with the rancor and divisiveness of the POTUS' 2nd IA.  Then I found this from Ronaldus Magnus:

Reagan always responded to a portion of mail from ordinary citizens, and in 1984 he wrote back to a man named Jerry Granat. This citizen was upset that the president was treating O’Neill jovially, despite the speaker’s viciousness toward him. Here’s Reagan:

Dear Mr. Granat:
            Thank you for writing as you did and for giving me a chance to reply. I understand your concern. I’ve never quite been able to accept rival lawyers in a trial having lunch together during a recess.
            I don’t think you’ve seen me embracing or being embraced by Speaker O’Neill recently. And yes I find some of his personal attacks hard to forgive. He’s an old line politico. Earlier in my term and before recent events he explained away some of his partisan attacks as politics and that after 6 p.m. we were friends. Well that’s more than a little difficult for me to accept lately.
            But Mr. Granat there are certain things I cannot do if I’m to carry out my responsibilities. I can’t publicly refuse to be civil nor can I show anger and resentment. What we say to each other when the cameras aren’t turning or the press listening in is a different matter.
            I am responsible for the death of any man in uniform in the pursuit of his duty because I assign that duty. It has to be the most difficult burden for any president. [O’Neill must have said that Reagan was eager to send boys to fight and die or something.] But please don’t think refusing to stoop is turning the other cheek.
                                                                                           Sincerely,
                                                                                           Ronald Reagan

And THAT my friends and readers is why BHO will/can NEVER be another Reagan.

There was a sitcom by that name, back in the 70's.  Each episode began with a rapid fire convoluted recitation of previous episodes followed by the question "Confused?  You won't be.  After the NEXT episode of ... Soap!"

Loved that show.  Quirky fun.

But the SoS's testimony on Benghazi last week left me confused.  And I have a sneaking suspicion that no espisode of Soap will make it any clearer.  Not quirky.  Not fun.

As the Diplo-mad wrote: To the matter at hand. There is so much wrong with what Hillary said that I can only cover a few points.  Her whole attitude was one of taking a victory lap. She is leaving the State Department, and she ran out the clock on  Benghazi. Her phrase "At this point" sums it up. The steam has gone out of the issue, and the tactic of delay, obfuscation, and deception has worked; the administration has eluded responsibility for a major foreign policy disaster of criminal proportions. They did it before with "Fast and Furious" and they have done it again. The Accountability Review Board report, of course, was a whitewash; it was a carefully worded truce between Chicago and Foggy Bottom. It avoided dealing with the fundamentals of the Benghazi disaster, i.e., the foreign policy of this administration, and, in exchange, the bureaucrats were not held responsible for the decisions they took in implementing that foreign policy. Nobody was to blame for anything. 

She told us her job was to get to the bottom of the thing, but when pressed about that bottom she glibly replied "what difference does it make?"  Expect THAT to get replayed in 2014 ... and perhaps 2016!

Di Fi sez:

I don't think you need more than ten rounds. Either you're going to be able to get your gun and hit somebody with it quickly enough or it's impossible. Think about it, somebody has a holster in their purse--with a gun in the holster. They have to get it out of the purse. They have to unstrap the strap that holds it in the holster. They have to pull out the weapon and fire. That takes time. So the element of surprise is a big part of all of this too. So I don't buy--I think that if you have a five shot revolver is as good as a defensive weapon, if you're a good shot.

IF you know how many shot I'll need you MUST know who's attacking me and how.  So STOP EM BEFORE THEY DO IT!

Or let me defend myself against whatever shows up on my doorstep, NOT just what YOU can conjour, in your obviously limited imagination.

from Matt Welch over at Reason:

In January 2009, as Barack Obama was preparing to take over the White House from George W. Bush, Slate columnist John Dickerson wrote a piece on rhetoric, with the subhed "When politicians declare war on something, it's not usually a good sign." The nut:

Politicians are fond of comparing things that aren't war to war. It's both an abuse of language and a rhetorical trick. [...]

Obama campaigned against Bush's use of fear as the justifying language of public policy. But he has almost matched his running mate Biden in his use of dire language to describe the severity of the economic stakes.

Well, that was then. Last week, Dickerson, who is also political director of CBS News, had a new piece out, headlined "Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party." His argument now:

Washington's partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. [...]

Sandy Hook Victim's Uncle Offers Proposal to Prevent Mass Shootings

At the core of Haller's proposal are two new laws. First, he recommends a mandatory reporting law which would require anyone with knowledge of an impending crime involving guns or bombs to notify authorities within 24 hours. 

In his written justification for the proposal, Haller notes that mass shootings are rarely spontaneous events. They often involve premeditated planning; according to the government report issued after Columbine, "Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help."

His other recommendation is a "Firearm Safekeeping Law" which would make it a misdemeanor, or possibly a felony, to store guns in such a way that they could fall into the hands of someone with a mental illness. The proposed law is written so that it only applies in a case where a mentally ill or violent person actually does obtain the weapon, not where they merely could have.

This will NEVER be implemented - it makes too much sense.

I'm usually pretty easy on door to door solicitors.  If they're selling something for the house I tell 'em we rent and they go on their merry way.  Occasionally during the last election a school board candidate would knock on my door and I'd give them the honor of my time, as a few sensible questions, take their literature and let them move on.

So today the temps were in the low teens, wind gusts 15-20 mph, blowing snow, wind chill in the negatives.  As I'm finishing my preparation  for work there's a knock at my door.  Cheery, smiling, long haired sock headed punk.  He's canvasing for the AFL-CIO.  He wants to talk about "good jobs."  He has his patter.  His schpiel.  His I-pad loaded with talking points.  When I tell him I'm leaving for work he persists in trying to get me to listen.

Wrong move.

Me:  Do live here in Columbus?

LHSH: uh huh.

Me:  In an apartment?

LHSH:  Uh Huh but sir ...

Me: Is is chilly there?

LHSH: Well, yes, but....

Me:  I live here.  In this nice cozy house.  And I'm on my way to a job where I teach in a nice cozy classroom while you work out here in the frigid Ohio winter.  Know what the REAL difference is between us?

LHSH: No .....

Me:  YOU work for the Union, out here in the cold, so you can live in you chilly apartment, while I work for ME in a warm classroom so I can live in this nice cozy house.  G'bye.

<slam>

Poor kid.  Wrong day.

to my leftist friends.

Anything done unilaterally by POTUS Obama can be UNDONE unilaterally by POTUS Elph.

And you'll have to accept that, because you've accepted this.