03.10.07
Posted in Politics, Democrats at 10:37 am by JB
Poor, poor John Edwards. He (and now evidently every Dem candidate- or at least the state party of Nevada) are afraid that those big bad meanies at Fox News won’t toss them soft-ball questions at a “debate” and so have closed out any chance of participating.
From the Edwards camp:
Fox News has already proven they have no intention of providing “fair and balanced” coverage of any Democrat in this election.
Exactly how seriously should we take a group of people who are afraid of Brit Hume, but want to be in a position to face Putin, that whacko in Iran, or Hugo Chavez ? Isn’t there a bit of a disconnect here ?
Not to mention the fact that the Fox News audience consistently out-numbers every other cable news outlet, and of course the Fox viewers will be made aware of this little charade.
If a few of the candidates wanted to show a little moxie they would step out of the shadow of the NDP and agree to a smaller debate with Fox, just among the candidates with the cajones to withstand a serious debate.
Permalink
03.06.07
Posted in Politics, Unhinged, Democrats, Media Morons at 4:53 am by JB
It’s the smell of vapidity and nut-jobbery preparing to assemble in the Big Apple.
On behalf of People For the American Way and Political Clout Productions, we are proud to invite you to be present for an historic first. An extraordinary public servant, Valerie Plame, will be interviewed by a champion of the First Amendment, Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s “Countdown.”
So let me get this straight. Keith Olbermann, who hasn’t said anything worthwhile since leaving ESPN is going to interview Plame-Wilson, who hasn’t done anything worthwhile in… who knows how long. She’s got a couple of kids, and so far (if only age 6) they haven’t knocked off a bank or anything, so that’s worth something I suppose.
This event, I’m afraid, will be worth exactly nothing.
Permalink
10.14.06
Posted in Politics, Unhinged, Democrats at 8:13 am by JB
I was laughing and crying at the same time reading this.
They neglect to mention, of course, that Ms. Miller is/was a host on Air American, which has finally proved to bankruptcy courts and the world that they are a bushel of bad ideas.
Cindy Sheehan was the leadoff scapegoat on Hannity & Colmes last night (10/13/06) as the show studiously avoided discussing any of the Republican scandals of the day: Representative Bob Ney pleading guilty to taking bribes, testimony that the House page overseer tried to stop Foley from emailing a Congressional page in 2005, or President Bush’s decision to campaign for Senator George “macacawitz” Allen (H/T Rachel Maddow) and Rep. Don “cheating choker” Sherwood next week. But radio talk show host Stephanie Miller hilariously hit right back at righties G. Gordon Liddy and Rich Lowry. She did it without being rude or malicious and she got in some great zingers about FOX News, too. With must-see video.
The context for bashing Sheehan was her claim that she is a finalist for a Nobel Peace Prize. But, Alan Colmes said during the introduction, her claim could not be confirmed.
With a smile, Miller told him, “I went to the source and then I went to AP who confirmed she was on the short list for Nobel nominees. It’s called journalism. FOX News might want to check into it sometime.”
Liddy took a predictable swipe at Sheehan and her supporters. “She has allowed her grief to addle her brain and she has been sort of pre-empted by the loonie left.”
Colmes was at the top of his game during the entire show. He told Liddy, “That’s a pretty cruel thing to say… It’s pretty meanspirited… I mean, the woman lost a son.”
Liddy said arrogantly, “I kindly attribute this foolishness that she engages in to her grief and I think I’m being kind.”
Colmes suggested to Miller that Sheehan may be a better choice for a peace prize than President Bush.
Miller replied that Sheehan, who has actively campaigned for peace, is a better candidate than Henry Kissinger. “She has the moral authority. She sacrificed something in this war. She gave her son. What did the people who are criticizing her give?”
Lowry, subbing for Sean Hannity, was completely stymied in his attempt to trap Miller with gotcha questions.
The best line of the show, one that sent me howling with laughter, was when Miller told Lowry, “Unlike some of these fake Nobel-prize winning doctors you guys have had on here during the Terri Schiavo thing, she was actually nominated by someone that was qualified.”
Miller went on to blithely out-argue Lowry and Liddy on why staying the course is not working and she was able to do it in less than 15 seconds. “Look, if someone invaded our country and said we had weapons of mass destruction and we didn’t, do you think Americans would try to kick them out? Rich, the vast majority of Iraqis want us out of their country!”
There is just too much to say. Just read it, enjoy it, bask in the absolute stupidity of the loony left.
Permalink
10.11.06
Posted in Politics, Democrats at 4:46 pm by JB
He was in NYC on “Tuesday, September the 9th”…. is he that damn clueless ?
Another reason Democrats can’t be trusted with national security. They can’t even remember the date, for God’s sake.
Permalink
Posted in Politics, Unhinged, Democrats at 2:47 pm by JB
Ya know, I have few real qualms with my parents, predecessors… with earlier generations…. How this country elected this complete moron is just amazing to me. I would guess that very few outside the hemp-clothed, flower-haired, “Peter Paul and Mary RULE !!!” crowd would actually admit to having voted for him.
But he is still a voice, and- SURPRISE SURPRISE (Gomer Pyle lingo)- who gives him a voice ? The New York Times, of course.
We’re gonna “Fisk” this, because if you don’t it doesn’t make sense.
From Carter:
IN 1994 the North Koreans expelled inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and were threatening to process spent nuclear fuel into plutonium, giving them the ability to produce nuclear weapons.
With the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula, there was a consensus that the forces of South Korea and the United States could overwhelmingly defeat North Korea. But it was also known that North Korea could quickly launch more than 20,000 shells and missiles into nearby Seoul. The American commander in South Korea, Gen. Gary Luck, estimated that total casualties would far exceed those of the Korean War.
So they kicked out inspectors, and threatened to attack their neighbor with conventional and potentially nuclear weapons, after defying the international cries for them to de-nuke. With ya so far.
Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas.
The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors.
(ever noticed it’s always about Carter ? Anytime he talks it’s “I did this, I did that.” At least Clinton came by it honestly. It does bring the “protest too much” thing to mind, though)
Communists inviting Carter to be a broker ? That’s like the cockroaches asking the exterminator to send the bread and sugar vendor to negotiate. (see earlier post) Carter is a notorious Communist sympathizer- let’s just call a spade a spade- but the Dems love the clown, yet another reason they can’t be trusted on security matters.
Inspectors coming in, they’ll be nice, THEY PROMISE ! And go back a bit… with the “risk of war” there was a “consensus” that that the US and South Korea could defeat them…. How does this make it into print ? What risk of war ? If North Korea didn’t want nukes I don’t think there would be much more than humanitarian concern, which Mr. Carter seems to be so worried about usually.
Risk of war ? The risk is the North Koreans getting nukes and attacking their neighbors- or worse, the US.
Here’s where it gets good.
But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.
Ahhhhh… now it all makes sense. Just saying that North Koreaa is a backward-ass, nuke-wanting, repressive regime made them so. No need to mention that they have been that way since the mid-50’s, and in Carter’s (thankfully short) presidency he did nothing but Lewinsky them the whole time.
“Their discussions with me at the time.” That is an amazingly self-serving, and amazingly disturbing phrase. At what time, Mr. Carter ? In 2002, 21 years after you had left the White House ? In discussions after the president had declared that North Korea isn’t our buddy ? In discussions after many years of the NK’s being on the State Department list of sponsors of terrorism ? And you were undermining US policy ? That is aid-and-comfort, and that, sir, is treason.
Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices.
Sticks and stones may break my bones…. look. One of the reasons that these rogue nations think that they can get away with anything is because security wimps (wanted to use a different word) have been told they can by idiotic assholes like Jimmy Carter. (Some of you folks may be in the “Greatest Generation”, but you have a lot to answer for in electing this moron)
Six-nation talks finally concluded in an agreement last September that called for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and for the United States and North Korea to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations. Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement. The United States imposed severe financial sanctions and Pyongyang adopted the deeply troubling nuclear option.
So let me get this straight…. you break the rules, so we stop sending you billions a year in aid that never made it to the people anyway. And you start building weapons that can maybe kill more people than you do through starvation and deprivation. In what parallel universe does that make sense ? But you have to love that “deeply troubling” part. He lusted in his heart, folks. And got attacked by a swimming rabbit.
One option, the most likely one, is to try to force Pyongyang’s leaders to abandon their nuclear program with military threats and a further tightening of the embargoes, increasing the suffering of its already starving people. Two important facts must be faced: Kim Jong-il and his military leaders have proven themselves almost impervious to outside pressure, and both China and South Korea have shown that they are reluctant to destabilize the regime. This approach is also more likely to stimulate further nuclear weapons activity.
Why are those people already starving ? Could it be because the leadership take aid money to build their nuclear capability, and expect to bargain for more money to increase their nuclear capability ? Destabilize the regime ? I have an idea for “nuclear weapons activity” in North Korea. Announce to the world that we are gonna bomb the shit out of everything that looks like a nuclear site in a month. Give people there time to get out. (cue gunships and machine gun batteries at the border crossings) and END North Korea.
What must be avoided is to leave a beleaguered nuclear nation convinced that it is permanently excluded from the international community, its existence threatened, its people suffering horrible deprivation and its hard-liners in total control of military and political policy.
This touchy-feely crap gets old. Who made that nation beleaguered ? Who had caused all the deprivation ? Jimmy- and this goes back to my screed on “Katie”…. serious people don’t enter their 8th decade of life being called a name of a 10-yr old, serious men don’t have such a total lack of international affairs, ex-presidents don’t spend their life sucking up to enemies of the United States.
Go build a house, and keep your peanut grin off the news. You are an embarrasment to this country. And anyone who voted for you should be ashamed of themselves.
Permalink
Posted in Politics, Democrats, Media Morons at 1:36 pm by JB
And I’ve been saying this for years…. just ask my dear Ma.
Some background. Susan Estrich, the hyper-liberal professor/lawyer/operative has a new book out called “Soulless” which is some sort of polemic against Ann Coulter, and the cover art is a direct rip-off of Ann’s book “Godless”. Of course Susan thinks that real conservatives take Ann seriously, which is just a genuflection to all the liberals who think conservatives take marching orders from Jerry Falwell and the NRA…. but that’s beside the point.
As a quick aside- and this is a bit of a ramble, I know…. How come the NRA is horrific for protecting the heart and spirit of the 2nd amendment, but the ACLU is saintly for (supposedly) protecting the 1st ? I just don’t get it. Well, actually I do, but anyway….
Am I the only one who has always thought Susan Estrich looks and sounds like a Muppet ?
UPDATE: David Gergen sounds like a Muppet too.
Permalink
Posted in Politics, 2006 Races, Democrats, National Security at 1:08 pm by JB
Not much of a McCain fan either, but it’s nice to see a little offense instead of all this self-flagellation.
Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
“I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration’s policies that the framework agreement her husband’s administration negotiated was a failure,” McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.
“The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They’ve diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military,” he said.
Democrats have argued President Clinton presented his successor with a framework for dealing with North Korea and the Republican fumbled the opportunity. In October 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a groundbreaking visit to Pyongyang to explore a missile deal with Chairman Kim Jong Il. There was even talk of a visit by President Clinton.
Ahhhhhhh YES ! Another “framework” that was left for the incoming administration. Again, what also seems lost at every turn (like Rose Law Firm billing records) is that they (may have) passed along a few pages of a plan, but more importantly they passed along THE DAMN PROBLEM ! This international security kick-the-can routine is silly and childish, and the American electorate know it. Dem’s can’t be trusted with security.
Permalink
Posted in Politics, 2006 Races, Democrats at 1:00 pm by JB
And probably never really will be, but Rep. Christopher Shays, the barely-Republican of Connecticut, has pulled out the sharp knives, and it’s about damn time someone put this Foley BS into perspective.
From the Hartford Courant: (emphasis mine)
When the congressional page scandal broke last month, Democrats across the country saw a chance to lambaste Republican leadership - including Diane Farrell, who called on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to step down.
But when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy came to Connecticut last week to help her campaign, Rep. Christopher Shays hit back.
“I know the speaker didn’t go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day,” said Shays, R-4th District, referring to the 1969 incident in which the Massachusetts Democrat drove a car that plunged into the water and a young campaign worker died.
“Dennis Hastert didn’t kill anybody,” he added.
HAHAHAHAHA !!!!! Yes, please, let’s make Teddy “Dewers and Drowning” Kennedy, Bob “Pave the State and Burn the Crosses” Byrd, Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton, Barney “Let’s run a gay escort service” Frank…. I could go on and on…. let’s make them the poster children of the Democratic party that they want to be.
Permalink
09.16.06
Posted in Politics, Economics, "Big Oil", Democrats at 4:39 am by JB
(same link as below) Mary Landrieu is a bonehead more than just about anyone else on the Hill.
At about the time Pelosi was unveiling the “New Direction” brochures, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) was out on the Senate floor, accusing Democrats of aiding the terrorists. “Al-Qaeda,” he said, sees “the lack of resolve in some of our leaders, and they seek to exploit it.”
The charge enraged Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who had come to the floor to talk about education.
“America is not tired of fighting terrorism,” she retorted. “America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican Party that has sent $6.5 billion a month to Iraq when the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that led this country to attack Saddam Hussein when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden.”
The Dem’s have hit bottom, and started to dig. GOP will be picking up seats in November….
Not sure when OBL became the leader of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia- SAUDI ARABIA ??- but OBL’s organization has operative in all those regions. These stupid Democrats don’t understand 9th grade civics, and it’s embarassing. But they have been so successful in dumbing down the schools and keeping poor people in poverty, they don’t rely on an educated and involved electorate.
We should be tough with the Saudi’s, but we can’t, because we need their oil, and since the Witch Senator from Louisianna won’t let us drill more in the gulf, or tap ANWR…. we’re kinda screwed in that regard, Mary.
This stuff wouldn’t make me so mad if it made any sense. Democrats usually don’t make sense. One point sounds great, and so does the next, but that’s soundbites, not policy.
And every policy they kinda come up with is more government control of people’s lives. “Energy independence, but don’t drill for more oil, but mandate 150 MPG in cars, but stop importing oil”.
You just killed probably 1/3 of the economy. The car manufacturers will shut down (starting to do that anyway), the oil prices will skyrocket, which increases prices on everything. The poverty numbers will go through the roof, because gas is more expensive, goods aren’t moved, services aren’t rendered, and that is the ultimate “trickle down economics”. The entire economy trickles down to nothing….
Do Democrats have any knowledge of economics at all ? NO ! They elected Smiling Jimmy “Malaise” Carter.
But again, I suppose if we get OBL all terrorism will go away. Damn these people are stupid.
Permalink
Posted in Politics, Unhinged, 2006 Races, Democrats at 4:21 am by JB
But this makes me want to- to take a cue from Mary Landreiu- punch Nancy Pelosi in the face.
Her opening statement covered a full range of Democratic issues: fiscal responsibility. The minimum wage. The trade deficit. Student loans. Health care. Energy independence. Social Security. Medicare.
Then came the questions. “This is now the third election in a row in which they’ve raised security issues just before the election,” the first questioner said of the Republicans. “Why won’t it work for them a third time?”
“We won’t be Swift-boated on the national security issue,” the minority leader maintained.
“As you know,” came the follow-up, Republicans “are citing past votes by you and other Democrats.”
Pelosi was defensive. “I have five children,” she said. “Five grandchildren, going on six. And I consider myself the ultimate security mom.” By way of clarification, she felt compelled to add: “Democrats are committed to hunting down Osama bin Laden.”
A third questioner pointed out that Republicans have regained the lead on national security. “This is what, I guess, campaigns will be about,” Pelosi conceded with some reluctance. “It shouldn’t be about national security.”
This woman, and in turn and in toto the Democrats, are so completely out of touch. I will revisit this later, but to say an election shouldn’t be about national security is…. there hasn’t been, in 2000 years of developing language, and lots of recent Democratic trying…. a word hasn’t been invented yet to describe how stupid that thought is.
It’s like saying cooking shouldn’t be about ingredients. It’s ridiculous on it’s face. And this is the moron the Dem’s are embracing to be the next Speaker. Come on guys…. you have to be kidding.
Permalink
09.15.06
Posted in Politics, Unhinged, Democrats, WalMart Rocks at 12:19 am by JB
Great overall piece, but here are some numbers:
The median household income of Wal-Mart shoppers is under $40,000. Wal-Mart, the most prodigious job-creator in the history of the private sector in this galaxy, has almost as many employees (1.3 million) as the U.S. military has uniformed personnel. A McKinsey company study concluded that Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the nation’s productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s, which probably made Wal-Mart about as important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation. By lowering consumer prices, Wal-Mart costs about 50 retail jobs among competitors for every 100 jobs Wal-Mart creates . Wal-Mart and its effects save shoppers more than $200 billion a year, dwarfing such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion) and the earned-income tax credit ($34.6 billion).
I’m missing what the bad parts are…. Ahhhhh yes:
People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart — it has one-fifth of the nation’s grocery business — save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party’s leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times as many applicants than there were jobs at this store.
On another, and the closer…. And Will has a prediction on the next round:
What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company’s products each week: 2.5 billion).
When liberals’ presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled “What’s the Matter With Liberals’ Nominees?” No, the book they turned into a bestseller is titled “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Notice a pattern here?
Permalink
09.11.06
Posted in Politics, 9/11, War on Terrorism, Democrats at 4:45 pm by JB
Byron York of NRO wrote this a while back. It’s a good thing to remember. It also bolsters the “docu-drama” that everyone has their panties in a twist about. The summation:
Clinton then asked, “What do I need to do to be first tier?” “I said, ‘You can’t,’“ [pollster Dick] Morris remembers. “‘You have to win a war.’“ Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. “I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism,” Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)
But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris’s polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?
“He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”
Permalink
Posted in Politics, Democrats, National Security at 2:13 pm by JB
Sen. Rockefeller has weighed in on security matters:
“The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said ‘we want to go to war,’” Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. “Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said ‘my vote was wrong.’”
Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.
After he learned about it ? He was chairman/ranking member of the Intelligence Committee !!! And Saddam still in power ?
This is why Democrats just can’t be trusted on national security- save for Joe Leiberman, but we all know what’s happening to him.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
