Get Ready to Blame the Gun

Ding-a-Ling
Other emails suggest the secretary of state’s lack of technological prowess. In one, Mrs. Clinton tells Ms. Abedin that she cannot turn on her phone’s ringer. (New York Times, 9/30/2015)

One of the Bush presidents - we don't remember which one - once expressed surprise at the technology of a grocery store price scanner. To Liberals this was proof that he was unfit to be president. They now say what?


Assigned
In oral history interviews released on Wednesday, Senator Edward M. Kennedy talked about how Scotch helped him get subcommittee assignments in 1963. (New York Times, 9/30/2015)

Why does the New York Times continue to report news that every American already knows?


Below Norm
Ms. Richards does make a lot of money relative to the rest of the American work force. Her pay puts her in the top 1 percent of all earners in the United States. But her salary is actually on the low side when it is compared with executive pay at other large nonprofits. When compared with the pay for hospital executives running nonprofit health care organizations of similar budgets, it is actually well below the norm. (New York Times, 10/1/2015)

So the head of Planned Parenthood is a 1 percenter! Where are Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders railing about outrageous executive pay? Are Liberals outraged that the head of a non-profit healthcare company is making all that money? You know the answer. 


Recovery
About two months of emails from the start of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state are missing, and federal officials haven’t been able to recover them. (Wall Street Journal, 9/30/2015)

Honest mistake, probably.


Scrutiny
For starters, it’s implausible that a majority of Democrats would ever investigate Hillary Clinton on their own, no matter what she’d done or hidden or lied about, because of the dominant incentive to defend their partisan interests. Republicans will scrutinize Hillary whenever they can because they have different incentives. Both postures are comparably partisan. Neither precludes the committee from finding out the truth—a goal both parties once claimed. (David Harsanyi, thefederalist.com, 10/1/2015)

Is the Benghazi investigation political? Of course it is. Harsanyi explains why that is not an issue. Well done!