POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

21Jul/114

Just a reminder: None of the Senate Democrats Voted to Raise the Debt Ceiling in 2006

Not a single one; many of whom are still in the Senate...  It was a strict party line vote...From the Senate's website:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —52
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Now I don't know about you, kind reader, but I don't recall any of the current hyperventilating that we're hearing these days, now that the shoe is on the other foot-so to speak.  Senate Democrats weren't being characterized as RAAAAACIST! h8terz; heartless politicians who wanted to see old people die-and be forced on to a cat food diet until that happened; who were abandoning our troops in the field without bullets or butter; who were denying our college kids the loans and grants they needed; who callously chose to deny poor children school means and the homeless a place to sleep; who were choosing Wall Street over Main Street-doing all these things to benefit "Big Oil" and corporate jet owners...

Help me out here if I'm wrong, but none of this comes to mind.  In fact, I remember a very passionate speech by a junior Senator at that time:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Who said those stirring words? Why, none other than then-Senator, now-President, Obama.  And he was right, we do deserve better...

So next time you hear about how all of this is UNPRECEDENTED!, HYPERPARTISAN! HOSTAGE TAKING! on the part of the TALIBAN RETHUGS!, feel free to remind the speaker of the events of 2006.

In fact, if you live in a deep blue state, it might be handy to have this information at hand when you contact your Senator and ask them to vote FOR cloture on Saturday when the House's Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation is brought up.  Because if nothing else, CC&B deserves a fair vote in the Senate.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Share
3May/119

Post-Partisan Paragons of Perfidy shape “The Narrative”

More follow up to the earlier posts regarding Democrat efforts to "own" the revocation of ObL's respiration rights.  From Politico:

Just one day after the Navy SEALs’ daring raid, Democrats were already outlining plans to seize the opportunity to portray President Barack Obama as a decisive leader who should get full acclaim for green-lighting the assault that brought down bin Laden.

The subtle but unmistakable jockeying provided a revealing glimpse into how official Washington thinks: Even in a rare moment of national unity, the political stakes provide a temptation – and even an imperative – for the parties to jostle for maximum advantage.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday that once Obama took office, “he made sure that we would revitalize our focus on Osama bin Laden and the hunt for him.”

But a former top intelligence officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, asserted that Bush routinely asked him about bin Laden during Thursday morning briefings about CIA operations.

“I’d walk in there and he would just say, ‘So where are we on bin Laden?’” the official said. “He was very focused on it – this was always a top priority. I’d think, ‘Oh, hell – he asked me that again.’”

And dozens of statements Monday from Republican officeholders mentioned Bush’s role after 9/11 – with several even quoting Bush as saying, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”

But one Democratic communications hand sent advice to a slew of other Democratic operatives in the wake of the announcement hammering on the need to make sure Obama comes out on top .

In your day jobs, do not let Republicans turn this into continuing the Bush legacy. This has to be about Obama’s decisive leadership,” the guidance said. “He is the one who oversaw bringing bin Laden to justice, much like how Bush failed to do so at Tora Bora and then claimed Osama wasn’t a priority.”

[emphasis-ed.]

Gee, so that's why they all seemed like they were on the same page with this; they were! It was written in the memo...

It makes me wonder if Barney Frank isn't slipping a bit.  I mean, was he freelancing, or had he already received the talking points?

In the end though, as I've said before, it won't matter; the truth will come out.  In fact, ACE has an excellent, detailed, time-line of the events over the years that culminated in the successful SEAL team raid this past Sunday.  I'd suggest that you check it if only for your own edification.  And especially so if you live in a "deep blue" state like myself, and anticipate that this will be a hot topic on the summer barbecue/drinking circuit.

Because facts are stubborn things; and the facts are that it was a long way to Abbottabad.  And the very measures and actors that the aces of agitprop vilified for years are the same ones they are hailing today.  Indeed, our pal Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has a set of clips posted which illustrate how the Make-Believe-Media used to engage in moral posturing, vis-a-vis "torture", which they are suddenly very quiet about in the wake of Sunday's announcement.  What a difference having a Democrat in the White House makes...

Share
14Apr/115

So, just what is a reduction in tax code spending?

Would you believe..?

During Mr. Obama's decidedly lackluster and unimpressive speech yesterday I found myself puzzled by a few things; maybe our kind readers can do a brother a solid and put me some knowledge.

1) Why on earth did he ask the co-chairs of his phony-baloney deficit commission to attend since he wasn't planning on acknowledging them or even talking up any of the commission's ideas in his speech ! Can you imagine how much of a chump they must have felt like?  It seemed to me that they were merely props for him to use, or not.  Which, you know, seems to me to be an apt metaphor for the commission as a whole...

2) Why would he invite Paul Ryan to this event only to openly disparage him, his plan, and assert that Ryan wished death, suffering, and all manner of hardship on children, the poor, and old people?  Was it motivated by some Chicago style, "in your face", expression of machismo that I'm unfamiliar with?  Was it like a jungle primate, demonstratively acting out to intimidate his competition (I know, I know, I'm a terrible RAAAAAAACIST! for using such a comparison-whatever...)?  Or was it simply part of Obama's culture, as the multi-culti-identity-politics-apologists often say.  Did Obama do it just so that in barbershops across the nation folks could wildly exclaim, "OOOOOOOOH, Obama done served that muthaf@&ker!"

Or, you know, maybe it's some of that "New Kind of Politics" that he always droned on about during the 2008 campaign, and I just don't recognize the "new tone" or "CIVILITY NOW!" style of expression...

3) And seriously, what is up with making up yet another po-mo euphemism; just what exactly is a "reduction in tax code spending"?  Sounds an awful lot like a tax increase to me.  And here I thought the official code words for that in Democrat lexicon was "investments".  I wonder when the Democrat's guide to lying style guide officially stopped recommending Mr. Clinton's favorite characterization...

But then, maybe Obama needed to be able to talk about reducing some kind of spending, other than defense spending that is, in order to get the point across to all the rubes that he, Captain Kickazz, was the true-blue deficit busting budget hawk.  'Cuz he used the word "reduction"...

Of course, it's more of the same old BS he's always been full of.  Dan linked to many reactions earlier, but I'll add a couple of notable ones; the editors of the WSJ characterized the speech as the most dishonest in decades, and Krauthammer used just about every synonym for "lie" that he could, without saying so directly.  The speech was all about optics, and devoid of substance.  It was a rehashing of all of the platitudes we've heard, ad nauseam.

Obamacare is going to save the government money...Right.

We have to further cut back our defense spending (Surprise! Gates!, and you thought the cuts you'd made so far were impressive).

We have to spend more, to save...

Oh, and his old favorite, "we have to raise taxes on the rich!".

The last one makes me laugh especially; here's why. I've been crunching some IRS supplied numbers lately, to consider this argument fairly (more on that to come).  It turns out that his critics are correct, that all of the taxable income of those who make more than 200k/yr in our nation, not including dividends and capital gains, amounts to approximately 1.2 trillion dollars.  Presumably, we already receive about 1/3 of that as revenue, so even of the government seized all income in excess of 200k/yr there would still remain a deficit of 1/2 to 3/4 of a trillion dollars! So where do you think they'd have to go to get that?

This reveals the larger lie behind all of Obama's class warfare rhetoric.  There is simply not enough money to seize from the rich alone to balance the budget, no matter what Michael Moore says.  That will have to come on the backs of the middle class.  Which brings me to a perhaps even more disturbing, underlying, mindset that Obama's newest euphemism reveals; the assumption that all GDP belongs to the government a priori, and they benevolently decide how much to let you keep.  I can't reason out any other way to interpret the association of "spending" with lowering tax rates, although I've heard too often the excuse that it's a benign, wonkish, accounting expression.  No, it either refers to the disturbing idea I referred to, or, Obama's willfully lying to suit his purposes.  Either way, I'm not satisfied.

What do you think, kind reader?

Share
13Jan/1163

So did you see Obama’s speech at the memorial service last night? [UPDATED]

 

Well, I did, and he didn't disappoint the crowds or most of the punditocracy judging from the immediate, gushing, reactions on both sides of the spectrum that I saw and read afterwards.   In his usual mellifluous voice, with his usual eloquence, he delivered a lovely speech full of platitudes and aphorisms which is his usual style; and the adoring crowds got t-shirts with slogans on them too!

The only problem was it was a speech he should have delivered days ago, when his cadre of political brownshirts, and the media (forgive my redundancy), chose to go on a hateful rampage and try to turn a horrible shooting to their advantage politically and use the opportunity to move in for the kill on their ideological adversaries.  He should have made this address from the Oval Office on Monday.  He could have stressed all of the same themes, and by speaking out sooner one would presume that his cult-like followers would have been forced to stop trying to pin blame for the shooting on everyone from Sarah Palin, talk-radio personalities, and the Tea-Partiers to the paper-boy on the corner.  Call me cynical, but his choice to use a public memorial service, complete with t-shirts bearing the slogan, "Together we thrive", no doubt the 2012 campaign's version of "Yes we can!", has me wondering whether last nights address was part of a larger, Machiavellian, more calculated, construct.

Here you have a President that has suffered a mid-term shellacking in a manner similar to Clinton in 1994, in the wake of which Mark Penn noted:

Comparing Obama’s current situation to the aftermath of the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” Penn noted that it took the Oklahoma City tragedy in order for President Clinton to “reconnect” with the American people.

He then stepped off the cliff by saying that President Obama needed a “similar event” to achieve that reconnection following his party’s midterm losses.

Jarring, isn't it?

At any rate, the Tucson shooting last weekend outwardly seems to provide such a moment, or at least is perceived that way by Obama's cadre, who sprang into action and proactively begin vilifying their political opponents for creating the climate of hate that fostered the attack; regardless of the inconvenient lack of even of a shred of evidence to substantiate their claims.  And after letting the MFM and Looney left give his opposition a thorough, savage, going over for the last few days, the "good cop" swoops in to say that everyone should be playing nice, that no one should be blaming another for the actions of a lunatic, and gosh darn it all, can't we just all get along ?!?  Add to this a heart-string pulling anecdote of the wounded congresswoman opening her eyes for the first time since the attack and an invocation to make America all it can be for the sake of a murdered 9 year old and you have an emotional, filmworthy-nay-Academy award winning, scene that would have made the great Frank Capra jealous.

And, voila !, Obama has the "Oklahoma City moment" that he needed.  But as I said, perhaps I'm just being cynical...

I still believe this was a carefully orchestrated charade, a crisis that wasn't allowed to go to waste.  I'd like you to pay attention over the next few weeks.  See of Obama delivers a follow-up address over the next few days where, like Bill Clinton, in a less than Presidential manner he essentially joins the nutroots in calling out "the right wing extremists".  Listen to hear how many times the MFM relives this event; and especially how many times they tell you both that this is Obama's Oklahoma City moment and just how well he's managed to reconnect with the American people.  Note also when folks are scolded for not living up to the standards of comity and cooperation Obama spoke of last night, especially when the same folks are merely opposing the President's agenda or trying to roll back parts of the 111th congress' liberal ideological wish-list spending splurge.  And, kind reader, as the 2012 campaign begins to gear up, listen for my prognostication to come to pass; for the collectivist slogan, "Together we thrive!", to replace, "Yes we can!", as the nutroot's Obamist mantra.

Listen for these things.  The "Tells".  The unmistakable marks that this "Oklahoma City moment" of Obama's is an attempt to draw straight from the Clinton playbook.  And when you recognize them, resolve to see this poseur who, like his followers, would capitalize on other's death and sorrow fired in 2012.

What do you think dear reader?  Am I barking up the wrong tree?  Jaded perhaps?  Too far into tin-foil-hat territory?  Did you catch anything I missed?  Please weigh in with your opinions and observations of the speech, the service, and my post.

[UPDATE] :  One of the more arresting moments in his address, at least according to pundits, is the near-miraculous eye opening of congresswoman Giffords as recounted by The Won and corroborated by Senator Gillebrand of New York.  I hate to pick at nits, but have cause to wonder about this based on a story I read in a local Tucson paper:

Giffords is in a drug-induced coma in intensive care. Doctors frequently awaken her to check her responsiveness, and she could open her eyes and respond to simple commands Sunday – an encouraging sign, said Rhee said.

Now let me make perfectly clear that her survival itself is a miracle as well as a testament to her caregivers, both at the hospital and on the scene; thank God she appears to stable and headed for a recovery.

That said though, which is it?  Were the doctors lying to the Tucson Sentinal over the weekend?  Did Obama and Gillebrand mistakenly discribe the event, intentionally or otherwise?  Or is it something else alogether?

Because I have to tell you, my intuition says that if this had been Republican President making the very same remarks last night, under the very same conditions, and in the identital context, that today the "BOOOOOOOOOOOSH! LIED!, PEOPLE DIED!" crew would not only be rending their garment, gnashing their teeth, and demanding TRANSPARENCY! and DA TROOOOOOOOOOOOF!, but that they'd already be manufacturing the giant paper-mache heads to wear and the effigies to burn and hang when they stormed the White House in righteous protest.

Me?  I'm not planning on marching, burning, or paper-mache-ing.  I just wonder which version of the truth is, well, the thruth; becuase I have it from a very good source that it will indeed set you free...

Share
1Nov/101

Gutfeld nicely sums up Jon Stewart’s rally

based in part on his life experiences:

My point: every single day of my life was a Jon Stewart rally. Everyone around me was pleasant, usually white, and always reveling in their reflexive assumptions about the "rest" of less hip America. Yep, they were my people when we got hammered. But because of my beliefs, I was not theirs on election day. And they'd hammer me for that.

That's why when I watch the rally, i just wondered, who needs it?

Well, maybe to show a divide between two groups: The tea party was about candidates; The sanity rally was about celebrity.

Because, that was the message. The teapartiers are reacting to alarming stuff: the insane spending, the bottomless deficit, weird appointments, political arrogance -it's real anxiety over real trouble for future offspring.

Stewart's rally says, "Ignore that. Check out Cat Stevens!" With a load of flashy entertainment and outsized personalities - they are the band playing on the TItanic - enjoying the applause as we see the shadow of the iceberg.

There's not much I can, or need add to that.  Except maybe to highlight the fact that at a rally supposedly celebrating tolerance and moderation, one of the headline acts was musician Cat Stevens. Or I should say, formerly known as Cat Stevens, because now he goes by Yusuf Islam.  And what is the singer of the anthem Peace Train most noteworthy for over the last 20 years? For supporting the Fatwa against Salman Rusdie...Which he now claims is all a big joke...

As Cap'n Ed noted:

When confronted with a choice between freedom of speech and homicidal religious zealotry, Cat Stevens chose the latter.

Tolerance! Comity! Moderation! to which I'll add, HYPOCRISY!

[UPDATE]: Daily Caller's Jim Treacher adds his thoughts on Stewart's, "clown nose on/clown nose off", sctick.  This one has plenty of video exhibits, and is well worth checking out.

Share
30Oct/1016

Jon Stewart is full of crap and his parties are a huge borefest

 Psst, this is my clever way making a point about proggies that spread misinformation about conservatism and everything associated with it based on their own bias and mean-spiritedness instead of listening to the other side with a respectful attitude.

What's up, Mama Grizzlies!  For those of you who've been hibernating the last few days, a wake for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's careers was held in Washington, DC today.  I didn't watch a bit of it, but here's what I bet happened.

Sam Waterston read a poem about the evil, rich, white, male Republicans that run Wall Street.  That portion of the show was sponsored by TD Ameritrade. 

Sheryl Crowe sang, "Love is Free, but toilet paper will cost you 10 bucks a square, Peasant". 

Fatwa-lover,Cat Stevens Yusuf Islam  Kylie Minogue sang Peace Train.  (Love "Tea for the Tillerman", Kylie.)

Jon Stewart finally arrived to perform an interpretive dance to "At Last" while B-roll highlights of President Obama's '08 campaign played behind them.  Then they rolled out a shrub with a sign on it the said, "Bush" and he lit it on fire.  GET IT?  GET IT?  Chill, Greenies, the lighter fluid was made from whale blubber, so it was organic.

Stephen Colbert picked up Jon Stewart's dry cleaning.

For the finale, Arianna Huffington mowed down all 500 porta-potties with her giant bus.  Then the 100 person crowd tipped over both garbage cans, lit the contents on fire and sang "Sarah Palin is a dum-dum" to the tune of "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star".

That's what I heard anyway.  What a bunch of Cleveland Steamers.

If you really want to know what happened ask Keder andMamaswati.  They were there, and they got some great pics.  Enjoy.

It's only fair to assume that crazies on the left are just as representative of their side as crazies on the right.

It doesn't matter why someone dresses like Paul Revere, you'll look like a jackass every time.

Get to Curves you fat, humorless...

Jon Stewart, these are your people

Media Matters as much as George Soros tells it to matter.

Kill Truck

KillTruck is a wife, mother, blogger and native midwesterner now living in Eastern Washington state. She writes about politics, pop culture, parenting, wifing and a few other subjects she has no authority to write about. She has macabre fascinations with prostitution and/or cannibalism. In her free time she enjoys eating and/or drinking her feelings, liveblogging Lifetime movies, thinking about Scott Brown and mocking things she doesn’t understand.

Website - More Posts

Share
21Sep/105

Obama’s Aunt: “The system took advantage of me!”

Which, you know, is kind of hard for me to understand since she's still here, living on public assistance:

Aunt Zeituni, as she has come to be known, first surfaced in the public light in 2008, in the final days of the Presidential election. Then-candidate Obama said that he was not against the possible deportation of his aunt. "If she has violated laws, then those laws have to be obeyed," he told CBS's Katie Couric. "We are a nation of laws."

In 2004 a judge ordered Zeituni Onyango out of the country, but she never left. She stayed, hiding in plain site[sic]. In 2005 she attended her nephew's swearing in as the junior Senator of Illinois. In 2008 she traveled to D.C. for President Obama's inauguration.

In May 2010, Onyango's case went back before the same judge who ordered her out of the country in 2004. This time she was granted asylum in the United States. The ruling said a return to Kenya might put Onyango in danger.

So she is now here legally, still living on public assistance and hoping that the spotlight on her will dim.

So here's the thing.  President Obama has gone out of his way to lecture us all about being our brother's keeper, which I'd have to agree with when applied on an individual basis.  But, there are folks that don't believe in this central tenet of Christianity, so the question is, should their tax dollars be used to be anyone else's keeper?

And furthermore, last I checked, President Obama has made quite a few bucks in public life, especially over the last few years.  Wouldn't you think he, as Aunti Zeituni's famous and successful nephew, would want to do something for the old girl?  Wouldn't he want to see her live without want or need, perhaps even nearer to him and his family?

And even if the answer to both those questions is a resounding, NO!, in a time that demands fiscal austerity and when the national debate on how to deal with illegal immigration and immigrants is in the fore, don't you think he would prefer that one of his relatives wasn't here illegally, living off taxpayer largesse?

Seems kind of, oh I don't  know, strange to me.  How about you?

Share
6Jul/103

When Bibi met Barry; a tale of two receptions

Boy, what a difference an election year makes, eh?  And it's not only with respect to the usual chicken-in-every-pot demagoguish posturing, or the sudden embrace of a sense of fiscal awareness and responsibility by the same Congress that, in concert with "Diddy-Our Big Bucks-Obama", enacted both the nearly trillion dollar failed stimulus as well as increased discretionary spending by 125%; all while lacking the intestinal fortitude to, you know, do their job and actually enact a budget, owing to the legitimate fear of electoral repercussions due to the oceans of red ink.  No, this year, in addition to the usual and cutomary cynicism and hypocrisy surrounding matters of domestic policy, there is a foreign policy component to the calculus as well.

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet on Tuesday seeking to show they have turned the page on an unusually rocky period in relations between Washington and its close ally.

Visiting the White House for fence-mending talks, Netanyahu will get a warmer welcome than in March when Obama kept him at arms' length in what was widely viewed as a snub over settlement policy seen by Washington as an obstacle to a Palestinian state.

Obama is not likely to risk another diplomatic clash with Netanyahu with pivotal U.S. congressional elections looming in November and pro-Israel sentiment strong among American lawmakers and voters.

Carefully choreographing what some analysts have dubbed a "make-up" visit, Obama's aides have arranged press coverage at the end of the Oval Office talks, when every bit of body language is sure to be scrutinized. Afterward, the leaders will attend a White House luncheon.

I wish that I could take this report at face value, and believe that O!&Co are truly interested in patching their self-inflicted, and seemingly intentional, rift with the Israelis.  In a perfect world, Mr. Obama would be conferring with PM Netanyahu over retaining their current geo-political balance, and concomitantly, that the US would be taking the lead in any military strikes on Iran; actions that, unfortunately, are looking increasingly imminent and necessary.

Unfortunately, I've witnessed too many actions that seem to be calculated rather than coincidental, and too many consequences that instead of being unintended are instead purposefully achieved.  I've seen one too many crises exploited for cheap political advantage.  And, while not placing me squarely amongst the tin-foil-hat-crew, I am a bit jaded because of the more breathtaking events we've all witnessed over the last 18 months; and I'm not talking about Obama's drives here.

No, behind this demonstrative reconciliation I see the urgent need to reclaim a part of the traditional Democratic electoral coalition that the progressives thought could be safely written off.  It's no secret that part of Democrat's electoral victory margin in recent cycles was due to a large number of young voters, as well as an uncharacteristically high number of white male supporters.  But, unsurprisingly, as the President's popularity has waned, so too has his large support cushion among these non-traditional Democrat voter groups.  In fact, the Democrats are publicly hand wringing about what actions to take in order to "put the band back together, man!"-the coalition that supported them in 2006 and 2008; because otherwise they will perhaps suffer a more crushing defeat at the ballot box in November than has been speculated.

Nope, in my humble opinion, it's as plain as the nose on my face.  The mid-summer strokage of the Israeli PM has more to do with wooing disillusioned Jewish voters, "back to the fold", than anything; it's to give the fightin' nutroots something to talk up to their Jewish allies.  But, in an interesting twist posited by Cap'n Ed at Hot Air, will Obama also placate the Jooooooooo haterz too by demanding that Israel apologize to Turkey?  Although there is less than a snowball's chance in sheol of that happening, it would certainly fit Obama's modus operandi by allowing him, once again, to try and vote "present".

Share
6Jul/100

Mortar fire hits U.S. embassy while Biden speaks of “progress”

Wow.  He must have really put his foot in his mouth this time; no doubt it was another big effing deal!  The left leaning MFM will surely have their undies in a bunch over this episode.  I mean, they get righteously indignant when we just roll our eyes and groan at "Biden of Arabia's" pronouncements...

But, on the other hand, I'm sure this means he'll claim that all is well in Iraq these days, that O! can declare the combat mission officially over, and that he and "Fightin' Joe" have won the war!

Pretty good for a couple of putzes who never missed an opportunity to join in a full-throated lefty chorus of, "The War is Lost!", and who both considered the surge to be a failure.

Must be some nuance there that I'm not getting.  Probably wrapped up in the old aphorism, "You can always tell a Harvard man, but, not much..."

Share
16Sep/0940

Adding fuel to the Outrage! or beginning the race card’s swan song?

For some time now I’ve been noting the gratuitous use of the race card by the Presidents supporters against any who might dare to oppose his legislative agenda.  That practice, as well as the whole comic opera that is identity politics in America may have reached a crescendo yesterday, with the same pronouncement by Jimmy Carter; a former President who has rehabilitated his personal reputation with the American people over the years, but not necessarily his reputation for political acumen, or leadership skills.  Carter, who essentially called Congressman Wilson out as a racist, southerner-to-southerner, went on say that racism plays an important role in the opposition Mr. Obama has faced.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told NBC News. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

Indeed, following Wilson’s admittedly boorish behavior during the Presidents address, for which he quickly apologized-an apology accepted by Mr. Obama, Speaker Pelosi wished to steer the house debate back toward health care; but some house members would have none of it.  Of course, we all know that Wilson was censured in the well of the House chamber, and deservedly so; but it was not unprecedented and perhaps if Bush critics had been held to a similar standard the Wilson censure wouldn’t seem so hypocritical.

The problem is that the public, especially the independent voters, is becoming increasingly skeptical to these breathless charges, as this latest Rasmussen poll indicates.  And well they should be, regardless of what the punditry or the political elite maintain; unless of course this is the national conversation on race that Mr. Obama thought we should be having.  If this exchange with Eric Dyson on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” is any indication, then the over-arching meta-narrative may indeed be in trouble.  If you can’t spare, or stomach, the entire 9 minutes then may I suggest that the real meat is around the three minute mark where Maria Bartiromo refutes Dyson’s risible assertion that no one ever called a President a monkey using one of her own colleagues, Erin Burnett, as an example.  Then, fast forward to 7:45 and listen to the last two minutes; here Maria scores a direct hit as she ask Dr. Dyson if the 20-odd percent of folks who have come to disapprove of Obama since February have suddenly become racists!

James Boswell, in his book, “The Life of Samuel Johnson”, states that Johnson was referring to false patriotism when he made his often quoted statement; “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel!”   The Krauthammer twist on that same theme is, “The Racism accusation is the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel”.  And the more people realize the gratuitous way it’s applied in our country, the closer we will come to realizing Dr. King’s dream of a colorblind society.  Let’s all hope that this is the signal of the coming swan song for the race card and identity politics in America.

UPDATE: Well, maybe I spoke too soon.  According to ACE, Maxine Waters wants the legacy media to intimidate investigate the ordinary citizens RAAAAACIST Teabaggers! who aren't down with Obama's agenda.  She wants the MSM to "vet" them, like they "vetted" Joe the Plumber, but, you know, not Obama or Van Jones...

UPDATE II: Jules Crittenden and Legal Insurrection have more on why the left should quit taking refuge behind the race card.

UPDATE III: Darleen Quick at Protein Wisdom weighs in with some more examples of the intensity of the identity politics card game going on right now.

UPDATE IV: The always insightful Ric Locke weighs in on the dynamics of how we got to this point in general.

UPDATE V: You know that the card playing is getting out of hand when independants like Ann Althouse are voicing their displeasure with the racialist demagoguery being employed by Obama's political allies.

Share

Switch to our mobile site