Will League of Women Voters now run anti-Obama ads featuring sick children?
Via The Hill:
The White House announced Friday that it is shelving a major planned Environmental Protection Agency regulation that would have tightened smog standards, dealing a huge blow to environmentalists that had pushed the Obama administration to resist industry pressure to abandon the regulation.
In a statement, President Obama said that the rule is being shelved because he is wary of imposing regulatory burdens during the economic recovery.
When Scott Brown voted to prevent the EPA from regulating certain emissions (not sure if exactly the same as the regulations just dropped by Obama), the “non-partisan” League of Women Voters ran ads against Brown, featuring wheezing and gasping children:
So to prove its non-partisanship, the League will now run anti-Obama ads featuring sick children, right?
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Hope you send this link to the League of Women Voters, Professor.
If you can get a puppy to stop pooping in the house by rubbing his nose in it accompanied with a gentle spank, surely these fine ladies can learn from the same treatment … sans the spank.
I don’t know.
Maybe they could use the spank, too.
We certainly have a mess in the White House that proves the League isn’t fully house broken.
They are too busy with pole dancing
Oh, by the way … seeing as Al Gore is now saying global warming skeptics are today’s racists, is it too early to call President Obama a racist?
“In a statement, President Obama said that the rule is being shelved because he is wary of imposing regulatory burdens during the economic recovery.”
Since when? I thought imposing regulatory burdens, tossing huge chunks of stimulus money to supporters and golfing was all he does as President.
This clears the way to layoffs at EPA since they no longer need to work on new regulations.
It would probably depend on which candidate they see as more likely implement their cause, just as we would expect the NRA to still support a candidate who voted in favor of a slight increase in gun regulations when running against a candidate who believes all privately owned guns should be banned.
…more likely to* implement …
Not sure about that. The NRA, for good or bad, does tend to stick to their one issue, protection of the 2nd Amendment (I believe they infamously supported Harry Reid over Sharron Angle, aupposedly because they were afraid that if Harry lost, Dick Durbin or Chuck Schumer would become Majority Leader, and they were worse on guns than Harry.) These other groups, though, are completely in the bag for Democrats. NAACP, League of Women Voters, etc. will always back the democrat against a Republican, evem if the Republican is a woman.
and yes, “evem” was supposed to be “even.” D’oh!
Very fair criticism, after reading their mission statement several times, I still have no idea what they stand for.
If the League of Women Voters runs an attack ad against Obama, I’ll need an umbrella to protect me from all the flying pigs.
Once again he tries to get everyone to look at the right hand while the left hand does the dirty work. Why out of the thousands and thousands of rules coming out of this administration every month…why did he suddently come out with this rule?
This is more election ginning up the base, big bad GOP making me do this since they won’t help me with jobs spending. They will picture the GOP as smog and coal and destroying the earth, and Gore’s racism charge and on it goes.
The one thing we can know for sure from Obama is that what the right hand is doing, is not what the left hand is doing and nothing is what it seems.
[…] something” without inflicting so much harm on the economy and our liberty.Related: Professor Jacobson is waiting for the “non-partisan” League of Women Voters to release an anti-Obama ad […]
“So to prove its non-partisanship, the League will now run anti-Obama ads featuring sick children, right?”
As Ann Coulter would say: ‘Riiiiiiiiiight.’
[…] Will League of Women Voters now run anti-Obama ads featuring sick children? […]