangelical support for a conservative Catholic in public life.”

Mr. Santorum has, in fact, performed far better with evangelical Christians than with Catholics, who have preferred Mitt Romney, a Mormon, in virtually every state. Through a critical reading of the data, Mr. Santorum’s base of evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics could be seen by cynics as a coalition of zealots, held together by intolerance.

Seriously? In order not to appear too prejudiced, here’s the follow-on:

By another way of thinking, however, his candidacy offers proof of a growing tolerance on the part of evangelical Christians, a willingness to shed ancestral religious prejudices.

Hmm. Which one’s first, the chicken or the egg? What’s funny is the “zealot” reference is never negated. Oh, those evangelicals are more tolerant of the other zealots now. Not that they’re not zealots, y’all, because they are. Papists!

Fabulousity.

Those Crazy Catholics: NYT draws attention to Santorum’s home parish

Dear God. (No pun intended).

The NYT, in an attempt to paint Rick Santorum’s home parish as extreme offers this:

Mass is offered in Latin every Sunday at noon — most parishes have Mass only in English — and each Wednesday parishioners take turns praying nonstop for 24 hours before a consecrated communion wafer, a demanding practice known as Eucharistic adoration.

24 hours? How inconvenient to pray for 24 hours! After all, we can run to Walgreens at 2 in the morning. Or Safeway. Heck, even the local laundrymat announces it’s “24/7.” How extreme for someone to go into a church of all places and pray in the middle of the night. Crazies! Loons every one. And to want to worship at one of four weekend Masses offered in Latin. How … archaic.

But wait, there’s more:

As members of St. Catherine of Siena, a parish here in the wealthy Northern Virginia suburb of Great Falls, the Santorums are immersed in a community where large families are not uncommon and many mothers leave behind careers to dedicate themselves to child-rearing, as Mrs. Santorum has. Mr. Santorum has been on the church roster as a lector, reading Scripture from the pulpit.

A lector! Thank goodness he’s not a … Eucharistic Minister! Scandalous! And who do those women think they are? Devoting themselves to child-rearing. Large families at that! How mundane.

And now for a little guilt-by-association:

The parish is known for its Washington luminaries — Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court is a member — as well as its spiritual ardor.

And everyone knows that that obviously means. Keep going, NYT, don’t fail to disappoint:

The Santorums’ beliefs are reflected in a succession of lifestyle decisions, including eschewing birth control, home schooling their younger children and sending the older boys to a private academy affiliated with Opus Dei, an influential Catholic movement that emphasizes spiritual holiness.

Oh my. Birth control and homeschooling! Two points! I give the writer credit for the restraint obviously necessary not to mention “The Da Vinci Code” in connection with Opus Dei. Maybe that would’ve been … oh, too over the top, no?

I’ve saved the best for last:

Mr. Santorum has been a supporter of Regnum Christi, the lay wing of a conservative, cultish order of priests known as the Legion of Christ. In 2003, he was the keynote speaker at a Regnum Christi event in Chicago that drew protesters because the group’s charismatic founder, who had spent years denying that he had sexually abused seminarians, was scheduled to share the podium.

Cult and sex abuse in the same sentence! Score another for the writer!  It’s comforting to know we can always count on the esteemed Gray Lady for such zealous reporting.

 

UPDATE: linked by Pundette as a Recommended Read. Thanks!