June 30, 2009
— Open Blog more...
— Ace Buried in Todd Purdham's hit piece: Barack Obama's own concession that it simply takes time Sarah Palin didn't have to learn how to become an an acceptable, viable national candidate:
. At least one savvy politicianBarack Obamabelieved Palin would never have time to get up to speed. He told his aides that it had taken him four months to learn how to be a national candidate, and added, I dont care how talented she is, this is really a leap.
As I said ten times during the campaign, Barack Obama is just Sarah Palin plus six months of briefing books and town halls.
On the other hand, she's kinda making me look like a liar by waiting so long to start that process. She seems to prefer instead to keep her politicking within her comfort zone of the personal, which may please some of the already-converted, but it does nothing to persuade that additional 6-8% of the electorate (at a minimum) needed to win an election.
— Ace Previously, just in time for the ridonculous 2008 elections, a majority of Americans had thought them "about right" as far as ideology. Now that figure is down to 42%.
Note that in 1994 or thereabouts -- when Republicans swept them out of power in Congress -- 50% felt they were too liberal and 37% thought they were "about right:"
We're not there yet, but we just saw a 15% net change in their too liberal/about right rating. more...
— DrewM Haven't they suffered enough? As Iraqis celebrate what they are calling National Sovereignty Day, they get sucker punched like this.
President Obama is giving Vice President Biden a larger portfolio to handle, asking him to oversee reconciliation inside Iraq, but Biden will not be a mediator between factions.
"I think he will be involved in working with Shia, Sunni and Kurd to achieve political reconciliation. I would hesitate to use the term 'mediator,' " White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at Tuesday's briefing. "Somebody who I think can oversee that we are making progress, that our attention and our resources are matched by what we see needs to happen. I think that he's well suited to do that."
The new responsibilities for Biden will include the Vice President working with the head commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, as well as members of Congress and Iraqis themselves, in order to overcome political differences towards the end result of reconciliation. Gibbs said the new role could also include some in-country visits and emphasized the Vice President is uniquely suited for the new role.
Yes, well if you consider advocating for an unpopular 3 way partition of Iraq up until about a year ago a unique qualification for fostering reconciliation, I guess that's true.
It's pretty surprising that Biden has time for all of this. Remember the whole "Nobody messes with Joe" thing that was supposed to comfort us about how well the so-called "stimulus" money would be spent? I guess he's got the website number memorized and has eliminated all that wasteful spending, so he's ready to take on another project.
That's why they call him Sheriff Joe of Arabia.
Courtesy of the one, the only, Slublog
— Ace The other day I asked if it was better if a philanderer was of the Bill Clinton use 'em and lose 'em variety, or the kind of guy to fall head over heels in love in the full maturity of middle-to-late adulthood.
I have my answer now.
Oh: He didn't really call her Pineapple-Head. I was trying to be hyperbolic. But it's hard to do so clearly, because he's saying crap that kind of walks up this line anyway.
A pretty non-explanatory explanation of the phenomenon at LiveScience.com.
Thanks to Dave at Garfield Ridge.
By the way, we're not buying any more F-22s, because Barack Obama decided that would be wasteful.
Instead, future air-superiority missions will be handled by Dog Parks and Bicycle Paths armed with our latest air-to-air missiles.
Bumped and Updated: Coleman concedes
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of Al Franken in the disputed U.S. Senate race, according to Franken attorney David Lillehaug.
A thought [DrewM.]
Yeah this sucks but...if Coleman were going to be defeated by anyone, I'm pretty excited that a fool like Franken won.
Repbulicans showed they would never stick together on a filibuster anyway, now it's clear what's being done is passed with Democratic votes. Plus, he's going to be a clown. Making him the face of the Democrats nationally will be fun.
If Coleman had lost to some bland, inconsequential cipher that would melt into the background they'd probably stay there forever. Sen. Smalley will be gone in 6 yrs. Maybe even in a rematch with Coleman.
In the meantime, Republicans can have some fun making him the poster boy of Harry Reid's Senate majority.
Playing the optimist looking for the pony in the pile of crap doesn't come naturally but it's what we've got to work with.
Thanks to Slublog for generously offering up the chance to post this idea which I originally floated in an email.
— Ace Well, may be; but then, they haven't read the bill, so, like all the Congressmen who voted in favor of it, they have no basis upon which to form an opinion at all.
Boy, does she look hot without her Fake Pregnancy Fat Suit.
As my friend said: The first vice-presidential candidate worth masturbating over since Lloyd Bentson.
Here's the story that runs with the pics.
— Ace Long but strong WSJ on Obama's abandonment, both rhetorical and practical, of any kind of emphasis on democracy and human rights as US policy goals.
The writer scratches his head at Obama's headlong embrace of authoritarianism as the future of history:
At a glance, Obama's motives seemed readily apparent. Former State Department official J. Scott Carpenter observed that it was "obvious and understandable" that "the Obama administration wanted to distance itself from the tone and perceived baggage of the Bush administration." But there were two reasons why this explanation did not satisfy.
For one, Obama might have put his own stamp on the issue without turning so sharply away from the goals of human rights and democracy. In 1981, Ronald Reagan came to the presidency with a mandate analogous to Obama's, namely, to undo the works of an unpopular predecessor. At first, Reagan was inclined to eschew human rights as just another part of Jimmy Carter's wooly-minded liberalism. In an early interview, Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the Reagan administration would promote human rights mostly by combating terrorism. But soon Reagan had second thoughts: instead of jettisoning the issue, he put his own distinctive spin on it by shifting the rhetoric and the program to focus more on fostering democracy.
In a similar vein, Obama could have faulted the Bush administration for its ineffectiveness in promoting democracy and promised that his own team would do it better. Indeed, Michael McFaul, who handled democracy issues in the Obama campaign, declared after the election that the new administration would "talk less and do more" about democratization than Bush had done. But when McFaul was appointed to the National Security Council staff, he was given the Russia portfolio rather than the job of overseeing democracy promotion. The latter task, which had been entrusted to senior staff during the Bush years, was given to no one.
The other reason why Obama's tack cannot be understood merely by his impulse to be unlike Bush is that his disinterest in democracy and human rights is global. The idea of promoting these values did not originate with Bush but with Carter and Reagan, reinforced by Bill Clinton. Bush's innovation was to apply this to the Middle East, which heretofore largely had been exempted. Repealing Bush's legacy would have meant turning the clock back on America's Middle East policy. But Obama scaled back democracy efforts not only there; he did it everywhere.
Yesterday on Brett Baier's show, Mara Liason played Obama-apologist by claiming that Obama didn't really want Chavez crony Zelaya returned to power; he really wanted him deposed, and was happy with the outcome. However, she contended, he was displeased by the way it was accomplished, and furthermore, needed to say he supported the re-installation of Zelaya. Even though he didn't.
This was a similar spin to what we heard on Obama's cautious even-handedness on Iran. Don't you think Obama really wants the democrats in Iran to prevail?, John Kerry asked rhetorically He answered rhetorically, too: "Come on."
Well, "Come on" is not an adequate answer for me. I'm afraid I am not on Obama's level of brilliance and so I do not understand that when he seems to support the mullahs in Iran, he really opposes them, and when he seems to support the unconstitutional dictator-for-life bid of a Hugo Chavez footboy, he really strenuously opposes it.
Nor do I comprehend how in one instance silence is necessary to dispel any suggestion of "meddling," but in another instance it is necessary to directly intervene to dispel the accusation of "meddling."
Nor do I understand, when it comes right down to it, why it is the most powerful elected official of the most powerful nation on earth must so frequently resort to the puerile lies of a Mean Girl, so limited is he by peer pressure.
I do not understand why it is that Obama cannot merely say he supports democrats and liberalizers and reformers, if he does indeed support them, nor why he cannot say he opposes tyrants and leftist coups, if he does indeed oppose them.
And I don't really understand why those sympathetic to Obama are so easily satisfied by telling themselves "He must just be lying about something it's not necessary nor useful to lie about."
Maybe I, like the last president I voted for, George W. Bush, lack the nuance of Barack Obama, but generally I seem to think that if you support someone, you say so, and if you oppose someone, you say that too.
— DrewM Major Garrett of FNC live Twittered (Tweeted?) today's White House briefing and has these two notes on Honduras.
First, the US is insisting that Zelaya is still President and must be returned to office.
Gibbs also tried to explain the US reacted so quickly to the Honduran situation compared to the protests in Iran because the US wanted to stave off charges we were behind Zelaya's removal.
Um, wasn't the reason Obama gave for not saying anything about Iran was to avoid charges of meddling and not linking the protesters to the US?
In Iran silence=not meddling. In Hondurans talking=not meddling. Um, okay.
The only consistency here is Obama taking the side of the authoritarian figures against the rule of law and those demanding their rights.
Meanwhile, Zelaya says he's heading back home.
Flanked by Latin American leaders who have vowed to help him regain power, Manuel Zelaya said late Monday that Organization of American States Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza had agreed to accompany him back to Honduras.
But the man named by Honduras' Congress as interim president, Roberto Micheletti, indicated Tuesday that Zelaya would risk arrest if he returns because "the courts of my country have issued arrest orders" against him.
Should be interesting to see how far Obama is willing to go to vindicate Zelaya's claims.
— Ace The Washington Post just has the headline at the moment.
I don't know if we need to know more.
Double-Posting is My Equivalent of the Drudge Siren. That's how I indicate important stuff is afoot. See, it's intentional.
— Ace This administration really is nothing but lies and spin.
he Obama administration has junked the term global war on terror because it does not describe properly the nature of the terrorist threat to the US, according to Janet Napolitano, secretary for homeland security.
One of the reasons the nomenclature is not used is that war carries with it a relationship to nation states in conflict with each other and of course terrorism is not necessarily derived from the nation state relationship, she told the Financial Times. In some respects war is too limiting.
Uh-huh. Then why not call it something even more bad-ass, like Totally Awesome Full-Spectrum Unrestricted Kill-Crazy Barackolypse?
"War" is too limiting, but "overseas contingency operations in response to man-caused disasters" is apparently expansive enough to do them justice.
I don't like the sound of this very much:
Ms Napolitano, who arrived on Monday night in the UK, said she was hoping to learn from her British counterparts, and others, how to improve public resiliency to terrorist attacks. You have got to minimise risk and respond with resiliency there are lessons to be learned from other countries and the UK is one of them, she said.
Yeah. I thought resiliency meant the capacity to endure trauma and damage, and, looking it up, that's pretty much it:
1 : the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress
2 : an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change
So Obama's big innovation in the
War on Terrorism overseas contingency operations in response to man-caused disasters? Preparing Americans to suck it up, stop being babies, and get over it already. Take the damage, eat the hit, and MoveOn.org.
The hard left has been pushing this idea -- that we stupid Americans overreact to terrorism, which, hey, only kills a couple of dozen people a year in most years -- for a long while. They finally have installed a president receptive to the idea.
President Barack Obama
And not coming in your mouth.
— DrewM This time it's Vanity Fair's turn.
It looks like the biggest quote so far is an implication that Palin may have been suffering from postpartum depression* during the campaign.
All the while, Palin was coping not only with the crazed life of any national candidate on the road but also with the young children traveling with her. Some top aides worried about her mental state: was it possible that she was experiencing postpartum depression? (Palins youngest son was less than six months old.)
Bill Kristol thinks he knows who floated that bit of trash...none other than top John McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.
McCain aides peddling trashy gossip about Palin? Color me shocked.
Jim Gerhaghty has more on the piece and wonders given that these profiles so often contradict each other whether or not "reporters" are simply projecting their preferred narrative on Palin. Also, be sure to read his fuller take down of the piece.
Personally, I'm pretty agnostic about her. She undoubtedly has that undefinable 'it' quality a great politician must have to succeed. As for policy, time will tell. Last year's campaign was not a fair sampling of her thinking.
First, she had to talk about a lot of issues she never had to deal with before and be up to speed on all of them in a very short period of time. Her instincts seem good but I'd prefer to see more before jumping on the bandwagon.
Second, the nature of the VP nominee's job, to support the top of the ticket, obscured the line between her views and McCain's, which she was obliged to support. I look forward to her laying out her agenda in a totally transparent way.
That said, for someone the left thinks is way to stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, the number of profiles done on her illustrate two things...she moves sales and they are worried about her.
*Andrew Sullivan e-mails to say, "I'm sorry to see that Vanity Fair is buying into the 'Sarah is Trig's mom' myth. Of course, Palin could have been faking her postpartum symptoms to throw me off the trail. That dumb bitch is pretty clever."
— Ace Outstanding. They can continue the "robust debate" they've been having with their jailers/torturers indefinintely.
According to BBC Persian, Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie, the minister of intelligence, just introduced a new criteria for prosecuting arrested individuals.
Ejeie divided up the arrested individuals into three groups. Those who participated and had a hand in the decision-making process regarding the recent events will remain in custody until a decision is made The other group consists of anti-revolutionary demonstrators who took advantage of the situation. These individuals have been arrested and will not be freed. The third group, according to Ejeie, is those who have been influenced by the atmosphere. This group will be released if not already released.
In addition, Ejeie indicated that a new tribunal will be set up shortly to prosecute the arrested demonstrators.
— DrewM You'd think with liberals running everything in sight they'd calm down a little but no, they some how have become even more unhinged since the start of the Age of Obama.
Take these two examples...
Paul Krugman says voting against the recently passed climate tax is "a form of treason treason against the planet"
And the Speaker of the California State Assembly says this about conservatives having the temerity to voice their opinions.
The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
You'd think given California's financial situation, one of the people responsible for the mess would have the good grace to STFU but again, not so much.
The thing I love about Democrats and liberals is their ability to project. Just about everything the accuse Republicans and conservatives of is actually what they do. Bushitler never questioned anyone's patriotism, never harangued anyone for good faith disagreements or demonized an opponent simply for exercising their right to speak.
And yet, this is the kind of language we regularly see from the party of "dissent is the highest form of patriotism".
— Gabriel Malor
— Open Blog
This has been a brief message of hope and inspiration from Reverend Jackson. Please do your best to try and live through the day.
Inspirational and hopeful video found at Dori Monson's blog which is chock full of other hopeful and inspirational sayings and things.
June 29, 2009
— Open Blog Figured Id better use em or just put em by the curb with the trash. Youll probably wish Id just gone ahead and done the latter.
Item #1: Its hard to say which party is the more pathetic one in this story, but I just know youll take a crack at it anyway: Woman Trades Sex for Case of Chips. As in potato chips.
A woman pleaded no contest last week to prostitution charges, accused of agreeing to be paid for services with a box of chips by a man who said he was a Frito-Lay employee.
Smith (the prostitute ed.) told police the man told her he was looking for company but he didnt have any money, so she agreed to be paid with a $30 case of Frito-Lay chips he had in the back of his car.
A police spokesman said the man was not arrested based on "officer discretion."
More likely because the officer was laughing too hard to put the guy in cuffs. The article comes with a photo of Ms. Smith and, while shes a real keeper and all, I think the john couldve probably negotiated her down to a twin pack of Pringles. And whatever happened to the evidence in this case, hmmmmm?
Additional detritus below the fold.
— Ace It's a kinda-sorta review because I've only had this thing three days and I barely even know how to smoke it yet.
But here are my first reactions.
First of all, if you smoke, you want this, ASAP. 1, Smoking is a killer, 2, our government is (of course) revving up the machinery to outlaw them to keep cigarette makers happy and the huge federal taxes on cigarettes flowing. So if you're going to get one, you should probably get one before prohibition and the black market mark-up.
I don't even think it really matters how "good" the e-cigarette is It's gotta be better than death. more...
45 queries taking 2.1917 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.