Sunday, January 30, 2011

Wrongfully Indignant

Aaron Flint has the whole sad, sorry saga, but to give you a Reader's Digest version, there was a Native American state representative who said something stupid. Now, I could tell you who it is, or you could look it up yourself, but I don't think that she needs anymore scorn than she has already earned.
But it seems that there was a debate about whether to use mail in ballots for future voting. My experience would be that would result in a significant number of Indians that I normally send correspondence to to be disenfranchised. I don;t know if it's a function of poverty or culture, but I do know that Indians on my reservation would not vote in the same numbers they do now. In any event, the Republicans struck that portion that said that Indians should receive "special treatment" in doing mail in balloting. There is no explanation for what the "special treatment" is, but that portion was rejected in any event. This caused the representative in question to say that she "could feel the hatred coming from your (Republican) caucus for us." "That you just want all Indians to die." Apparently, she has been taking classes from the Alan Grayson school of politics. She did go on further than that, but again, I won't bother to add more scorn than she has already earned.
I first read about this on Saturday in the paper, and I was thinking I wasn't going to even dignify it with a mention, but then I started to think about it, and I had to wonder why mail in ballots would engender such animosity? And the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that this was a cold, calculated response that was looking for a trigger to be used against. Except it was one of such little value, it actually backfired.
Yes, I am saying that the entire outburst was contrived and not valid. That the representative in question was bent on scoring points by playing the race card, and that it was only through her own incompetence that it was played so poorly.
Remember this the next time someone alleges racism. They could just be looking to score points. And the worst of it is, even when there is actual racism (and there is)she just diminished it.

Juggling Chainsaws

What to do about Egypt? this is the problem that the Administration is facing, and they have almost zero tools with which to work on the problem. First, they have VP Biden declare that Mubarak is not a dictator. This obviously pits the US on the side of keeping Mubarak in power. That is not going to happen folks. The demonstrators are either going to have a democracy, or a rehash of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979.
I guess that whole "Bush's fault" when it comes to dealing with other nations has become inadequate. And rightly so. Near as I can figure out, the best we can hope for is cut our losses with Mubarak, tell the Egyptian people that we support them, however they decide to go (ensuring national pride) and get ready to help undermine the Muslim Brotherhood when they come into power.
Hope and Change! Which is this again?

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Baucus' Blunder

Our foreign trade policies have been held hostage to politics for far too long, and now we are about to pay for that. You might remember the Columbian Free Trade Agreement that then President Bush wanted Congress to pass, but because it supposedly contained lax enforcement of union privileges, it was held up in the Democratic Congress. Now, our senior senator has suddenly noticed that our Montana beef producers are about to be hit with an excise tax of between 8-120% in tariffs making us non-competitive with Canada that just signed a trade agreement with Columbia.
While I realize it is too far off for Max to be re-elected, I am hoping that people and the Internet will not let him forget what he has done with all of his seniority for Montana. And that is absolutely zilch.
He needs to be retired to his home in McLean, Virginia, where he belongs.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Hot Tub Hotheads

Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt from National Review Online, had a piece today about the origins of the Tea Party. While I can't link in the original piece, this part was just hilarious:
For decades, conservatives watched large rallies in Washington for gay rights, opposition to Middle Eastern wars, the Million Man March, gun control, and dozens of other trendy lefty causes, and consoled themselves with the idea that the grassroots of the Right just weren't the kind of folks who attended big rallies. (Pro-lifers, with their annual March for Life held in bitter January weather, made a striking exception.) Unions often secure the day off for their members; college students and professors find it all too easy to skip or cancel class. If you didn't see the demographics that make up the GOP base -- small businessmen, parents, members of the military -- marching and waving signs, it's because they were too busy working for a living.

The libertarian magazine Reason has noted that Americans who subscribe to a socially liberal, fiscally conservative philosophy are the ideological demographic most likely to own jacuzzis and hot tubs. Couple this with a preference for individualism over broad-based group action, and one can quickly understand why you don't often see giant libertarian rallies: They're mostly at home having fun in their hot tubs. In fact, it takes a dire threat to their liberties to get them out of their hot tubs.

Enter the Obama administration.

Revolution Now my brothers and sisters! We have nothing to lose but our spas!

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Somebody to Respect

While I am not drunkblogging the State of the Union Speech, I have been consuming adult beverages and enjoying myself in spite of the horrible speech. But the Flint Report sent me a link to someone who actually does value the Constitution of both Montana and the United States. Meet Krayton Kerns, DVM and true American Dr. Kerns is resisting the stampede toward the erosion of our Constitutional protections, and he is doing so purely on principle, because there is no organized lobby to push the legislation through like the Mad Mothers Against Drunks. Oops, I mean Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
The public has been shoved into a direction that would be nearly impossible to resist for a lesser mortal. But Dr. Kerns, who will be assailed as helping drunk drivers get away with the crime realized that pretending to solve the problem is not the same as actually solving it.

Good on you sir.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

News From the Birther Front

I find the whole "Birther" fuss to be an annoying attempt to distract from the issues. Yes, I have argued that it is no different than those who said the Bush 43 was "Selected, not elected." That it is nothing more than an attempt to deligitimise the President, to prevent him from exercising his authority. But now Hillbuzz has an idea that something else is at play. Short analysis is that when the new Democrat Governor came to office promising to "walk down the hall to the vital records and put an end to this once and for all" it may have set up a problem if the President's birth certificate doesn't say Barak Obama, but Barry Sotero instead.
Interesting theory, but just goes to prove, sometimes, your friends really don't help.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

I Can Quit Anytime I Want To

So says every addict, usually while slurring their speech. But we have a new form of addiction that someone is going to try and quit: Palinoia! Yes, an obscure know-nothing, formerly of Journolist (the group of Lefty "journalists" who were trying to manipulate press coverage for Obama and against the Republicans) Dana Milbank has decided that he was not going to mention Sarah Palin for the entire month of February. Notice how he decided to use the shortest month of the year.
Whatever you may think of Palin, she is a lot of fun to watch as she turns the Left inside out on themselves.
But I, and I am hoping that other bloggers will pick up the slack of a Milbank boycott by publishing a blog posting every day of February about Sarah Palin. The fun thing with Blogger, is that I can preload the posts and have them appear one at a time, every day for the month. No day will be Sarah Free!

Come join me in the resistance to the credentialed idiots who believe that their opinions matter. Post away about Sarah, every day, for all of February.

Legal Theft

I keep looking for an aggressive lawyer who would take on the student loan mess, but alas, they are all too busy supposedly. But if you read all the way through this, you will know what I mean.

Student Loans Scheme.

Infographic by College

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Gaining Understanding

Introspection can be a very useful tool at times. One should always take a look at yourself, as if in a mirror, and measure your self against your own preconceived notions. Are you reacting a certain way because you have carefully considered the alternatives, or is it more an instinctual or even gut based reaction? For instance, upon seeing a poisonous snake, it is quite understandable to recoil in horror. Likewise, an infant's smile would draw you in, and make you want to hold the child and stimulate or prolong the smile.
I bring this up because of a TV show that I had recorded called "Harry's Law" which is another production of David E. Kelly. Kelly has made other legal series such as Ally McBeal, (which I never watched) The Practice and Boston Legal (which I always watched) and others. As a general rule, his writing is fast paced and interesting, usually relating to topical events. One thing about Kelly, is that he is predictably liberal, although his caricature of conservatives can be charmingly amusing. The Boston Legal where the character played by William Shatner shot a salmon was hilarious. But in the new show, the lead character brought up Rush Limbaugh as a drug besotted marionette who is given a special deal because he is white. This was interesting to me because just the other night, I had a lively political discussion with another young Democrat friend of mine, where we were talking about journalists, and he brought up that he thought that Limbaugh as a journalist was cynically manipulating the weak minded of his audience.
I was somewhat amused because when I asked him if he thought Katie Couric was doing the exact same thing, he couldn't believe that was possible. But here is the real issue, Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist. He is, as even he calls himself, "an entertainer." But even that is not enough. I have listened to him on occasion, and I don't get to listen to him all the time, but he is not a manipulator of weak minds. Instead, he simply says what his audience is already thinking. Limbaugh is the voice of his audience, but he is not the brain. Although he does put into words what the audience is thinking, better than his call ins do.
This is amusing when you remember that the Obama administration at first seemed to think that Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican Party, or at least were trying to make him the face of Republicans, because in the crowds that the Obama Admin hung out with, Limbaugh is not popular.
And now you see why I led off with the idea that introspection is important. The Obama administration and the Democrat Party lack the ability to look dispassionately at themselves and see who they are. To the casual observer, it is clear that the Democrats model their worldview on that of a speaker who holds power over his followers. Think Obama. Limbaugh is the AntiObama. I really do believe that the Democrats would have had to invent Limbaugh if he wasn't already present.
This explains why they have no understanding about the anger of the Tea Party, or why they were rejected last November. Maybe a few moments of introspection would help the Democrats understand their fellow Americans.

Eh, probably not.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Real Violent Rhetoric

From the Agitator:
Comment of the Day
Friday, January 14th, 2011

In response to my post about yet another mistaken drug raid, in which police pointed their guns at a 13-year-old girl, threatened to shoot the family dogs, then, when they asked what had happened, told the victims to “read about it in the paper tomorrow,” Dave Kruger writes:

In this post, there is none of that vitriolic language that’s been in the headlines since the Arizona shooting. There is no name calling. Nothing about distrusting the government. No talk of targeting anyone. No finger pointing by one party about how the other party is wrecking the country. Nothing about a “Second Amendment solution”. No “Don’t Tread on Me” symbolism. Nothing about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. Just a simple news item reporting an increasingly common event in an ordinary American city involving ordinary American citizens in their own ordinary American homes.

So, would someone please explain to me why jaw is tensely locked, my fists clenched tight, and my heart pounding in my chest?

Because crosshairs on a map are nothing compared to a shotgun jammed against your daughter's head.

Krugman the Idiot

I know that it is a given that Paul Krugman is an idiot, but every once in awhile it is tempting to remind oneself why by reading his column.  This prevents the normal mellowing that you have for any ignorant fool, and to which Krugman is not entitled.  The latest comes in the form of his opinion piece "A Tale of Two Moralities."  In this sophist tripe, the esteemed Nobel Prize winner (motto: We only pick people who will drive Republicans crazy, even if they haven't achieved anything) takes it on himself to examine the difference between him and everyone else.  Tigerhawk has already done an excellent job of deconstructing his nonsense, but if I may, Dear Reader, I would like to add a few more items for your consideration. First
One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.
This is so fraught with unexplained leaps of logic, I can only assume that he is going for the Olympics next. Mr. Krugman believe that it's only right for the rich to pay more to pay for those less fortunate. They do. In spades. But the logic still fails in one very vital aspect: What if rich people give their money directly to the poor instead of giving it to the government. In the overall cost of things, isn't that better? It cuts out the middleman and eliminates overhead. But I suspect that Mr. KRugman would not be satisfied. It would seem as if in his world, the only legitimate way to aid the less fortunate is to do it through the government. There is no explanation for this assumption, and I am at a loss to explain one.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
Taking out the utter nonsense about violent rhetoric which has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, I am not that much in opposition to him. But he thinks that I am being selfish. I see no difference between what the government does and a mugger sticking a pistol in my side and telling me to give it over. Mostly because of the gross imbalance of how much is taken. It is similar to a discussion I had with a young friend who is a True Believer of the Left side. He though it only fair that the rich should pay their fair share. When I pointed out that would mean a tax cut, he was completely at a loss. It seems as though so many of the Left are unable to think beyond their preconceived notions.
No, I said, if you have a flat 10% tax, and someone earns $10,000 they would owe $1,000 in taxes. But is someone made $1 Million, they would pay $100,000 in taxes, which is a lot more than the first example. "Well, yes" my young friend said, "but the guy making a million has too much stuff, he can do with less." I asked him, how much less? He had no numerical answer, but just knew that they should be able to do with less, since the guy making $10,000 is able to get by with less. I then reminded him that he makes more than $10k, should he give up his stuff to get down to the $10k limit as well? Again no answer, since he was planning on helping poor people, and they would reward him with more than the $10k guy because he helped. I then asked him why they shouldn't reward the millionaire even more, since that guy helped them even more than he would? Again, I got the look of "What's wrong with you?" Which is given everytime you ask questions outside of their orthodoxy.
Krugman and my young friend suffer from the same disease: The desire to help without actually, you know, doing anything. This is not about helping the poor, since that can be done directly, but this is about power. The power to redistribute wealth as they see fit. Not with logic or any sense of fairness, but to punish those they think undeserving for whatever reason, and to reward those they think disadvantaged in order to reap their adulation of being so generous with other people's money.
The sort of wealth redistribution that they long for was tried before in this country. People don't really remember, but those of us old enough can hark back to the day when a worker's pay was increased if he married, and again for children by the private employer. The rationale was that it was good for society to have stable families, and it may have been, but the net result was that a poor worker with a large family could be paid more than a good worker who was single. The interesting thing is that what ended the policy was the advent of Women's Liberation. By demanding equal pay for equal work, it forced employers to re-look who was getting paid what, and to tailor it to the needs of the company.
I really can't deal with the rest of the post by Krugman, but you are welcome to read it here if you want. But I still think Tigerhawk has the better.

Asymmetrical Warfare

Asymmetrical warfare is a term of art that the military uses to define two uneven opponents.  For instance, if Al Qaida was to line up toe to toe to the US military, the results would be quite clear quite quickly.  But AQ understands they don't stand a chance in a face to face combat, so they look to exploit other areas, that are usually our own weaknesses.  For instance, AQ is quite willing to use civilians as shields in order to deter our attacks or if they don't deter them, to exploit the propaganda value that many in the West are willing to assist with against us.  The result is nearly nine and a half years of success, but no knockout blow.  Of course the war will go on, we have no choice.  For the same reason that there is no centralized control to destroy, there isn't one to negotiate with either.
Which brings me to Sarah Palin.  Not that Sarah is the same as AQ, but that the tactics she employs are those of asymmetrical warfare.  Think about it, here is a former governor living in Alaska, whose main method of communications are the Tweet and MySpace.  And she is the central point of attack for the Left.
The rage she inspires is simply amazing, and quite fun to watch.  the most recent example having been after the Tragedy in Tucson where Markos Moulitas said "Mission Accomplished Sarah."  There wasn't a thread of evidence to connect Palin to the lunatic but it fit the narrative that the Left wants to have of her.  Of course it was so far over the top that they quickly were brought back to reality by the rest of the country who view the Left with disgust for libeling innocent Americans.
But then Sarah makes a YouTube movie and posts it on her MySpace, right before the President speaks, and she gets darned near equal billing as the President of the United States.  Think about it, the President, with all of the resources he has at hand, the White House, the Democratic Party (same thing), mainstream media (same thing), pundits (same thing), Google, (same thing), and he is competing with her.  It's absolutely marvelous.
I may not want Sarah Palin to end up being President, even if she would be a vast improvement over the incumbent, but I do so enjoy watching them take her on.  It's too bad that it is so mismatched.
In her favor.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

They've Gone Off the Deep End

The Left, both nationally, and now apparently locally, are mystified by the reaction of those among us who resent being accused of complicity in the Madman's Murders in Tucson.  Perhaps a brief recap of the situation may make this clearer, Dear Reader:  After the election of President Obama, the American people held him in high esteem, proud of the fact that we had elected the first black President ever.  This seemed  to be a repudiation of our racism, and recognition of the American Dream that anyone could grow up to be President, because he did! But then, he started to ram through policies that were not acceptable to the public in general.  As the President's poll numbers began plummeting, the Left, searching for a reason, decided that anyone who didn't support the President's polices must be a racist.
Of course, that didn't sit well with those who had an honest disagreement in policy with the President and his party.  So the opponents began to push back and rejected the false accusation.  This of course, promptly flummoxed the Left.  "How dare those we accuse of racism not sit quietly and take it like they always have!"  We went through a long period of accusation followed by anger and disgust at the accusers and for the most part, that false charge has been relegated to the trash heap for now.
The President's poll numbers continued to plummet even with the passage of ObamaCare, and still the Left was flummoxed.  "How can the peasants reject our munificence?"  After the November election, when the public totally rejected the Democrat platform, the next thing to happen was Mark Halperin in Time magazine hoping that some terrible tragedy would occur like the Oklahoma City Bombing that Obama could use just like Clinton did for political purposes.  And lo and behold, we have a madman in Tucson who has obliged him.
Within less time than it took to even find out how many shooters there are, we have Paul Krugman blaming it on the Tea Party.  No really, the first reports were that there may have been more than one shooter, and Krugman has his villain, damn the facts, the narrative is just too good to pass up.  This was followed by the Daily Kos offering up "Mission Accomplished Sarah!"  A twofer, both the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, they simply couldn't resist.
Curiously for them, like the false allegations of racism, those on the Right did not roll over and begin apologizing as expected.  In fact, they hit back.  The Left through their mainstream allies and aided by a political hack of a Sheriff in Tucson redoubled their efforts, claiming that even if it wasn't directly Sarah's fault, there is a "climate" (my how they love that word) of hate out there.  Violent rhetoric!  Hate speech!  All of the tools were thrown into the fray to shut up their opponents, and still they did not quit their scorn instead of cowering as they should have.  And still the peasants refused to take their rightful places at the foot of and staring adoringly into the eyes of our Leftist betters. 
Now we have the newest tactic, which is to claim that recognizing the excesses of the Left in the past is old hat and irrelevant to the argument, since only the Right seems to have the megaphone.  Pardon me while I regain my chair after having to look around on the floor for where my ass fell off from laughing so hard.  No, the problem is not hate speech, it's not Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox News, the Koch family nor any of the other imagined bogeymen that is causing their failure.  Their programs fail all on their own, and the transference of blame to the above list is the mark of desperation.  The Left cannot understand why they are being rejected and they are lashing out at the rest of us.
It is sad in a way, it really is.  They want so much to tell us what to do and to have us thank them for all that they have done for us, and yet, we don't.  Instead, we look at them with clear eyes, seeing them for the shallow pathetic excuses for human beings that they are.  We see that they have exhausted their armory and are now defenseless.  (Notice the violent rhetoric?)

Monday, January 10, 2011

You Can't Have a Civil Discussion With Idiots Like This

Rep. James Clyburn, who holds the highest ranking spot in the Democrat Party that is absolutely meaningless (okay, to be fair, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are down there as well) has decided that the Arizona shooter was motivated by the reading of the Constitution.  No, really, that document which is the framework of all of our government (okay, it doesn't say anything about health care or abortion, but that's because it was written by dead white men) is an apparently subversive document. 
“All [of] this stuff taking place in the Chambers the other day, when the Constitution was being read — all that stuff is uncalled for,” Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) told the Ed Schultz radio program.
Clyburn says there may be a “direct link” between Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” comment and the reading of the Constitution with the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords over the weekend.
 Really?  And what would be your proof?  Heck, what would even be an indirect link?  In fact, what would it have to do with a madman at all?
Of course, this is the guy who actually said
the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what's acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.
Oh, that's easy, if Clyburn doesn't like it, they need to keep their mouth shut.  But so long as it is class warfare, or just anti Republican, well, that's just clean fun.
No, their anger is not at heated rhetoric, since the Left is quite comfortable with it. The difference this time, is that we aren't just laying down and taking it.

And that is our real sin.

Sunday, January 09, 2011

I've About Had It Updated

I regret the casualties of the loner loser who needed to display his madness by killing innocents.  But I have had it with the idea that this is all the fault of the Right Wing, talk radio, Sara Palin, or whatever.  This is truly disgusting.
For the most part, I do believe that the people who occupy the Left side of the spectrum are decent people who want to help others, but are sadly misinformed and ignorant of what they do.  I could just as easily say that the Left is intent on the destruction of my country, ala Cloward-Piven, but I don't.  On the other hand, when I listen to Joe Klein, Kieth Olbermann and others on the TV today, their vitriol is simply dripping as they rub their little hands with glee that they have a hammer with which to silence all of their enemies, I am forced to reconsider how malevolent the Left may actually be.
There seems to be a concerted effort to demonize all things not Democrat using this loser, pothead, stoner, madman as the vehicle.  Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Markos Moulitas display their contempt for facts and logic here.  Even a member of Congress as well as Andrew Sullivan are only too quick to take advantage of the situation.  And it's not just individuals acting recklessly, the "news" services are jumping on as well. 
Of course, when it was Major Hassan who opened fire killing twice as many innocents at Fort Hood, the call was for everyone to not overreact.  Or the guy who was the Discovery Channel shooter, he was also given a pass.
Let's face it, this is not an example of the Right making anyone act a certain way.  This is a boon for those on the Left to attack and try to silence those who disagree with them.  It is wrong, and it is un-American to use these sort of false accusations when you can't win the public with your argument.  It is tempting to sink to their level and act like the Islamist bastards and start to make snuff videos of innocent Leftists being beheaded.  Apparently, that is "legitimate" violence that must be appeased as opposed to the idea that belief in limited government and fiscal responsibility should ever even be discussed.
As angry as I am with the slander/libel of the leading lights of the Left, I do realize tthat there are some who would deplore the violence without limitation.  Lanny Davis is the only one that comes to mind at the moment.  It's possible that there may be one or two others.  But for the most part, their deliberate use of the tragedy for political purposes is beyond contempt.  If they don't denounce these sort of baseless accusations, I will no longer hold their opinion worthy of consideration.

The Olbermanns, Krugmans, and Kos kooks can all just go to Hell until then.

UPDATE:  I had forgotten about the Holocaust Memorial shooter and the guy who flew his plane into the IRS office a while ago.  And don't forget the murder of two soldiers in Arkansas.  All of these were committed by leftists.  In order to stop the violence, we need to silence the Left immediately.  Anything that they say can and is being used by these deranged lunatics as an excuse to murder people.  When, oh when, will the Left finally acknowledge that their hatred is so dangerous?

UPDATE 2.  As bad as it has been, now a Democrat group is using the Giffords shooting as a fundraiser.  Have they no shame?

Saturday, January 08, 2011

Understanding Their Logic

Logic, as a study, is a method of analyzing problems through a structured reasoning process.  i.e. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.  But in politics, what is called logic is anything but.
For instance, in the man made Global Warming nonsense, if it is getting warmer, it's because of global warming.  And if it's getting colder, it's because of global warming.  Are you starting to see a pattern here?  Also, make sure that you say that the scientists have formed a "consensus" that the "science is settled."  Of course, no real scientist would say that a consensus is science, nor that it is settled.  They would say that the facts prove the theory, or disprove it, or that the facts support the theory, but haven't been proven conclusively.  In any event, none of the rhetoric or ad hominem attacks that have taken place by those who want to keep the poor people of the world in their penury, without any hope of improvement for them or their children could be considered to be logic.
And then, we have violence.  In case you didn't know it, a Democratic Congresswoman from Arizona was one of a number of victims who were senselessly attacked.  Perhaps because she is a Democrat, the first allegations were that the shooter was a deranged Tea Partier.  Paul Krugman immediately blasted that without any other evidence, it had to be a Right WingerOf course he wasn't the only one.
Did liberals like Congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona Democrat, Markos, Moulitsas, and Andrew Sullivan speak too soon for the sake of hoping that the Tucson shooter could have had a tea party or a right of center affiliation? From all of their statements today, both said and written, it sure seems like it.
In the parlance, this is known as making lemonade out of lemons. Someone is shot? Well, let's just use it to demonize our "Enemies" because opponents is too civilized. But it's too much fun to be a demagogue as shown in the same article about the founder of the Daily Kos:
The Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas hit Twitter at around 2pm making such statements like:

If Palin's crosshair effort was excusable, why has her PAC scrubbed her site of that page?

Arizona sheriff investigating assassination went on rant about right-wing hate radio rhetoric. He shouldn't have gone there?

How dare people "politicize" a political assassination!

F***ing American Taliban

Sharron Angle's first amendment remedies, in action. That rhetoric MATTERS.

Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin,

However, Twitter followers began to point out to Mr. Moulitsas that a Daily Kos blogger by the name of "Blue Boy" posted a blog on Thursday on Mr. Moulitsas's website with the headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"

The headline was referring to Ms. Giffords's vote against now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, for Speaker of the House. Rep. Giffords instead voted for Democratic Georgia Congressman John Lewis. After Mr. Moulitsas was bombarded about this blog on Twitter, the blog disappeared and so did a number of Tweets from @Markos for a number of hours, when the alleged shooter was later identified as Jared Lee Loughner, an obviously disturbed individual who enjoyed reading:

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

Additionally, Moulitsas's Daily Kos placed a "bulls eye" on Rep. Giffords as well as a primary target in 2008. (h/t Hillbuzz).
Of course, he has since scrubbed the site. Can't have such obvious hypocrisy that can't be covered by the usual suspects, er, I mean the Main Stream Media.
It must be really disappointing to them that instead of being a Tea Partier, he is just a classic Democrat.

Interesting Take on Elections and Race

As we have been told, we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to all matters of race.  But National Journal does an interesting analysis of attitudes towards Democrats based on race.  Some of it I knew anecdotaly, such as the high percentage of blue collar men and women who are Republicans.  I had explained that in the past because so much of the Democratic Party emphasis is on being a victim, and if you are white you are not allowed to be a victim, so you can't participate.  Also, I think that the blue collar workers who are white are more likely to see a future that is bigger than their present situation and circumstances.
But the article is fascinating for how the breakout of votes by races goes.  Unquestionably, minorities are going to go for Obama in 2012, and whites are probably going to continue to give the majority of their votes to the Republicans.  I think the fight is going to be over the college educated white vote.  If Obama keeps the same percentage as before, he should be able to cruise to re-election.  On the other hand, if enough white collar college educated white voters feel that the government has become too powerful and intrusive, the Republican Party should be the direct beneficiary.
The emphasis that the article puts on Colorado is especially telling.  There, the original Republican senatorial candidate was a Mr. Buck, who was a Tea Partier and a social conservative at the same time.  Interestingly, by the time the election came around, he was almost irrelevant, as Mr. Tancredo who was also of a Tea Party philosophy, but running as an Independent was the second place vote getter.   The difference was that Tancredo was less about social issues such as abortion as he was about illegal immigration.  And if Buck had bowed out, it's quite possible that Colorado would have been added to the Republican pickups.
The whole article is kind of long, but well worth it.  I suggest you read it.

I Wonder How Schweitzer is Going To Deal Wih This?

The Obama administration is going to make a new Internet ID for all Americans.  I wonder if our good Gov will be as interested in stopping this as he was the Real ID program.  Of course, I agree with him on the Real ID objection, I am just afraid that this new Internet ID coming from a Democrat will be something that he will support.
Especially since he isn't going to be re-elected.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Throw Me Into That Briar Patch!!

I realize that I am not necessarily the smartest person, but I am obviously head and shoulders smarter than Senate Democrats. After having had a filibuster proof majority until Scott Brown was elected, the Democrats are now saying that it was the filibuster that kept them from getting anything done. Sure they had to waste all that time buying Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska, but they could have done it if they wanted to. But after the election, the Democrats are in a lesser majority and are seeking to improve their opportunities to destroy the country er, I mean pass legislation to support their owners, George Soros and the unions like SEIU.
They want to do it by changing the rules for filibusters.  Just think, the Democrats will be able to pass legislation without the input of any Republicans whatsoever!  Joy and merriment flows throughout Lefty land.  Now they will be able to get things done!!!
Have they any cognizance of a period of time when they are not in control?  How long has it been since Democrats were in the minority?  It'll never happen again can it?  And yet, in two more years, our own Jon Tester will be replaced along with about ten more Democrat Senators, leaving the present majority leader who once said
"Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power," he said then. "They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that's true."
Good old Harry, always available for a laugh. Even if he doesn't intend it. I am sure that he will regain his reverence for the founders after January of 2013. So, go ahead and muscle through the change in rules. just be aware that what goes around comes around, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may begin his acceptance speech by noting: "I couldn't have done it without Harry."

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

I Wish I Had Said This

This is just exactly how I feel, and he says it with humor and wit. To simply cite to it would not do it justice, so in the spirit of spreading the word, here in its entirety is this:

Nancy Pelosi Might Just Be Insane
Democrats cope with an openly delusional Minority Leader.
by John Hayward
Trackback Link

Nancy Pelosi gave her farewell press conference as Speaker yesterday. I’ll pause while the wave of relief and euphoria passes over you, grateful American. In fact, I’ll start over, just so we can enjoy that sentence again.

Nancy Pelosi gave her farewell press conference as Speaker yesterday. It was full of the expected boasting about achievements – it’s not as if she was going to admit she was the most catastrophic failure of a Speaker in recent American history, or that her successor faces the incredibly difficult task of repairing the damage she’s done. There wasn’t even much chance she would apologize for her dereliction of duty in failing to prepare a budget for 2011, leading us into the lame-duck roller derby in December. A thank-you to America for paying vast sums of money to transport her royal family in regal splendor aboard Air Force planes would have been nice.

In the middle of shaking her own hand, however, Pelosi said this: “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

That’s just jaw-dropping. Pelosi presided over the greatest expansion of the national debt in history, and when I say “history,” I mean the history of the planet. Our debt soared from $9 trillion to $14 trillion on her watch. It swelled by a trillion dollars in just the past seven months.

As for Pay-Go, that ridiculous lie has been debunked so many times that even the press must have been stifling gasps of astonishment. Does the name “Jim Bunning” ring a bell? He’s the senator from Kentucky who was tarred and feathered for suggesting the Democrats stick to their Pay-Go commitments, when they were bleating that extending unemployment benefits was a super-duper emergency that could not be paid for by cutting a single nickel from our titanic federal budget. They said the same thing anyone had the temerity to remind them about Pay-Go.

This is disturbingly different from the usual spin and rally-the-troops flapdoodle a political leader is expected to shovel out. Not even the skewed perspective of a Representative-For-Life from a far-left district can explain it. As John Boehner gently takes the gavel from her hands and backs away slowly, the Democrat minority in the House must face the possibility that their new Minority Leader is insane.

These People Should Not be Trusted With Sharp Objects

Much less governance.

Steny Hoyer thinks that Tea Party protesters just don't want to go home to their families. From the article:
There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary.
Mr. Hoyer also managed to assign all of the blame for the deficits to Reagan and Bush. There is just one problem with his accusation - Congress is the one who appropriates money, and he was in Congress the whole time. The blame may fall at the feet of those who cut taxes, but it also belongs at the feet of people like Steny who spent anyway. If you don't have it, don't spend it.
Otherwise it is known as theft.