Nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh! The Democrats in Massachusetts, collectively reeling at the horror of a potential Scott Brown victory in the January 19 senatorial election, have resorted to childish taunting maneuvers. According to today's Boston Herald, they are (believe it or not) making some kind of snide insinuation that Sarah Palin ought to endorse Scott Brown, and that somehow, this would help there cause, because no one likes Sarah Palin.
I am not exactly sure what is being said, in this case. When a whiny child is wrong about something and knows it, he will often grope for oblique, immature, illogical quips that he can use to annoy and insult others for his own gratification. This DNC press secretary is following suit. Can't think of anything worthwhile or original to say? Attack Bush and Cheney. Still can't think of anything? Attack Sarah Palin (who, by the way, is being hit with major new allegations of stupidity and incompetence; perhaps a review of this forthcoming book is in order).
Ultimately, the DNC's sniping illustrates that the Democratic Party is (pardon me) scared utterly shitless of Scott Brown. Senators Kennedy and Kerry, along with Congressmen Delahunt and Capuano, traditionally ignored their marginal Republican challengers, running non-campaigns that yield 70-30 victories. Not this time. Coakley's mousy, silent bid for the Senate has backfired. You can't ignore a guy who has made as huge an impression as Brown; he raised nearly a million dollars in one day!
Will he win? I don't know. I believe that any prediction I make would be a 50-50 guess. In an earlier post, I aired my criticisms of both Brown and the race in general, and believed the situation looked dim. It's still not a lock, by any means. The left-wing machine in Massachusetts is quite powerful.
However, while I still have reservations about Brown's stance on crucial issues, he is the only choice for those of us who are looking for leadership and common sense instead of left-wing demagoguery. The longer his dogged, honest campaign has run, the more I've come to like his style.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed
Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.
From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.
Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.
Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.
P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.
P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.
P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.
From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.
Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.
Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.
P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.
P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.
P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Strange Minutiae of the Week: Woodrow Wilson Was A High Roller
Considering that he is, in hindsight, seen as a somewhat weak president, Woodrow Wilson was an odd choice for the now-extinct $100,000 bill. I would expect a Washington, a Lincoln, perhaps one of the Roosevelts...but Wilson? Maybe because the heavy hitters of the presidential lineup graced other bills, the Treasury had to dip into the second tier of U.S. presidents/officials for the big notes.
If kids today were aware of any of this, I'm sure there'd be all kinds of jokes about dropping Wilsons, snorting white powdered substances out of Wilsons, etc.
For a possibly accurate crash course in other extinct cash, check out Wiki.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Liar of the Week: U.S. Senator Paul Kirk
Ah, the pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken. After pledging not to endorse anyone in the race for the open Massachusetts senate seat, interim-Senator Paul Kirk has gone ahead and endorsed Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Mission accomplished: talk a good game to your constituents, make them think that you are going to stay above the partisan fray, and then go back on your word the second that people aren't paying attention (after all, Kirk is hardly a household name, and has kept a low profile in the Upper House; his endorsement's effectiveness does not trouble me, only the fact that he made it at all).
After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.
How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.
He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.
After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.
How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.
He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Who's Afraid of the "T" Word?
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, March 2009 interview with Der Spiegel
Janet Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
In light of the gaping security breaches that became evident during the failed Christmas Day bombing plot, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's above statement has become a major subject of debate and ire across the U.S. Coupled with her initial pronouncement that "the system worked" on Christmas Day (ignoring the fact that a disaster was averted only by terrorist stupidity), Napolitano's past statement is causing major concerns about her efficacy as one of the nation's top security officials.
Some are calling for her head. Some are coming to her defense. Predictably, Obama has made it clear that (barring mass public opposition) he will not be swayed by Napolitano's detractors.
Napolitano's demure attitude towards the word "terrorism" is far more troublesome than the left is willing to admit. Mind you that for me, the recent controversy is merely so much more icing on the cake. From the beginning, I never liked her. A great piece from American Thinker briefly and rightfully reminds us that Napolitano branded pro-life individuals and returning military veterans as domestic security threats. This nakedly partisan approach to national security suggests a lack of focus on the real danger. For all their whining about Bush and Cheney's "totalitarian" ways, lefties seem awfully willing to use homeland security powers against those whom they find distasteful.
Perhaps we should merely expect Obama's DHS secretary to target those who disagree with him, on political principle. But for a sitting DHS Secretary to openly deride the term "terrorism" as part and parcel of "the politics of fear"? It's ridiculous. By cloaking the reality of today's terrorist threat in politically-correct language so as not to scare people, Napolitano and company seem to be the ones who are most afraid. They are afraid of the truth. Terrorism is a real, potent, and unpredictable threat that we face. There is no point in calling it anything other than what it is. Semantics can't change the facts.
P.S.- Obama's nomination of Erroll Southers for the long-vacant Transit Security Administration leadership position is running into some fresh snags. Looks like he was censured by the FBI in the past, and GOP senators are none too happy. How many more senate confirmation woes can Obama afford before his political capital is effected?
Good Riddance
This morning, Publius smugly smiles at the idiocy of these Afghan terrorists who undertook a suicide bombing mission and ended up being its only casualties. As Winston Wolfe said: "Better you than me, gentlemen."
Doubtless similar situations have arisen between 2001 and now, but this is the first time I have actually heard of such a thing occuring in Iraq or Afghanistan. Be thankful that the terrorists involved were only able to bring harm to themselves, and not to the battered population of Afghanistan nor the American and Afghan security forces that protect it.
Should we rejoice in occasions such as these? Philosophically, I don't know. I feel guilty for finding the story funny, yet I cannot muster one iota of sympathy for a pack of murderers who blew themselves up while targeting innocent people.
One of warfare's cruel ironies is that there is the occasional macabre slapstick to be found on the battlefield. I've heard more than a few veterans relate stories that are, in their eyes, both horrifying and darkly humorous.
Does how we react to these stories say something about our nation's character? Is there such thing as an appropriate response? Am I thinking way too much about this? Post your comments. I'm interested in what you might say.
Doubtless similar situations have arisen between 2001 and now, but this is the first time I have actually heard of such a thing occuring in Iraq or Afghanistan. Be thankful that the terrorists involved were only able to bring harm to themselves, and not to the battered population of Afghanistan nor the American and Afghan security forces that protect it.
Should we rejoice in occasions such as these? Philosophically, I don't know. I feel guilty for finding the story funny, yet I cannot muster one iota of sympathy for a pack of murderers who blew themselves up while targeting innocent people.
One of warfare's cruel ironies is that there is the occasional macabre slapstick to be found on the battlefield. I've heard more than a few veterans relate stories that are, in their eyes, both horrifying and darkly humorous.
Does how we react to these stories say something about our nation's character? Is there such thing as an appropriate response? Am I thinking way too much about this? Post your comments. I'm interested in what you might say.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Happy 2010, Plus Recommended Reading
This is my inaugural post of 2010. I suppose it would have had more impact had I authored it a couple days ago, but I have been busy. A belated "Happy New Years" to all.
I can only hope that 2010 will be better than 2009. Last year that saw countless economic woes and employee lay-offs, infuriating failures of national leadership, mounting terrorism both at home and abroad, and protracted warfare involving U.S. troops across the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than that. However, there can be improvement if America is willing to pull itself up by its boot straps and demand more of its leaders and institutions. This year, we will have the opportunity to toss the bums out of Congress and start afresh. This strikes me as one of the most crucial things that the American people can do this year.
So keep your hopes high and your expectations low, as you peruse some recommended reading for the week:
-Heather McDonald at the Wall Street Journal brilliantly demolishes the "crime-as-a-symptom-of-social-injustice" theory.
-Joe Carter at First Thoughts airs an infuriating New York City Health Department pamphlet that helps people learn how to "safely" shoot heroin.
-George Weigel, writing for The National Review, explicates just war theory in regards to Obama the Afghanistan situation. This brilliant article appeared in December, and I forgot to link to it sooner.
I can only hope that 2010 will be better than 2009. Last year that saw countless economic woes and employee lay-offs, infuriating failures of national leadership, mounting terrorism both at home and abroad, and protracted warfare involving U.S. troops across the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than that. However, there can be improvement if America is willing to pull itself up by its boot straps and demand more of its leaders and institutions. This year, we will have the opportunity to toss the bums out of Congress and start afresh. This strikes me as one of the most crucial things that the American people can do this year.
So keep your hopes high and your expectations low, as you peruse some recommended reading for the week:
-Heather McDonald at the Wall Street Journal brilliantly demolishes the "crime-as-a-symptom-of-social-injustice" theory.
-Joe Carter at First Thoughts airs an infuriating New York City Health Department pamphlet that helps people learn how to "safely" shoot heroin.
-George Weigel, writing for The National Review, explicates just war theory in regards to Obama the Afghanistan situation. This brilliant article appeared in December, and I forgot to link to it sooner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
