Dr. Asten: Maybe he was returning the favor...
Liberals are pissed at Connecticut senator, Joe Lieberman, for having legitimate opposition to the expansion of Medicare as a replacement for the "public" option. The anti-purity-test liberals of the Democratic base have declared the senator "Public Enemy #1" and have called on Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Jane Hamsher, of Firedoglake, issues a "cease and desist" letter to celebrities calling on them to stop donating to Susan G. Komen's "Race for the Cure" organization where Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, is the spokeswoman (I wonder how many women will die of breast cancer if Hamsher's hair-brained scheme goes as planned...). These liberals act as if Lieberman had bamboozled Senate Democrats into thinking he supported their idea of "reform," and all of a sudden, had a change of heart. The problem is that Joe has made his positions known for quite sometime (It IS true that liberals believe history began this morning...).
This may be a stretch, but I find it amazing how liberals believe the US should ensure terrorist suspects are afforded every comfort known to man under the misguided belief that by doing so, they'll be nicer to us and leave us the hell alone, but are up in arms at their belief that Senator Lieberman will just not be satisfied. To me, the problem is not Joe Lieberman, it is the Democratic Congressional leadership who misread the results of the 2008 election. Senator Lieberman is the latest scapegoat for Obamessiah's agenda stalling in Congress. In a few weeks, there'll be another one. Democrats, as evidenced by their "gay rights" faction, can't seem to blame themselves for not being able to judge election results accurately...
Just a few days ago, between blaming Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Matthew Yglesias at the Toilet Paper factory, felt it was the "incoherent institutional set-up" in the US Senate that guarantees failure. Absent are Yglesia's posts about this faulty "set-up" during the Bush Years, when Democrats championed the filibuster privilege in an attempt to stymie the former president's judicial appointees and other items on his agenda. Oddly, this "incoherent" set-up didn't prohibit other presidents and previous congresses from passing laws. I wonder why the world's smartest legislators and president haven't figured out what their predecessors did a long time ago. It all goes back to a recurring theme, they misread the mandate...
Some Democrats in Congress are learning the lesson and have decided to call it quits, rather than suffer either a primary or general election defeat next year. I wonder if liberals will have the same feelings about congressional Democrats retiring four at a time, as they did about Republicans retiring before the 2006 elections. Liberals saw those retirements in 2006 as rats jumping from Bush's sinking ship, but something tells me that liberals won't believe that about themselves...it's 'cause they think they're smarter than you. Heck, if a so-called "public" option fails in the Senate, many Democrats will sit the election out anyway. From the looks of it, many Dems will be at home catching the six o'clock news then...so it's win-win.
It's nice to see confident Democrats now losing sleep at night worried about their congressional majorities. I say, shoulda worried about that while they were demonizing the Tea Party protesters and their constituents during the August townhall meetings...
Have a great day...
14 December 2009
06 November 2009
Liberals: While the fire rages in the GOP, we'll light a few matches of our own...
...hopefully we won't burn ourselves up in the process...
Coming on the heels of liberals desire to continue being political ostriches, is the story that MoveOn.org is planning to primary Democratic moderates who don't care to return to the pot of ObamAid (Clutch the pearls!). The "Head Pat Media" wants the populace to focus on the non-existent "civil war" occurring in the GOP, while there's a bloodbath going on in the Democratic caucus. The idea that grassroots Republicans want conservatives to represent them seems problematic for the "Head Pat Media's" desire for a permanent Democratic majority.
My blogger friend, Zandar, decided to go after Allahpundit yesterday, claiming when Allah went after Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), he was wanting to purge the GOP of dissenting views. Allah, in agreement with Ace at AOSHQ, emphasizes there needs to be a bridge between conservatives and centrists. I challenge a liberal to find a conservative who believes there's no room in the conservative movement for people who are center-right, like yours truly (Hint: You won't find one...). If Zandar and other liberals' premise about the GOP is correct, will they be able to explain groups like GOPROUD and Log Cabin Republicans? Of course not, as that will disprove the assertion.
I don't mean to give campaign advice to Democrats, but if we keep hearing deluded commentary like this, then 2010 will definitely be a mess for the Democrats. If the idea to make the GOP more palatable to the electorate is to become more like Democrats, it would be foolhardy for Democrats to push their moderates to the GOP. Sure, liberals will trumpet the poll which shows party identification for the GOP at 20%, but that has more to do with the GOP forgetting their grassroots, instead of the GOP becoming extremists. It seems the elections this past Tuesday has caused a rightward shift in the GOP, to the consernation of many Dems (Even the delusional crowd who puzzingly see Democrats increasing their majorities next year...).
Right now, there is a blood bath in the Democratic party over ObamaCare. Moderate Democrats, the ones slated for the slaughter by MoveOn.org, are up in arms over the public option being used to cover abortions (Even though liberals insisted that the Hyde Amendment would prevent such coverage, but in truth, it limits that prohibition to MediCare) and the certainty that whatever bill the Pelosi/Reid/Obama cabal agree to, will blow up the deficit. Instead of realizing the real threats, Democrats and liberals would rather focus on the NY-23 win this past Tuesday, to bolster the stupid claim that the Republican party is suffering from a civil war...and boo hoo over Tom Price (R-GA) preventing a congresswoman from "speaking" (Something tells me that John Aravosis wasn't too concerned about Republicans being literally locked out of deliberations during an investigation into Countrywide Financial...).
Don't you just LOOOOVE selective outrage coming from liberals?!
National Review has a list of 55 nervous Democrats, but remember...the "Head Pat Media" wants you to think it's only the GOP that has problems with moderates, when it's the moderates who have a problem with the conservatives...not the other way 'round. Democrats celebrated Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party in March, while the rest of us felt he just made it official, as he had been courting Democrats for years.
Have a great weekend!
Coming on the heels of liberals desire to continue being political ostriches, is the story that MoveOn.org is planning to primary Democratic moderates who don't care to return to the pot of ObamAid (Clutch the pearls!). The "Head Pat Media" wants the populace to focus on the non-existent "civil war" occurring in the GOP, while there's a bloodbath going on in the Democratic caucus. The idea that grassroots Republicans want conservatives to represent them seems problematic for the "Head Pat Media's" desire for a permanent Democratic majority.
My blogger friend, Zandar, decided to go after Allahpundit yesterday, claiming when Allah went after Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), he was wanting to purge the GOP of dissenting views. Allah, in agreement with Ace at AOSHQ, emphasizes there needs to be a bridge between conservatives and centrists. I challenge a liberal to find a conservative who believes there's no room in the conservative movement for people who are center-right, like yours truly (Hint: You won't find one...). If Zandar and other liberals' premise about the GOP is correct, will they be able to explain groups like GOPROUD and Log Cabin Republicans? Of course not, as that will disprove the assertion.
I don't mean to give campaign advice to Democrats, but if we keep hearing deluded commentary like this, then 2010 will definitely be a mess for the Democrats. If the idea to make the GOP more palatable to the electorate is to become more like Democrats, it would be foolhardy for Democrats to push their moderates to the GOP. Sure, liberals will trumpet the poll which shows party identification for the GOP at 20%, but that has more to do with the GOP forgetting their grassroots, instead of the GOP becoming extremists. It seems the elections this past Tuesday has caused a rightward shift in the GOP, to the consernation of many Dems (Even the delusional crowd who puzzingly see Democrats increasing their majorities next year...).
Right now, there is a blood bath in the Democratic party over ObamaCare. Moderate Democrats, the ones slated for the slaughter by MoveOn.org, are up in arms over the public option being used to cover abortions (Even though liberals insisted that the Hyde Amendment would prevent such coverage, but in truth, it limits that prohibition to MediCare) and the certainty that whatever bill the Pelosi/Reid/Obama cabal agree to, will blow up the deficit. Instead of realizing the real threats, Democrats and liberals would rather focus on the NY-23 win this past Tuesday, to bolster the stupid claim that the Republican party is suffering from a civil war...and boo hoo over Tom Price (R-GA) preventing a congresswoman from "speaking" (Something tells me that John Aravosis wasn't too concerned about Republicans being literally locked out of deliberations during an investigation into Countrywide Financial...).
Don't you just LOOOOVE selective outrage coming from liberals?!
National Review has a list of 55 nervous Democrats, but remember...the "Head Pat Media" wants you to think it's only the GOP that has problems with moderates, when it's the moderates who have a problem with the conservatives...not the other way 'round. Democrats celebrated Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party in March, while the rest of us felt he just made it official, as he had been courting Democrats for years.
Have a great weekend!
Liberals: Hey, let's put our fingers in our ear and shout at the top of our lungs...
...that's more important than acknowledging the real problems...
As I was leaving work yesterday, I learned of the tragic shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas. I prayed and continue to pray for the families of the fallen and wounded, as well as the victims themselves. I even pray for the shooter(s), because even they need comfort during this dark time. Though the shooter in everyone's focus, Major Malik Nadal Hassan, is Muslim, this should not be turned into an indictment of all Muslims.
Liberals, who jump at every tragedy and attempt to tie it to conservatives, are urging caution and are issuing citations at righties, whom they believe, have already convicted Major Hassan. According to several sources, Major Hassan, routinely expressed his disdain for theGlobal War on Terror effort to rid the world of "man-caused disasters." He felt Muslims should not fight other Muslims and championed the cause of suicide bombers, likening them to the heroic acts of US Military members who give their lives for their units (I'm starting to get sick...seriously). From the looks of it, Major Hassan comes from a long list of Muslim extremists who routinely infiltrate the US Military. It's a problem that plagues the military, but it is equally difficult to administer a psychological screening to successfully weed people like this out. If someone REALLY wants to join the military, they'll lie in order to do it.
"Cautious" liberals routinely overlook the obvious because they have difficulty in condemning truely evil acts when they occur. Let me explain. In the aftermath of September 11th, liberals issued citations to those who recognized that the murderers were extremists, who happened to be Muslim. Despite then-President Bush and other conservatives' insistence that our future contingency in Afghanistan would not be a reincarnation of the Crusades, liberals felt that we were, indeed, attacking Muslims for killing almost 3,000 US citizens. They felt we should inconvenience my 80 year old grandmother as much as we should a man or woman who buys flammable material, has no luggage, and carries a Qu'ran. They instead focus on another subject which, in many cases, is immaterial...like Major Hassan having PTSD, even though he never deployed to the Middle East.
Equally outrageous is President Obama's two minute wait to acknowledge the shooting (Silly fool, he had to get his "shoutouts" out de way ;-)):
Laura Ingraham calls it our first terrorist attack since 9/11...
More details will be forthcoming...you can follow updates here
Have a great day...
As I was leaving work yesterday, I learned of the tragic shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas. I prayed and continue to pray for the families of the fallen and wounded, as well as the victims themselves. I even pray for the shooter(s), because even they need comfort during this dark time. Though the shooter in everyone's focus, Major Malik Nadal Hassan, is Muslim, this should not be turned into an indictment of all Muslims.
Liberals, who jump at every tragedy and attempt to tie it to conservatives, are urging caution and are issuing citations at righties, whom they believe, have already convicted Major Hassan. According to several sources, Major Hassan, routinely expressed his disdain for the
"Cautious" liberals routinely overlook the obvious because they have difficulty in condemning truely evil acts when they occur. Let me explain. In the aftermath of September 11th, liberals issued citations to those who recognized that the murderers were extremists, who happened to be Muslim. Despite then-President Bush and other conservatives' insistence that our future contingency in Afghanistan would not be a reincarnation of the Crusades, liberals felt that we were, indeed, attacking Muslims for killing almost 3,000 US citizens. They felt we should inconvenience my 80 year old grandmother as much as we should a man or woman who buys flammable material, has no luggage, and carries a Qu'ran. They instead focus on another subject which, in many cases, is immaterial...like Major Hassan having PTSD, even though he never deployed to the Middle East.
Equally outrageous is President Obama's two minute wait to acknowledge the shooting (Silly fool, he had to get his "shoutouts" out de way ;-)):
Laura Ingraham calls it our first terrorist attack since 9/11...
More details will be forthcoming...you can follow updates here
Have a great day...
05 November 2009
The return of Dr. Asten...
he was out, not down
There have been many a news item that transpired during my hiatus that I was itching to comment on. Unfortunately, the news is so old now that my comments are now irrelevant, but I have kept up to date with the issues and have often left little tidbits on my Twitter page.
First off, I would like to say that it is encouraging that the bloom has come off the Obamarose. People are slowly realizing that almost a year ago, 52% of the electorate voted for a guy who is clearly in over his head. The ObamaCare bill, now in its second incarnation, is still up for debate, Cap-n-Tax is stalled in the US Senate, and Iran is still playing Obama for a fool (Life is great, isn't it?). Republicans, who had been marginalized as a regional party in the minds of liberals, picked up two governorships, despite Obamessiah's reliance on his cult personality. Liberals would love to continue to spin those two elections as non-referenda on Obama's becoming the White House's Megan Fox, while championing a "pickup" in a New York district that hasn't seen a Democrat representative in 16 years. Oddly, the Republican and the conservative candidate, in that election, picked up more votes than the Democrat.
The idea was to show how candidates who ally with the Tea Party Movement will be on the losing end of any future elections. The same group that continues to portray legitimate criticism as "unpatriotic" claim that Doug Hoffman's loss in Tuesday's election was a referendum on Sarah Palin-style conservatism. Back here in the real world, the Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Laura Ingrahams, et al, brought a virtual no one to within 4 percentage points of beating his Democratic contender. This is interpreted by many of the Beltway Republican types as a wakeup call to avoid choosing squishes like Scozzafava for future races. Of course liberals want the GOP to heed the advice of Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) because they want to advance their agenda. They understand that the RNC nominating moderate squishes is a guaranteed win for Democrats. I would call on the RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC to stop taking advice from liberals.
What happened Tuesday is causing some conservative Democrats to become skiddish about supporting the wishes of San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid. The nutroots are demanding congressional Democrats shove their unpopular policies down the throats of the electorate, because somehow these moderate Democrats should have the assurance that the White House and the DNC will have their backs come this time next year. I say, a congresscritter has to answer to their constituent...not Tim Kaine and Barack Obama. Democrats can ignore the results of Tuesday at the peril of their congressional majorities, which is fine by me. The people have spoken, just as they have time and time again. We all remember what happened when the Republicans ignore the will of the people in 2006, right?! Democrats still herald that result, like Rahm Emmanuel did about governors races in 2005 (Damn that Spirit of Spin Past).
Meanwhile, the Toilet Paper goes back to the meme that all Tea Partiers are crazy nutjobs...apparently, the Tea Party's strategy is working, if they can get all this consternation from Toilet Paper...
Have a great day!
There have been many a news item that transpired during my hiatus that I was itching to comment on. Unfortunately, the news is so old now that my comments are now irrelevant, but I have kept up to date with the issues and have often left little tidbits on my Twitter page.
First off, I would like to say that it is encouraging that the bloom has come off the Obamarose. People are slowly realizing that almost a year ago, 52% of the electorate voted for a guy who is clearly in over his head. The ObamaCare bill, now in its second incarnation, is still up for debate, Cap-n-Tax is stalled in the US Senate, and Iran is still playing Obama for a fool (Life is great, isn't it?). Republicans, who had been marginalized as a regional party in the minds of liberals, picked up two governorships, despite Obamessiah's reliance on his cult personality. Liberals would love to continue to spin those two elections as non-referenda on Obama's becoming the White House's Megan Fox, while championing a "pickup" in a New York district that hasn't seen a Democrat representative in 16 years. Oddly, the Republican and the conservative candidate, in that election, picked up more votes than the Democrat.
The idea was to show how candidates who ally with the Tea Party Movement will be on the losing end of any future elections. The same group that continues to portray legitimate criticism as "unpatriotic" claim that Doug Hoffman's loss in Tuesday's election was a referendum on Sarah Palin-style conservatism. Back here in the real world, the Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Laura Ingrahams, et al, brought a virtual no one to within 4 percentage points of beating his Democratic contender. This is interpreted by many of the Beltway Republican types as a wakeup call to avoid choosing squishes like Scozzafava for future races. Of course liberals want the GOP to heed the advice of Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) because they want to advance their agenda. They understand that the RNC nominating moderate squishes is a guaranteed win for Democrats. I would call on the RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC to stop taking advice from liberals.
What happened Tuesday is causing some conservative Democrats to become skiddish about supporting the wishes of San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid. The nutroots are demanding congressional Democrats shove their unpopular policies down the throats of the electorate, because somehow these moderate Democrats should have the assurance that the White House and the DNC will have their backs come this time next year. I say, a congresscritter has to answer to their constituent...not Tim Kaine and Barack Obama. Democrats can ignore the results of Tuesday at the peril of their congressional majorities, which is fine by me. The people have spoken, just as they have time and time again. We all remember what happened when the Republicans ignore the will of the people in 2006, right?! Democrats still herald that result, like Rahm Emmanuel did about governors races in 2005 (Damn that Spirit of Spin Past).
Meanwhile, the Toilet Paper goes back to the meme that all Tea Partiers are crazy nutjobs...apparently, the Tea Party's strategy is working, if they can get all this consternation from Toilet Paper...
Have a great day!
20 August 2009
Victor Davis Hanson: Hillary should have realized the obvious much sooner...
...and should jump ship before it's too late...
In one of my blogposts on MySpace, I said with great conviction, that I would ne-VUH, EVUH vote for Senator John S. McCain. I could not understand how he was so successful in the Republican primaries last year, especially since a majority of conservatives had shown him very little respect. I continued to be dumbfounded as my first prediction, second, and subsequent favs had all dropped out due to McCain's seemingly unstoppable machine. I was also watching the Democratic primaries, and hoping that Hillary Clinton would emerge victorious against one weak-willed candidate and a weaker-willed Glass Joe. If Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary, I'd vote a Democrat for president for the first time since 2000. Well, it was not to be and we had the fortune (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of having a media anointed "maverick" compete against the media anointed "Golden Child."
I joked with my coworkers that I'd be placing my finger next to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, until Sarah Palin was named John McCain's running mate. Her speech at the Republican National Committee made me feel great to be an Amurican, in stark contrast to Barack Obama's, which apologized to the rest of the world for having been born in Amurica. I voted for Sarah Palin and her running mate in the hopes that her conservatism would keep McCain from further destroying his conservative bonafides. Again, my sinister plan was thwarted and Barry-O was victorious. I thought his choice to keep Robert Gates as SECDEF was a very good move, and would seek to provide him cover against conservatives who thought he'd foul up our successes on the "war" front. I also respected, and applauded, his choice to make former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State. To me, she comes across as an advocate for strong national security, and an advocate for a tough, but smart, foreign policy. So far, from what it seems, and as Hanson reiterates, Clinton's mark on the office is being impeded by Obama's Apology Tours and the incessant number of policy czars and roving ambassadors, whose role usually fall to the Secretary of State.
I believe this move by Obama, outside of his effort to fool the electorate into believing he's a moderate, was to stymie another primary challenge from Clinton in 2012. I believe that if Obama's ratings continue to drop, he will have to do more than marginalize Clinton to prevent a more moderate Democrat from besting him in the primary. It is becoming clearer to the electorate that the moderate Obama they supported, is not the Obama occupying the White House. So far, it seems even liberals are willing to dump Obama, according to Ed Schultz, but not because they agree with Republicans, but that Obama The Liberal isn't being liberal enough.
Beneath all the hype surrounding ObamaCare, there is an issue on which conservatives seem to agree with Obama. His prosecution of the War on Terror in the Afghan theater is supported by more Republicans than Democrats, according to a February 2009Gallup poll. Democrats, on the other hand, now believe Afghanistan is not worth fighting anymore, which is not what we heard from liberals' wailing about Iraq. Between their calls for Operation Iraqi Freedom supporters to enlist, liberals repeated the charge that BushCo had taken their eyes off the ball by invading Iraq. While I think it's over the top to accuse liberals of being wimps on terror, it does seem that their opposition to Iraq lie in the fact that they opposed an issue because Bush supported it.
I was dogged in my support of Iraq and I will remain dogged in my support of Afghanistan. The more we keep the terrorists wondering if today will be their last, the safer our nation. The situation in Iraq looked bleak before President Bush announced the surge, and since then, the situation has remarkably improved. The same will occur in Afghanistan. Things get worse before they get better.
Have a great day...
In one of my blogposts on MySpace, I said with great conviction, that I would ne-VUH, EVUH vote for Senator John S. McCain. I could not understand how he was so successful in the Republican primaries last year, especially since a majority of conservatives had shown him very little respect. I continued to be dumbfounded as my first prediction, second, and subsequent favs had all dropped out due to McCain's seemingly unstoppable machine. I was also watching the Democratic primaries, and hoping that Hillary Clinton would emerge victorious against one weak-willed candidate and a weaker-willed Glass Joe. If Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary, I'd vote a Democrat for president for the first time since 2000. Well, it was not to be and we had the fortune (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of having a media anointed "maverick" compete against the media anointed "Golden Child."
I joked with my coworkers that I'd be placing my finger next to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, until Sarah Palin was named John McCain's running mate. Her speech at the Republican National Committee made me feel great to be an Amurican, in stark contrast to Barack Obama's, which apologized to the rest of the world for having been born in Amurica. I voted for Sarah Palin and her running mate in the hopes that her conservatism would keep McCain from further destroying his conservative bonafides. Again, my sinister plan was thwarted and Barry-O was victorious. I thought his choice to keep Robert Gates as SECDEF was a very good move, and would seek to provide him cover against conservatives who thought he'd foul up our successes on the "war" front. I also respected, and applauded, his choice to make former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State. To me, she comes across as an advocate for strong national security, and an advocate for a tough, but smart, foreign policy. So far, from what it seems, and as Hanson reiterates, Clinton's mark on the office is being impeded by Obama's Apology Tours and the incessant number of policy czars and roving ambassadors, whose role usually fall to the Secretary of State.
I believe this move by Obama, outside of his effort to fool the electorate into believing he's a moderate, was to stymie another primary challenge from Clinton in 2012. I believe that if Obama's ratings continue to drop, he will have to do more than marginalize Clinton to prevent a more moderate Democrat from besting him in the primary. It is becoming clearer to the electorate that the moderate Obama they supported, is not the Obama occupying the White House. So far, it seems even liberals are willing to dump Obama, according to Ed Schultz, but not because they agree with Republicans, but that Obama The Liberal isn't being liberal enough.
Beneath all the hype surrounding ObamaCare, there is an issue on which conservatives seem to agree with Obama. His prosecution of the War on Terror in the Afghan theater is supported by more Republicans than Democrats, according to a February 2009Gallup poll. Democrats, on the other hand, now believe Afghanistan is not worth fighting anymore, which is not what we heard from liberals' wailing about Iraq. Between their calls for Operation Iraqi Freedom supporters to enlist, liberals repeated the charge that BushCo had taken their eyes off the ball by invading Iraq. While I think it's over the top to accuse liberals of being wimps on terror, it does seem that their opposition to Iraq lie in the fact that they opposed an issue because Bush supported it.
I was dogged in my support of Iraq and I will remain dogged in my support of Afghanistan. The more we keep the terrorists wondering if today will be their last, the safer our nation. The situation in Iraq looked bleak before President Bush announced the surge, and since then, the situation has remarkably improved. The same will occur in Afghanistan. Things get worse before they get better.
Have a great day...
Democrats in 2001-2008: Namecalling against your opponents is a sign of your patriotic duty to dissent!
Democrats in 2009: Namecalling is un-Amurican!
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.Only now, are we seeing these liberal revisionists claiming they condemned the rhetoric of their ideological cohorts during the Bush years. They're still under this delusion that each and every protester who brings a gun to an Obama event is a GOP operative. In some cases, they attribute one of their own to the Right. If this behavior is being criticized by liberals now, then it should be criticized when a Republican is targeted. But liberals are counting on the electorate to believe their lies...
Have a great day...
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.
Have a great day...
19 August 2009
Democrats: We're gonna take our ball and go home...
...and whine about Republican "obstructionism..."
Feeling the heat from not only their constituencies and Congressional Republicans, Democrats seem hellbent on doing something to save their political asses for next year's midterms. It has been President Obama who made ObamaCare the keystone of his presidency, and by god, he's going to call on Congressional Democrats to get something on his desk before the year's out. According to the Politico, it has been Obama who's been adamant about excluding Republican alternatives to his ObamaCare plan. We recall during the Porkulus "debate," how Obama attacked GOP strawmen and Rush Limbaugh by telling the GOP that they had to stop listening to him in order to get things done...and that "he won."
The New York Times is reporting Senate Democrats are mulling the use of a 1974 Senate rule, "reconciliation," to force a simple majority vote on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey notes the difficulty Democrats will experience if they decide to go this route. Meanwhile, liberals whine that it has been used by Republicans before, except in this case, a majority of the electorate don't support the legislation being considered for "reconciliation." I would presume that if Democrats went ahead with this, they'll pay a political price next year. A better strategy is to listen and seriously consider Republican proposals and cease with the demagoguery.
One can always deduce the motive behind Democratic attempts to ramrod this crap down the throat of Amuricans. Bloomberg is reporting that an ad agency that is creating ads to garner support for ObamaCare owes Senior White House Advisor, David "Astroturf" Axelrod, money and happens to employ his son. Don't expect liberals to cry foul, as they did when Halliburton received contracts for work in Iraq, claiming Cheney's involvement was a conflict-of-interest. Take a sniff...Democrat projection always has that funny smell. Who is it that Democrats claim are on the take again?!?!
It isn't only Republicans who are having drawbacks to this bill. Conservative Democrats continue to have problems with it, and their constituency is continuing to make them aware of their opposition. I'm willing to bet that if the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party mollified the more conservative members, they'll peel some Republicans as well. The more the bill seeks to placate leftists, instead of all Amuricans, the more willing the opposition feels determined to kill the bill.
It's not that Republicans had no ideas, it's just their ideas weren't considered...
Have a great day...
Feeling the heat from not only their constituencies and Congressional Republicans, Democrats seem hellbent on doing something to save their political asses for next year's midterms. It has been President Obama who made ObamaCare the keystone of his presidency, and by god, he's going to call on Congressional Democrats to get something on his desk before the year's out. According to the Politico, it has been Obama who's been adamant about excluding Republican alternatives to his ObamaCare plan. We recall during the Porkulus "debate," how Obama attacked GOP strawmen and Rush Limbaugh by telling the GOP that they had to stop listening to him in order to get things done...and that "he won."
The New York Times is reporting Senate Democrats are mulling the use of a 1974 Senate rule, "reconciliation," to force a simple majority vote on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey notes the difficulty Democrats will experience if they decide to go this route. Meanwhile, liberals whine that it has been used by Republicans before, except in this case, a majority of the electorate don't support the legislation being considered for "reconciliation." I would presume that if Democrats went ahead with this, they'll pay a political price next year. A better strategy is to listen and seriously consider Republican proposals and cease with the demagoguery.
One can always deduce the motive behind Democratic attempts to ramrod this crap down the throat of Amuricans. Bloomberg is reporting that an ad agency that is creating ads to garner support for ObamaCare owes Senior White House Advisor, David "Astroturf" Axelrod, money and happens to employ his son. Don't expect liberals to cry foul, as they did when Halliburton received contracts for work in Iraq, claiming Cheney's involvement was a conflict-of-interest. Take a sniff...Democrat projection always has that funny smell. Who is it that Democrats claim are on the take again?!?!
It isn't only Republicans who are having drawbacks to this bill. Conservative Democrats continue to have problems with it, and their constituency is continuing to make them aware of their opposition. I'm willing to bet that if the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party mollified the more conservative members, they'll peel some Republicans as well. The more the bill seeks to placate leftists, instead of all Amuricans, the more willing the opposition feels determined to kill the bill.
It's not that Republicans had no ideas, it's just their ideas weren't considered...
Have a great day...
Eric Boehlert: The media is in the tank for the "reich-wing fascists..."
...and the Easter Bunny is real...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
18 August 2009
Dr. Asten: And speaking about marginalizing dissent...
...here's Mark Karlin!
It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).
I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings
Anti-death penalty advocates are using this case to show how disparate the application of the death penalty is. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, even if the Supreme's decision didn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The question at the heart of the decision is whether it is constitutional for a court to conduct a new trial for a defendant who was previously convicted, yet found evidence to prove he's innocent. The only ones who are able to make that determination is the jury or the judge hearing the case. Someone else tell Alex Koppelman...
If the new evidence exonerates Davis, good for him. The justice system prevails once again, but if it doesn't, the justice system prevails once again. Because a man presents new evidence does not exonerate him automatically, so I would caution those who are making Troy Davis their cause célèbre to wait until the new case is decided...otherwise, they'll continue to look foolish.
Have a great day...
It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).
I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings
Anti-death penalty advocates are using this case to show how disparate the application of the death penalty is. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, even if the Supreme's decision didn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The question at the heart of the decision is whether it is constitutional for a court to conduct a new trial for a defendant who was previously convicted, yet found evidence to prove he's innocent. The only ones who are able to make that determination is the jury or the judge hearing the case. Someone else tell Alex Koppelman...
If the new evidence exonerates Davis, good for him. The justice system prevails once again, but if it doesn't, the justice system prevails once again. Because a man presents new evidence does not exonerate him automatically, so I would caution those who are making Troy Davis their cause célèbre to wait until the new case is decided...otherwise, they'll continue to look foolish.
Have a great day...
Digby: Replacing conservative Democrats in conservative districts is a win for Obama...
...and Republicans are stupid!
DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.
Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.
Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.
Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.
But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!
Have a great day...
DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.
Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.
Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.
Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.
But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)