Calling all minorities! Calling all minorities! Michael Steele is seeking soul brothers and soul sisters to serve as Republican delegates!
According to Politico’s Andy Barr, RNC Chairman Michelle Steele is asking Florida Republicans to send delegates of color to the next Republican National Convention.
“Could you help a brother out? No more national conventions with 36 people of color in the room,” Steele reportedly told fellow Republicans on Monday. “Please send some folks to the convention that look like Florida.
Steele also informed members of his party that it was “time to get busy” and open up a can of whoop-ass on the Democrats, who appear to have the upper hand so far in the Sunshine State’s voter registration battle.
“We want to turn around those voter registration numbers. We want to turn around the turnout. And we want to keep Florida competitive for the Republican Party and not cede any ground, any area or any vote to the Democrats,” he said.
While I applaud Mr. Steele’s efforts to diversify the Grand Old White Man’s Party, he may have some difficulty with this task. According to the most recent census, only 55 nonwhite Americans identify themselves as Republican. However, all is not lost.
NASA reports indicate the existence of a large colony of minority Republicans located somewhere on the outer rings of Neptune. By all accounts, this is a truly remarkable discovery. Veteran astronomers are saying they have never seen anything like it in their entire lives.
If Steele and his amigos can get a spaceship out there by the end of the fiscal year, they may be able to bring back some of these extraterrestrials in time for the next GOP convention.
If this doesn’t work, maybe Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Cal Thomas, and others from the Right will agree to show up at the convention in blackface.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Give It Up, Newt, You’ll Never be POTUS
Former House Speaker and American(-Israeli?) Likudnik Newt Gingrich is apparently using the crisis with North Korea to launch his 2012 presidential campaign.
In a recent discussion with Politico readers via a live reader chat on the news site’s forum, Gingrich – also known as The Grinch to his fervent admirers on the Left – blasted President Obama, saying his response to the recent North Korean missile launch was a “vivid demonstration of weakness in foreign policy.” He went on to describe the commander-in-chief’s call for nuclear arms reduction as, “a dangerous fantasy that runs an enormous risk. ... Not since Jimmy Carter have we had an administration this out of touch with reality.”
During the online conversation, Gingrich also backed former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent claim that the Obama administration’s terrorism policies were making Americans less safe. “Dick Cheney is clearly right in saying that between the court decisions about terrorists and the administration actions, the United States is running greater risks of getting attacked than we were under President Bush,” said the former Republican congressman.
“Now we no longer have a ‘global war on terror. We have ‘overseas contingency operations’ Now we will no longer have ‘terrorist attacks.’ We will have ‘man-made disasters.’ None of our enemies seem to have learned this new language.
“There was amazing symbolism in North Korea deciding to launch a missile the very day President Obama was speaking to Europeans about his fantasy of nuclear disarmament. The West has talked with North Korea for over 15 years and they just keep building nuclear weapons and missiles. We have been talking with the Iranians for a decade and they continue to build nuclear capability and missiles.
“Pakistan has a lot of nuclear weapons. Russia, India and China have nuclear weapons. Hamas in Gaza fires missiles into Israel virtually every day. In this reality, our president proposes we have a big meeting in Washington to discuss nuclear disarmament.”
When one reader pointed out that former president and conservative icon Ronald Reagan also proposed mutual reductions in nuclear weapons, Gingrich responded by saying, ”Ronald Reagan believed we had to have a missile defense system to stop any country from breaking free and blackmailing other countries. Reagan was also talking at a time when there were only five nuclear powers (the Soviet Union, China, France, Britain, the United States).
“Reagan would have been much more skeptical about a plan in an age of North Korean, Iranian and Pakistani nuclear developments. How do you apply his slogan of ‘trust but verify’ in dictatorships you can't trust and can't verify?
"Reagan felt that keeping a defensive shield alive was more important than a paper deal. The Obama administration is rapidly undermining our missile defense system while describing a fantasy world of trust and cooperation.”
Gingrich also took shots at Obama’s handling of the auto industry crisis, saying, “The concept of the president of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury dictating the firing of the head of General Motors is an extraordinary extension of government power. ... The directed rewriting of the Justice Department career lawyers' opinion that the District of Columbia representation bill was unconstitutional is another example of the rule of politicians replacing the rule of law. There is a lot to be concerned about.”
Okay, I’ve had enough of this malarkey. Give it up, lizard. Obama may be no Abraham Lincoln, but there is no way in hell the American people will elect you as their commander-in-chief.
If conservatives make this philandering hypocrite their standard-bearer in ’12, then they have absolutely no principles or integrity. Not that it matters. Newt has always struck me as one of those people who may run for the big job one or more times, but never makes it. And Thank Dumblefore for that, because, more than anyone else, The Grinch would make this country less safe.
In a recent discussion with Politico readers via a live reader chat on the news site’s forum, Gingrich – also known as The Grinch to his fervent admirers on the Left – blasted President Obama, saying his response to the recent North Korean missile launch was a “vivid demonstration of weakness in foreign policy.” He went on to describe the commander-in-chief’s call for nuclear arms reduction as, “a dangerous fantasy that runs an enormous risk. ... Not since Jimmy Carter have we had an administration this out of touch with reality.”
During the online conversation, Gingrich also backed former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent claim that the Obama administration’s terrorism policies were making Americans less safe. “Dick Cheney is clearly right in saying that between the court decisions about terrorists and the administration actions, the United States is running greater risks of getting attacked than we were under President Bush,” said the former Republican congressman.
“Now we no longer have a ‘global war on terror. We have ‘overseas contingency operations’ Now we will no longer have ‘terrorist attacks.’ We will have ‘man-made disasters.’ None of our enemies seem to have learned this new language.
“There was amazing symbolism in North Korea deciding to launch a missile the very day President Obama was speaking to Europeans about his fantasy of nuclear disarmament. The West has talked with North Korea for over 15 years and they just keep building nuclear weapons and missiles. We have been talking with the Iranians for a decade and they continue to build nuclear capability and missiles.
“Pakistan has a lot of nuclear weapons. Russia, India and China have nuclear weapons. Hamas in Gaza fires missiles into Israel virtually every day. In this reality, our president proposes we have a big meeting in Washington to discuss nuclear disarmament.”
When one reader pointed out that former president and conservative icon Ronald Reagan also proposed mutual reductions in nuclear weapons, Gingrich responded by saying, ”Ronald Reagan believed we had to have a missile defense system to stop any country from breaking free and blackmailing other countries. Reagan was also talking at a time when there were only five nuclear powers (the Soviet Union, China, France, Britain, the United States).
“Reagan would have been much more skeptical about a plan in an age of North Korean, Iranian and Pakistani nuclear developments. How do you apply his slogan of ‘trust but verify’ in dictatorships you can't trust and can't verify?
"Reagan felt that keeping a defensive shield alive was more important than a paper deal. The Obama administration is rapidly undermining our missile defense system while describing a fantasy world of trust and cooperation.”
Gingrich also took shots at Obama’s handling of the auto industry crisis, saying, “The concept of the president of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury dictating the firing of the head of General Motors is an extraordinary extension of government power. ... The directed rewriting of the Justice Department career lawyers' opinion that the District of Columbia representation bill was unconstitutional is another example of the rule of politicians replacing the rule of law. There is a lot to be concerned about.”
Okay, I’ve had enough of this malarkey. Give it up, lizard. Obama may be no Abraham Lincoln, but there is no way in hell the American people will elect you as their commander-in-chief.
If conservatives make this philandering hypocrite their standard-bearer in ’12, then they have absolutely no principles or integrity. Not that it matters. Newt has always struck me as one of those people who may run for the big job one or more times, but never makes it. And Thank Dumblefore for that, because, more than anyone else, The Grinch would make this country less safe.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Poll: American Voters Have Lost Their Minds With Regard to N. Korea
Should the U.S. government use military force to prevent North Korean dictator Kim Jong-ill (No, that’s not a typo!) from acquiring nuclear weapons capability? Apparently the American people think so.
Politico’s Harry Siegel reports, “American voters across lines of age, party and gender support a military approach to eliminate North Korea's nuclear capabilities, according to a Rasmussen Reports survey released Sunday morning — and conducted in the two days prior to North Korea's test missile launch on Saturday.”
There could only be two explanations for this unbelievable development. Either Americans don’t understand the real situation with North Korea or they have simply lost their minds. More on that in a moment.
According to the poll, 57 percent of the public would support the Obama administration if it decided to go with the military option. Only 15 percent oppose such a move. Also, the use of military action enjoys broad support in both major parties: 66 percent, or two-thirds, of Republicans, and 52 percent of Democrats. The military option is favored by 57 percent of Americans of both genders.
”A majority of respondents, 51 percent, also oppose the U.S. offering economic aid to North Korea in exchange for it agreeing to dismantle its nuclear program,” Siegel writes.
On Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a man who never misses an opportunity for a little grandstanding, informed “Fox News Sunday” that had he been the commander-in-chief instead of Barack Obama, he would have “disabled” the North Korean missile before it had a chance to launch.
As much as I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, we cannot afford to start a war with North Korea for two reasons.
The first reason is that the U.S. military has its hands full with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention thousands of troops in dozens of other countries around the world and security commitments up the wazoo.
The second reason has to do with North Korea’s military. It is estimated that the Korean People’s Army has around 1.2 million personnel in its active duty force, and another 7.7 million serving in its auxiliary components. It is also believed by many experts that President Ill commands one of the largest special operations forces in the world, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to well over 100,000 personnel.
This is not Saddam Hussein’s peasant army we’re talking about here. These guys do nothing but train for war. Approximately 20 percent of all North Korean males aged 17-54 are serving in the regular army. Each year, President Ill’s military eats up over 30 percent of his country’s GDP, a fact which makes this “Democratic People’s Republic” the world’s most militarized state.
How does war with North Korea sound now? Not very appetizing, is it?
If the U.S. attacked this little hermit kingdom in an attempt to stop its nuclear program, President Ill would undoubtedly order his army to invade his neighbor to the south, which has a military that is less than half the size of the KPA and whose security is guaranteed by Uncle Sam. Then all hell would break loose. And the 30,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines stationed in South Korea would be the first Americans to die in this war – but they wouldn’t be the last.
Politico’s Harry Siegel reports, “American voters across lines of age, party and gender support a military approach to eliminate North Korea's nuclear capabilities, according to a Rasmussen Reports survey released Sunday morning — and conducted in the two days prior to North Korea's test missile launch on Saturday.”
There could only be two explanations for this unbelievable development. Either Americans don’t understand the real situation with North Korea or they have simply lost their minds. More on that in a moment.
According to the poll, 57 percent of the public would support the Obama administration if it decided to go with the military option. Only 15 percent oppose such a move. Also, the use of military action enjoys broad support in both major parties: 66 percent, or two-thirds, of Republicans, and 52 percent of Democrats. The military option is favored by 57 percent of Americans of both genders.
”A majority of respondents, 51 percent, also oppose the U.S. offering economic aid to North Korea in exchange for it agreeing to dismantle its nuclear program,” Siegel writes.
On Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a man who never misses an opportunity for a little grandstanding, informed “Fox News Sunday” that had he been the commander-in-chief instead of Barack Obama, he would have “disabled” the North Korean missile before it had a chance to launch.
As much as I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, we cannot afford to start a war with North Korea for two reasons.
The first reason is that the U.S. military has its hands full with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention thousands of troops in dozens of other countries around the world and security commitments up the wazoo.
The second reason has to do with North Korea’s military. It is estimated that the Korean People’s Army has around 1.2 million personnel in its active duty force, and another 7.7 million serving in its auxiliary components. It is also believed by many experts that President Ill commands one of the largest special operations forces in the world, with estimates ranging from 60,000 to well over 100,000 personnel.
This is not Saddam Hussein’s peasant army we’re talking about here. These guys do nothing but train for war. Approximately 20 percent of all North Korean males aged 17-54 are serving in the regular army. Each year, President Ill’s military eats up over 30 percent of his country’s GDP, a fact which makes this “Democratic People’s Republic” the world’s most militarized state.
How does war with North Korea sound now? Not very appetizing, is it?
If the U.S. attacked this little hermit kingdom in an attempt to stop its nuclear program, President Ill would undoubtedly order his army to invade his neighbor to the south, which has a military that is less than half the size of the KPA and whose security is guaranteed by Uncle Sam. Then all hell would break loose. And the 30,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines stationed in South Korea would be the first Americans to die in this war – but they wouldn’t be the last.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Deranged Divas of Code Pink (Pt. 2 of 2)
Ms. Benjamin is trying to cast her little intra-liberal banana war – or what I like to call “blue-on-blue” – as proof that Code Pink is not beholden to any political party.
Of course it isn’t. No sane Democrat or Republican would ally him or herself with these nutniks.
According to Nibit, Benjamin was invited to come on a bunch of Right-wing talk radio shows after her group’s squabble with mainstream Democrats. She later claimed she was able to “make a lot of friends” within the conservative crowd.
But Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of the right-wing blog RedState is having none of this. “They haven’t changed,” he said of Code Pink. “They still hate America. Which is why they won’t get any conservative support. They’re against the bailout because they hate capitalism.”
Erickson went on to say that the antiwar group is only relevant to the extent that Republicans can use it to “tar and feather Democrats.”
Not so fast, Mr. Erickson, if that is your real name!
”Democrats might have something to say about that,” Libit writes. “The organization has never held much sway over the Democratic
establishment, even when the two have shared positions on Iraq.”
“I don’t think the Democrats ever fully embraced Code Pink,” said Rebecca Kirszner, former communications director to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Code Pink was always a little more extreme than the establishment.”
And establishment Democrats aren’t the only ones in the Liberalisphere who think the Code Pinkers are a bunch of shrieking hyenas in bad makeup. As Libit puts it, “Even outside Washington, other left-leaning groups have viewed the rosy ring of peaceniks with incredulity, if not contempt.”
“Code Pink has never been more than a nuisance — an ineffective, self-indulgent, obnoxious and tone-deaf organization,” said Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas. “It was never relevant before, and it certainly isn’t relevant today,” he adds. “I’m sure their antics make them feel good about themselves, make them feel as if they’re accomplishing something, but in reality they’ve done nothing but piss off everyone around them, including potential allies.”
Ouch! If an annoying Left-winger like Moulitsas says he can’t stand you, then you must be really unbearable!
Ivan Eland, a libertarian and a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, also weighed in, saying the antiwar group suffers from the nonprofit version of the bureaucratic politics theory, “where the organization becomes the end goal.”
If the Code Pinkers want to be taken seriously, then they need to do two things.
First, they need to present their arguments in a rational, adult manner, and not engage in childish and distasteful antics like grandstanding at Congressional hearings with “Impeach Bush” T-shirts and using dead and wounded soldiers as publicity fodder.
Secondly, the Code Pinkers need to come up with realistic alternatives to our government’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Get out!” is not a real solution. Actions have consequences and we as a nation need to make sure that the situation we leave behind in those two countries is not worse than the one we found when we went in.
To be fair, Code Pink has offered some solutions beyond total withdrawal, but none of them have any grounding in reality. The group’s website features two statements denouncing the Obama administration’s plans for the Iraq and Afghan wars, one released at the end of February and the other at the end of March.
The February statement criticizes the president’s decision to leave a residual force of 50,000 troops in Iraq until December 2011 and says the U.S. government should “increase efforts in diplomacy, humanitarian aid and refugee resettlement.”
And how, pray tell, are we supposed to give out all of this humanitarian aid and help refugees resettle if we don’t have troops on the ground to provide security and stability? And what good is diplomacy going to do us if the democratic government we are trying to create over there gets overthrown by Islamic radicals?
The March statement is similar to the February one. After blasting Obama for deploying thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and increasing the budget for the war over there, it goes on to call for “tireless diplomatic engagement with Afghan and Pakistan governments.”
If the president were to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow, the country would descend into utter chaos and the Taliban would almost surely regain power. Not a lot of opportunity for “tireless diplomatic engagement” there. Also, a renewed and invigorated Taliban government in Afghanistan could make our situation in Pakistan even worse than it is now, and possibly help facilitate a successful Islamic revolution in that country – a nightmare scenario given Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Make no mistake about it: Former President Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan by shifting his entire focus to Iraq and his splendid little war there proved to be a disastrous move and a strategic blunder for the U.S. Clearly, the man did not consider the consequences of his actions.
So Bush and the Code Pinkers have something in common after all. The difference between the two, of course, is that the effects of Code Pink’s actions are merely irritating.
But President Obama can’t afford to make this mistake. And unlike certain deranged divas, our commander-in-chief is taken all too seriously by many people.
Of course it isn’t. No sane Democrat or Republican would ally him or herself with these nutniks.
According to Nibit, Benjamin was invited to come on a bunch of Right-wing talk radio shows after her group’s squabble with mainstream Democrats. She later claimed she was able to “make a lot of friends” within the conservative crowd.
But Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of the right-wing blog RedState is having none of this. “They haven’t changed,” he said of Code Pink. “They still hate America. Which is why they won’t get any conservative support. They’re against the bailout because they hate capitalism.”
Erickson went on to say that the antiwar group is only relevant to the extent that Republicans can use it to “tar and feather Democrats.”
Not so fast, Mr. Erickson, if that is your real name!
”Democrats might have something to say about that,” Libit writes. “The organization has never held much sway over the Democratic
establishment, even when the two have shared positions on Iraq.”
“I don’t think the Democrats ever fully embraced Code Pink,” said Rebecca Kirszner, former communications director to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Code Pink was always a little more extreme than the establishment.”
And establishment Democrats aren’t the only ones in the Liberalisphere who think the Code Pinkers are a bunch of shrieking hyenas in bad makeup. As Libit puts it, “Even outside Washington, other left-leaning groups have viewed the rosy ring of peaceniks with incredulity, if not contempt.”
“Code Pink has never been more than a nuisance — an ineffective, self-indulgent, obnoxious and tone-deaf organization,” said Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas. “It was never relevant before, and it certainly isn’t relevant today,” he adds. “I’m sure their antics make them feel good about themselves, make them feel as if they’re accomplishing something, but in reality they’ve done nothing but piss off everyone around them, including potential allies.”
Ouch! If an annoying Left-winger like Moulitsas says he can’t stand you, then you must be really unbearable!
Ivan Eland, a libertarian and a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, also weighed in, saying the antiwar group suffers from the nonprofit version of the bureaucratic politics theory, “where the organization becomes the end goal.”
If the Code Pinkers want to be taken seriously, then they need to do two things.
First, they need to present their arguments in a rational, adult manner, and not engage in childish and distasteful antics like grandstanding at Congressional hearings with “Impeach Bush” T-shirts and using dead and wounded soldiers as publicity fodder.
Secondly, the Code Pinkers need to come up with realistic alternatives to our government’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Get out!” is not a real solution. Actions have consequences and we as a nation need to make sure that the situation we leave behind in those two countries is not worse than the one we found when we went in.
To be fair, Code Pink has offered some solutions beyond total withdrawal, but none of them have any grounding in reality. The group’s website features two statements denouncing the Obama administration’s plans for the Iraq and Afghan wars, one released at the end of February and the other at the end of March.
The February statement criticizes the president’s decision to leave a residual force of 50,000 troops in Iraq until December 2011 and says the U.S. government should “increase efforts in diplomacy, humanitarian aid and refugee resettlement.”
And how, pray tell, are we supposed to give out all of this humanitarian aid and help refugees resettle if we don’t have troops on the ground to provide security and stability? And what good is diplomacy going to do us if the democratic government we are trying to create over there gets overthrown by Islamic radicals?
The March statement is similar to the February one. After blasting Obama for deploying thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and increasing the budget for the war over there, it goes on to call for “tireless diplomatic engagement with Afghan and Pakistan governments.”
If the president were to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow, the country would descend into utter chaos and the Taliban would almost surely regain power. Not a lot of opportunity for “tireless diplomatic engagement” there. Also, a renewed and invigorated Taliban government in Afghanistan could make our situation in Pakistan even worse than it is now, and possibly help facilitate a successful Islamic revolution in that country – a nightmare scenario given Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Make no mistake about it: Former President Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan by shifting his entire focus to Iraq and his splendid little war there proved to be a disastrous move and a strategic blunder for the U.S. Clearly, the man did not consider the consequences of his actions.
So Bush and the Code Pinkers have something in common after all. The difference between the two, of course, is that the effects of Code Pink’s actions are merely irritating.
But President Obama can’t afford to make this mistake. And unlike certain deranged divas, our commander-in-chief is taken all too seriously by many people.
The Deranged Divas of Code Pink (Pt. 1 of 2)
Whenever I hear about the shenanigans of the antiwar group Code Pink, I am reminded of those stories in the news of Japanese soldiers from World War II who survived on remote Pacific islands decades after their government’s surrender on the U.S.S. Missouri, unaware that the conflict they were participating in ended long ago.
According to Daniel Libit of Politico, the Code Pink ladies are broadening their focus to include the ailing economy – which has taken center stage in the lives of ordinary Americans – in an attempt to prevent the public from seeing what they really are – an unrealistic and pathetic bunch of Left-wing nutjobs who constantly need to be reminded that the days of spoiled hippies, Woodstock, and bomb-throwing losers are long gone.
”On Saturday, this maneuver will be put on display in Lower Manhattan, when Code Pink joins in a rally led by another anti-war group, United for Peace and Justice, to address the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic crisis,” Libit reports.
Code Pink founder and confirmed Kool-Aid addict Medea Benjamin “sees a natural ideological and strategic connection between the economy and the war, and she argues that by maintaining relevance via the bailout debate.”
“It gives us a voice for the other work,” she says.
This woman has two master’s degrees and spent four years as an economist in Latin America and Africa, and yet it only took her seven years to realize that war and economy might be closely related. Amazing! She must have attended Bob Jones University, or a school of similar intellectual caliber.
Just to give you an idea of how irrelevant the ladies in pink are becoming, even the Democrats are getting sick of them. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are using a familiar Code Pink slogan whenever they address these deranged divas: “Get out!”
The antiwar group claims to have an email list of 200,000, but keep in mind that members with Multiple Personality Disorder get counted numerous times. According to Nibit, Code Pink “has neither the fundraising prowess nor the political might of, say, MoveOn. And while MoveOn does its thing with online work, advertisements, grass-roots mobilization and money, Code Pink has instead most often reached for noisy confrontation: protests and outbursts at hearings that typically do more annoying than persuading.”
So apparently the Women for Peace aren’t interested in giving the people any real peace.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a man I rarely agree with, did something commendable last week when he told a group of Code Pink members to “grow up” after they tried to interrupt a hearing where Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were testifying.
“I do not know how you think you could advance any cause to which you might be attached by this kind of silliness,” Frank said.
END OF PART 1
According to Daniel Libit of Politico, the Code Pink ladies are broadening their focus to include the ailing economy – which has taken center stage in the lives of ordinary Americans – in an attempt to prevent the public from seeing what they really are – an unrealistic and pathetic bunch of Left-wing nutjobs who constantly need to be reminded that the days of spoiled hippies, Woodstock, and bomb-throwing losers are long gone.
”On Saturday, this maneuver will be put on display in Lower Manhattan, when Code Pink joins in a rally led by another anti-war group, United for Peace and Justice, to address the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic crisis,” Libit reports.
Code Pink founder and confirmed Kool-Aid addict Medea Benjamin “sees a natural ideological and strategic connection between the economy and the war, and she argues that by maintaining relevance via the bailout debate.”
“It gives us a voice for the other work,” she says.
This woman has two master’s degrees and spent four years as an economist in Latin America and Africa, and yet it only took her seven years to realize that war and economy might be closely related. Amazing! She must have attended Bob Jones University, or a school of similar intellectual caliber.
Just to give you an idea of how irrelevant the ladies in pink are becoming, even the Democrats are getting sick of them. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are using a familiar Code Pink slogan whenever they address these deranged divas: “Get out!”
The antiwar group claims to have an email list of 200,000, but keep in mind that members with Multiple Personality Disorder get counted numerous times. According to Nibit, Code Pink “has neither the fundraising prowess nor the political might of, say, MoveOn. And while MoveOn does its thing with online work, advertisements, grass-roots mobilization and money, Code Pink has instead most often reached for noisy confrontation: protests and outbursts at hearings that typically do more annoying than persuading.”
So apparently the Women for Peace aren’t interested in giving the people any real peace.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a man I rarely agree with, did something commendable last week when he told a group of Code Pink members to “grow up” after they tried to interrupt a hearing where Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were testifying.
“I do not know how you think you could advance any cause to which you might be attached by this kind of silliness,” Frank said.
END OF PART 1
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Sen. Dodd is now Sen. Doo-Doo
Politico reports Connecticut voters have locked Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd in the doghouse for his role in the AIG bonus scandal.
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, former Republican congressman Rob Simmons, who officially announced last month that he would be challenging Dodd in 2010, is beating the five-term incumbent by no less than 16 points – 50 percent to 34 percent. Dodd is also trailing Simmons among independent voters by a whopping 31 points – 56 percent to 25 percent.
In layman’s terms, this ain’t good.
SIXTEEN POINTS! And keep in mind that Connecticut isn’t exactly Texas. For a Democrat who has served in the Senate from a blue state as long Dodd has, this is unusual.
And that’s not all. No, the fun’s just beginning. Politico also reports little-known GOP state senator Sam Caligiuri, who announced on Tuesday his intention to run for Dodd’s seat, is beating the embattled Democrat by four points – 41 percent to 37 percent.
“Dodd’s approval ratings are in the tank, with 58 percent of Connecticut voters disapproving of his job performance and only 33 percent viewing him favorably,” says Politico. “He doesn’t even have support within his own party – only 51 percent of Democrats approve of him.”
As can be expected, the voters of Connecticut are royally pissed at Dodd for helping to make it possible for greedy and inept AIG executives to get millions in bonuses. 74 percent of those surveyed said Dodd was to blame for those bonuses and 54 percent said he is not honest or trustworthy.
The good senator should have realized that the American people will not tolerate four things – extramarital affairs, homosexuality, atheism, and giving taxpayer money to rich and unscrupulous fat cats on Wall Street.
Still, Dodd has a year and a half to turn things around. I suggest that he immediately undergo sex reassignment surgery and change his name to Hillary Rodham Obama. Or maybe he can just skip the operation and change his name to Ned Lamont II.
Before I end here, I just have to say that while I have nothing against Dodd personally, I have always felt that he is the most boring person to ever serve in Congress. No kidding. This guy is so dull he makes Joe Lieberman look young and interesting. Dodd has “status quo” written all over his body. I understand why people are angry at him, but, seriously, was anyone really surprised to learn of Dodd’s actions regarding AIG?
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, former Republican congressman Rob Simmons, who officially announced last month that he would be challenging Dodd in 2010, is beating the five-term incumbent by no less than 16 points – 50 percent to 34 percent. Dodd is also trailing Simmons among independent voters by a whopping 31 points – 56 percent to 25 percent.
In layman’s terms, this ain’t good.
SIXTEEN POINTS! And keep in mind that Connecticut isn’t exactly Texas. For a Democrat who has served in the Senate from a blue state as long Dodd has, this is unusual.
And that’s not all. No, the fun’s just beginning. Politico also reports little-known GOP state senator Sam Caligiuri, who announced on Tuesday his intention to run for Dodd’s seat, is beating the embattled Democrat by four points – 41 percent to 37 percent.
“Dodd’s approval ratings are in the tank, with 58 percent of Connecticut voters disapproving of his job performance and only 33 percent viewing him favorably,” says Politico. “He doesn’t even have support within his own party – only 51 percent of Democrats approve of him.”
As can be expected, the voters of Connecticut are royally pissed at Dodd for helping to make it possible for greedy and inept AIG executives to get millions in bonuses. 74 percent of those surveyed said Dodd was to blame for those bonuses and 54 percent said he is not honest or trustworthy.
The good senator should have realized that the American people will not tolerate four things – extramarital affairs, homosexuality, atheism, and giving taxpayer money to rich and unscrupulous fat cats on Wall Street.
Still, Dodd has a year and a half to turn things around. I suggest that he immediately undergo sex reassignment surgery and change his name to Hillary Rodham Obama. Or maybe he can just skip the operation and change his name to Ned Lamont II.
Before I end here, I just have to say that while I have nothing against Dodd personally, I have always felt that he is the most boring person to ever serve in Congress. No kidding. This guy is so dull he makes Joe Lieberman look young and interesting. Dodd has “status quo” written all over his body. I understand why people are angry at him, but, seriously, was anyone really surprised to learn of Dodd’s actions regarding AIG?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Are Republicans Souring on Palin?
In the seven months since Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was first introduced to the American people as Sen. John McCain’s running mate, her prospects in national politics have gone from resembling a rising star to a skydiver whose parachute won’t open.
According to Politico’s Patrick O’Connor, Republicans are becoming uneasy about their favorite hockey mom. This is largely due to Palin’s recent public blunders, blunders that are being blamed on members of her inner circle as well as communication snafus between the governor’s staff in Alaska and her Washington-based political action committee, SarahPAC.
Here are a few of the latest incidents to come out of Palin’s gaffe-machine, as related by O’Connor:
The infamous YouTube turkey video in November where, unbeknownst to Palin, live turkeys were slaughtered just behind her within the camera frame.
A misfire involving the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. There, Palin had been slated for months to appear only to back out shortly before the event, leaving bruised feelings among organizers who thought they had a firm commitment from Palin herself. A spokeswoman for Palin’s PAC contends the governor had never agreed to appear and that Palin’s camp was surprised when CPAC announced the governor would be speaking at the event.
An interview with conservative filmmaker John Ziegler, who included Palin in his film, “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” Comments by Palin about Caroline Kennedy and CBS News anchor Katie Couric contained in excerpts released by Ziegler generated tremendous controversy and prompted a Palin spokesman to blame Ziegler for blindsiding the governor. But Ziegler told POLITICO that Palin had called him to express support in a nearly 30-minute telephone call.
And here’s a new one to add to the growing list. O’Connor reports Congressional Republicans are dumping Palin as the keynote speaker for their annual Senate-House GOP dinner and replacing her with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. According to sources familiar with the situation, this was done because the former GOP vice presidential candidate “vacillated publicly about the appearance.”
The dinner is scheduled for June 8 at the Washington Convention Center. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) will host.
“The Governor never confirmed her attendance at the event. She was honored to receive the invitation and asked to confirm her attendance at the end of the legislative session,” said SarahPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton. “Governor Palin is thrilled to hear that Newt Gingrich will address the audience as the governor continues to focus on Alaska.”
“However, the fact that Palin was never completely confirmed as a speaker was precisely the problem, according to sources familiar with the deliberations about who would speak at the dinner,” O’Connor writes.
Apparently the NRSC and the NRCC were under the impression that the governor, a major draw for conservative activists, would be the star attraction at the fundraising dinner. In fact, the committees even issued a joint press release heralding her expected appearance and the announcement was quickly picked by several media outlets. Also, “Palin’s PAC indicated to the committees that she would attend.”
“But the governor’s office later said that it had not put the event on the schedule,” O’Connor reports. “Three people close to planning for the dinner said Palin’s aides proceeded to hem and haw about the appearance, both publicly and privately, leading the committees to decide to replace her because they were nearing a deadline to send invitations and other fundraising materials to their donors.”
This is too funny. I can’t decide who is a bigger joke – Palin or Jindal.
According to Politico’s Patrick O’Connor, Republicans are becoming uneasy about their favorite hockey mom. This is largely due to Palin’s recent public blunders, blunders that are being blamed on members of her inner circle as well as communication snafus between the governor’s staff in Alaska and her Washington-based political action committee, SarahPAC.
Here are a few of the latest incidents to come out of Palin’s gaffe-machine, as related by O’Connor:
The infamous YouTube turkey video in November where, unbeknownst to Palin, live turkeys were slaughtered just behind her within the camera frame.
A misfire involving the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. There, Palin had been slated for months to appear only to back out shortly before the event, leaving bruised feelings among organizers who thought they had a firm commitment from Palin herself. A spokeswoman for Palin’s PAC contends the governor had never agreed to appear and that Palin’s camp was surprised when CPAC announced the governor would be speaking at the event.
An interview with conservative filmmaker John Ziegler, who included Palin in his film, “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” Comments by Palin about Caroline Kennedy and CBS News anchor Katie Couric contained in excerpts released by Ziegler generated tremendous controversy and prompted a Palin spokesman to blame Ziegler for blindsiding the governor. But Ziegler told POLITICO that Palin had called him to express support in a nearly 30-minute telephone call.
And here’s a new one to add to the growing list. O’Connor reports Congressional Republicans are dumping Palin as the keynote speaker for their annual Senate-House GOP dinner and replacing her with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. According to sources familiar with the situation, this was done because the former GOP vice presidential candidate “vacillated publicly about the appearance.”
The dinner is scheduled for June 8 at the Washington Convention Center. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) will host.
“The Governor never confirmed her attendance at the event. She was honored to receive the invitation and asked to confirm her attendance at the end of the legislative session,” said SarahPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton. “Governor Palin is thrilled to hear that Newt Gingrich will address the audience as the governor continues to focus on Alaska.”
“However, the fact that Palin was never completely confirmed as a speaker was precisely the problem, according to sources familiar with the deliberations about who would speak at the dinner,” O’Connor writes.
Apparently the NRSC and the NRCC were under the impression that the governor, a major draw for conservative activists, would be the star attraction at the fundraising dinner. In fact, the committees even issued a joint press release heralding her expected appearance and the announcement was quickly picked by several media outlets. Also, “Palin’s PAC indicated to the committees that she would attend.”
“But the governor’s office later said that it had not put the event on the schedule,” O’Connor reports. “Three people close to planning for the dinner said Palin’s aides proceeded to hem and haw about the appearance, both publicly and privately, leading the committees to decide to replace her because they were nearing a deadline to send invitations and other fundraising materials to their donors.”
This is too funny. I can’t decide who is a bigger joke – Palin or Jindal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)