Some blogger posted on the right wing's elocutions on Libya.
“Ronald Reagan bombed Libya, if you want to be Reagan-esque, it seems the path is pretty clear here.”-Santorum
An original thinker, this bozo.
“I think a no-fly zone would be a good thing for the United States to do.”- Pawlenty
How? and Why?
“The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission, the no-fly zone should begin immediately.” -Gingrich
That's the spirit, Newt: let's do whatever the hell we want, start another war, and send other people's children to uphold the stupidity of your decisions. Quite presidential.
Huckabee says: “I think a no-fly zone would be absolute – yeah a no fly zone very important”
Yeah, Huck,
Palin adds: ”NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone” (at least she is not calling for unilateral intervention like the others)
How, and why?
Romney, Cain, Trump, Bachmann, Daniels, Huntsman, Barbour, Johnson, have all remained silent on the issue (as far as I could find).
Cain? Silence is golden, especially when one doesn't know squat about a topic.
Then, a breath of fresh air, someone who doesn’t think plunging our nation into yet another war is a great idea. That man, Ron Paul.
”It is my opinion that we should NOT…. go into Libya and impose a No Fly Zone. You have to remember, a No Fly Zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have to participate in war activity against Libya? …. There’s no constitutional authority for a President to willie nillie go and start placing No Fly Zones over countries around the world.”
John Quincy Adams said during an Independence day address (note: she=America):
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own”
Yes Gadhafi is a monster, but if we run around looking for monsters to destroy, we will never stop running. You see, monsters are everywhere, kill one, and another surfaces. We can no longer afford to search for monsters, to police the world. Adam’s had great advice, Ron Paul listens, will you?
Even though this blogger transforms Adams to Adam, it is still a valid point.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Nwet breaks out of the gate
Hardly two hours old, the nascent 2012 campaign of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has already been hit by its first embarrassment: It used of a stock photo for its website that first appeared on the website of the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, a liberal icon of the Democratic Party. The photo, of a multicultural crowd of smiling faces staring at the sky and waving flags, was meant to leave the impression that a huge and diverse group of Americans were lining up to support Mr. Gingrich and his wife, Callista, whose faces were superimposed over the crowd.
Callista, is that his third wife?
Go, Newt!
Callista, is that his third wife?
Go, Newt!
Can a fat man get elected president?
Our heaviest president was William Howard Taft, who, a hair shy of 6 feet tall, weighed well north of 300 pounds and won his single term before television or even newsreels. Since then, presidents have ranged from thin to hefty, but none could be described as fat.
Ours is an age when movie stars are admired for being thin (women) or well-toned (men), and, say some, set the standard for public appearance.
At 5 feet and 9-1/2 inches, Jimmy Carter was our shortest president since Harry Truman, who was 5-foot-9. Abraham Lincoln was the tallest president ever at 6-4, and James Madison the shortest at 5-4 (and lightest, at 100 pounds or less).
Ours is an age when movie stars are admired for being thin (women) or well-toned (men), and, say some, set the standard for public appearance.
At 5 feet and 9-1/2 inches, Jimmy Carter was our shortest president since Harry Truman, who was 5-foot-9. Abraham Lincoln was the tallest president ever at 6-4, and James Madison the shortest at 5-4 (and lightest, at 100 pounds or less).
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Presidential timber, or balsa wood?
Heilemann: Huckabee’s Obama-From-Kenya Statement Either ‘Sketch Comedy’ or ‘Grotesque Pandering’
His spokesman apologized, sort of,but he accomplished what he wanted: tell the right wing base that he agrees with their hate of Obama. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Michael Dale Huckabee is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican Party: He don’t get no respect. In poll after poll, the former Arkansas governor turned Fox News pundit rates as the most popular conservative public figure in the country. In December, a national Reuters Ipsos survey ranked him ahead, in ascending order, of Rush Limbaugh, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour, and Mitt Romney—as well as Barack Obama and David Petraeus—in terms of his net favorability rating. (The only person ahead of Huckabee? Hillary Clinton.) More recently, an array of polls of Republican voters have put him at or near the top of the heap among potential GOP presidential candidates. Privately, several of Obama’s top political advisers believe Huckabee would be the toughest opponent for their boss. And yet most professional Republicans dismiss him, deride him, or, most damning of all, simply ignore him.
Perhaps he is not hard-core enough, though by making the Kenya remark he seems to be trying to tack hard right.
The truth is, there are good reasons to believe that Huckabee, in the end, will decline to run—and in so doing will shape the Republican race almost as much as if he gets in. What interests me more than the implications of his decision, however, is the reasoning behind it, the factors he is weighing, and what his thinking says about the state of the GOP heading into 2012.
On the writing of a new book, Huckabee says, “I felt maybe there was a need to present some of them in a way that was not written for academics. This book was not designed so it would be a textbook at Harvard.” Perhaps he flatters himself a bit too much.
though Huckabee asserts in his introduction that he doesn’t “doubt for a minute that Barack Obama loves our country and wants to make it better,” this ostensible graciousness evaporates in the chapters that follow. “Among nations that are traditionally anti-American, President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings,” Huckabee writes at one point. “Why am I not surprised?”
What kind of logic is that?
for all the grassroots energy that the tea party is providing to the GOP right now, the party Establishment still reigns when it comes to the raising of campaign cash—and little that Huckabee has done since 2008 has improved his standing there.
Beyond questions of money, this last consideration—the dynamics that will be in play in the Republican nomination contest—is what is weighing most heavily on Huckabee’s mind. “I think I would have the best chance in the general election, because I offer the most distinct but not rancorous contrast against Obama,” he says. “But the Republican primary, I’m trying to figure out where it goes this time. If it’s going to be a search for a problem-solving pragmatist communicating kind of guy, that’s one thing. But if it’s going to be a purity contest of who’s the most gun-loving, the most anti-immigrant, the most pro-life, the most everything, it gets ridiculous.”
One can only hope that Republicans slash one another savagely, and make their primaries a test of ideological purity. I'm rooting for Bachman and Palin to get in; Romney will run against himself in trying to gain his right wing purity badge, as will Newt. O, the prospects almost make me salivate.
His spokesman apologized, sort of,but he accomplished what he wanted: tell the right wing base that he agrees with their hate of Obama. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Michael Dale Huckabee is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican Party: He don’t get no respect. In poll after poll, the former Arkansas governor turned Fox News pundit rates as the most popular conservative public figure in the country. In December, a national Reuters Ipsos survey ranked him ahead, in ascending order, of Rush Limbaugh, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour, and Mitt Romney—as well as Barack Obama and David Petraeus—in terms of his net favorability rating. (The only person ahead of Huckabee? Hillary Clinton.) More recently, an array of polls of Republican voters have put him at or near the top of the heap among potential GOP presidential candidates. Privately, several of Obama’s top political advisers believe Huckabee would be the toughest opponent for their boss. And yet most professional Republicans dismiss him, deride him, or, most damning of all, simply ignore him.
Perhaps he is not hard-core enough, though by making the Kenya remark he seems to be trying to tack hard right.
The truth is, there are good reasons to believe that Huckabee, in the end, will decline to run—and in so doing will shape the Republican race almost as much as if he gets in. What interests me more than the implications of his decision, however, is the reasoning behind it, the factors he is weighing, and what his thinking says about the state of the GOP heading into 2012.
On the writing of a new book, Huckabee says, “I felt maybe there was a need to present some of them in a way that was not written for academics. This book was not designed so it would be a textbook at Harvard.” Perhaps he flatters himself a bit too much.
though Huckabee asserts in his introduction that he doesn’t “doubt for a minute that Barack Obama loves our country and wants to make it better,” this ostensible graciousness evaporates in the chapters that follow. “Among nations that are traditionally anti-American, President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings,” Huckabee writes at one point. “Why am I not surprised?”
What kind of logic is that?
for all the grassroots energy that the tea party is providing to the GOP right now, the party Establishment still reigns when it comes to the raising of campaign cash—and little that Huckabee has done since 2008 has improved his standing there.
Beyond questions of money, this last consideration—the dynamics that will be in play in the Republican nomination contest—is what is weighing most heavily on Huckabee’s mind. “I think I would have the best chance in the general election, because I offer the most distinct but not rancorous contrast against Obama,” he says. “But the Republican primary, I’m trying to figure out where it goes this time. If it’s going to be a search for a problem-solving pragmatist communicating kind of guy, that’s one thing. But if it’s going to be a purity contest of who’s the most gun-loving, the most anti-immigrant, the most pro-life, the most everything, it gets ridiculous.”
One can only hope that Republicans slash one another savagely, and make their primaries a test of ideological purity. I'm rooting for Bachman and Palin to get in; Romney will run against himself in trying to gain his right wing purity badge, as will Newt. O, the prospects almost make me salivate.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Left breast? Right?
Perhaps it was inevitable that when Michelle Obama proposed something, Michele Bachmann would be the one to criticize her. The surprise is how many of the reactions crossed the usual political boundaries. On blogs and in interviews, some liberal Democrats found themselves agreeing with Representative Bachmann, a Tea Party celebrity from Minnesota, when she criticized the first lady for a campaign to promote breast-feeding. Some conservatives, meanwhile, stood up for Mrs. Obama for promoting what they said was a healthier choice.
What self-respecting liberal would deign to agree with this wingnut?
Mrs. Obama told reporters this month that she would promote breast-feeding, particularly among black women, as part of her campaign to reduce childhood obesity. The Internal Revenue Service then announced that breast pumps, which can cost several hundred dollars, would be eligible for tax breaks.
Ms. Bachmann lashed out at the campaign on Tuesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show, saying that it reflected a “hard left” position that “government is the answer to everything.” While noting that she had breast-fed the five children she gave birth to, Ms. Bachmann said, “To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump — You want to talk about nanny state, I think we just got a new definition.”
What about mortgage tax deduction, farm subsidies and other tax loopholes?
What self-respecting liberal would deign to agree with this wingnut?
Mrs. Obama told reporters this month that she would promote breast-feeding, particularly among black women, as part of her campaign to reduce childhood obesity. The Internal Revenue Service then announced that breast pumps, which can cost several hundred dollars, would be eligible for tax breaks.
Ms. Bachmann lashed out at the campaign on Tuesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show, saying that it reflected a “hard left” position that “government is the answer to everything.” While noting that she had breast-fed the five children she gave birth to, Ms. Bachmann said, “To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump — You want to talk about nanny state, I think we just got a new definition.”
What about mortgage tax deduction, farm subsidies and other tax loopholes?
Ms. Bachmann was wrong that Mrs. Obama wants the government to pay for breast pumps; the I.R.S. would simply allow people to deduct breast-feeding expenses if they itemize, or use the pre-tax dollars in their medical savings accounts to pay for pumps. And the federal government is now one of the biggest buyers of baby formula, through its nutritional programs for women and infant children. So giving a tax break for breast-feeding might actually help reduce government spending, as Ms. Bachmann advocates.
But why let facts get in the way?
By Thursday — perhaps, again, inevitably — Sarah Palin had weighed in. “No wonder Michelle Obama is telling everybody, ‘You better breast-feed your baby,’ ” she said at a speech on Long Island. “Yeah, you’d better, because the price of milk is so high right now.”
Another right wing jerk weighs in: what does the President, or the First Lady, have to do with the price of milk? Price supports are legislated by Congress.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Union busting
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, convening a two-day labor-management conference here on Tuesday, argued that teachers’ unions can help solve many of the challenges facing public schools. But as the conference opened, that view was under challenge in a number of state capitals.
Republicans in several states have proposed legislation in recent weeks that would bar teachers’ unions from all policy discussions, except when the time comes to negotiate compensation. In Tennessee and Wisconsin, Republicans have proposed stripping teachers’ unions of collective bargaining rights altogether.
The Fox right wing is intent on busting all unions. Their determination and anger at unions is surprising; unions are so limited in their power, but they must represent something that gets under their skin.
Education historians said the unions were facing the harshest political climate since states began extending legal bargaining rights to schoolteachers decades ago.
Republicans in several states have proposed legislation in recent weeks that would bar teachers’ unions from all policy discussions, except when the time comes to negotiate compensation. In Tennessee and Wisconsin, Republicans have proposed stripping teachers’ unions of collective bargaining rights altogether.
The Fox right wing is intent on busting all unions. Their determination and anger at unions is surprising; unions are so limited in their power, but they must represent something that gets under their skin.
Education historians said the unions were facing the harshest political climate since states began extending legal bargaining rights to schoolteachers decades ago.
AOLington Post
for anyone to feel betrayed by Arianna Huffington at this point is silly: The onetime Gingrich disciple has made a career out of serial reinvention; her latest transformation, from progressive doyenne to corporate contessa, is as predictable as it is lucrative. But what makes liberals’ reaction to Huffington’s supposed sellout even more ridiculous is the fact that the success of the Huffington Post had nothing to do with its politics. While the website may have started as “a liberal Drudge,” it has since become, in Shafer’s felicitous phrasing, an “SEO Speedwagon” — devoted to getting eyeballs any way it can, and specifically through search-engine baiting, aggressive aggregation that borders on theft, and slideshows of starlets that rival soft porn. This strategy has worked so well that, as Huffington herself notes, 85 percent of her site’s traffic now comes from nonpolitical content. (For once, she’s being sincere: No ideological cause drives a photomontage of “celebrity boob jobs.”)
She used to, I well remember, be married to Michael Huffington.
She used to, I well remember, be married to Michael Huffington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
