I love that Congressman Lynch will not let the GOP forget that they cut funding for the Embassies.
But isn’t it remarkable that Chris Wallace thinks that fact is getting off-track?
I love that Congressman Lynch will not let the GOP forget that they cut funding for the Embassies.
But isn’t it remarkable that Chris Wallace thinks that fact is getting off-track?
The National Review Online’s (The most intellectually dishonest rest stop on the information highway) Jim Geraghty says that the Newtown families are political pawns just like the 9-11 widows.
You know, Jim, this is exactly what a democracy is about: these citizens are trying to make a difference, to change things that they experienced first hand. They are trying to make the world a better place and to ensure that what they suffered through, no one else should suffer through. And yes, they have an agenda, as do you, Jim. The difference is that their agenda is towards saving people and yours is towards saving gun manufacturers bottom line.
Wingnuttia is letting the spiders crawl out of the brainpans of their Orcs and up to the mics of all their media outlets. Anyway, nice way to insult two groups of people who have been publicly shattered by events beyond their control.
You too can write a column just like the NYTimes’ Maureen Dowd. Here’s how!
Sweet Jeebus, she pooped out another column, which means I have to republish the MoDo-o-Matic.
UPDATE: Zander does the honors.
I swear he wrote this one back in 2001:
We still do not know who set off the Boston Marathon bombs or why. But we do know now, after 9/11, after all the terrorism the world has seen in the last decade, what the right reaction is: wash the sidewalk, wipe away the blood, and let whoever did it know that while they have sickeningly maimed and killed some of our brothers and sisters, they have left no trace on our society or way of life. Terrorists are not strong enough to do that — only we can do that to ourselves — and we must never accommodate them.
So let’s repair the sidewalk immediately, fix the windows, fill the holes and leave no trace — no shrines, no flowers, no statues, no plaques — and return life to normal there as fast as possible. Let’s defy the terrorists, by not allowing them to leave even the smallest scar on our streets, and honor the dead by sanctifying our values, by affirming life and all those things that make us stronger and bring us closer together as a country.
Now, aside from the TSA taking nudie picture of us in a cancer tube, or having to walk shoeless in airports, or being extolled at every turn to buy a gun, demanding that you can be wiretapped without a warrant, or whisked away to be tortured, you know, the terrorists didn’t win.
Politico’s Dylan Byers wants to know what is taking the Boston Bombing investigation sooooo long:
It’s been more than 24 hours since the explosions in Boston. But while new details emerge by the hour, the question on so many people’s minds remains unanswered: Who did it?
For many journalists I’ve spoken with today, this ignorance is tortuous. The identification of the attacker(s) and the reasons for the attack will likely have enormous political (and potentially geoplitical [sic]) ramifications, which will vary greatly depending on whether the attacker(s) is domestic or foreign, acting alone or as part of an organization. We’re standing on the verge of a very important national conversation about something, and we have no idea what it is.
Yes, sonny-boy, it is all about you and winning the morning. And besides, I thought Politico’s stock-in-trade was having national conversations about something, and having no idea what it is about.
Jeebus, some people!
For the love of all things journalistic, was does this hottentot have a column and so many worthy bloggers do not?
“Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania abortion doctor, is on trial for a lurid series of lurid crimes at his clinic.”
“…You’d think that a lurid crime touching an issue of major national importance would be covered everywhere.”
Really? Lurid was her Word-of-the-Day Calendar today?
As always, Thers has the definitive reaction. God loves Whiskey Fire most. Go read his post, it is definitive McArdle snark.
“However, conservatism begins with facing facts.”
–George Will, the Living Museum of ’80s Power Ties, said apparently without irony.
For a moment, I thought Richard Cohen had given up, turned in his Smith-Corona, and hung up his Fedora, but then like Man’o'War he suddenly comes round the bend on the inside all hooves and dust and no one saw it coming!
“We have all become political hacks. We are all engaged in the back and forth of politics, the jot or tittle of the process, the meaningless cable chatter of it all, the sameness of it all, be it conservative or liberal, so we lose sight of principle and of right and wrong. This is how we hardly noticed that basically all of American politics acquiesced in the demonization of gays and lesbians.
“This occurred to me last week when the New York Times published …”
And that’s his lede.
I think maybe he shouldn’t try to keep up with Noonington at the Pundit Club’s Bar; she’s a trained professional.
Frozen teevee dinner heir and vanity publishing impresario Tucker Carlson says that immigrants are welfare-addicted gang-bangers who harm american workers.
McArdle on Marriage Equality:
At this point, it’s just a matter of time. In some sense, the sexual revolution is over . . . and the forces of bourgeois repression have won.
It seems her thesis is that by winning marriage rights, teh gays will be assimilated and actually lose.
That’s right, I said it: this is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality. Once gays can marry, they’ll be expected to marry. And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats. I believe we’re witnessing the high water mark for “People should be able to do whatever they want, and it’s none of my business.” You thought the fifties were conformist?
Wait until all those fabulous “confirmed bachelors” and maiden schoolteachers are expected to ditch their cute little one-bedrooms and join the rest of America in whining about crab grass, HOA restrictions, and the outrageous fees that schools want to charge for overnight soccer trips.
McArdle seems to be arguing some sort of an sexual inverse version of “I cried because I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet,” but I suppose for gay people who are always being told that they are the Devil Incarnate, having the right to whine about crabgrass at the neighborhood 4th of July Party might seem like paradise.
Which also makes me wonder if ol’ Meg isn’t having a cris de coeur about her own bourgeois repression? Maybe she wants to walk a mile in the footless guy’s shoes or something?
Anyway, it is a hot mess. Read it at your own peril.
Luke Russert is exhibit A for the reason nepotism needs to be routed out in all of its forms; some J-school graduate was deprived of his rightful career for Timmeh’s foof son to opine on the networks. L’il Luke might also be the best proof yet that there is no guarantee that Evolution progresses.
I am laughing at Falafel Bill’s bad daddy impersonation and Monica Crowley’s middle child impersonation. So when does Alan colmes Mom impersonation offer dessert?
I hope someone remembers to play this clip at Bill’s funeral wake. This is solid gold.
OK, I lied: Really? “Illegals” and “Chiefs and Indians”? Sweet Jeebus, who says stuff like that?! On the other hand, Faux Noise’s new contributor, fire-crotch E2 seems to fit right in with casual racism.
…Earl Schieb will perform any surgery for $99.99?
“This is a huge moral question for the country, because I agree with George, that right now, most Americans do not see price in deciding whether to use health care. You see price in toasters, you see price in cars and homes, everything else. In health care, you don’t see price. And therefore, I have to believe, and I think your piece eluded to this, that when people go on Medicare, they really don’t see price, they tend to consume more than they otherwise would.”
“26 percent of all Medicare spending is last year of life. We don’t know how much of that is really efficacious spending. These are really tough moral questions for the country. But we’re going to have to deal with them if we’re really going to get health care under control.”
Because, you know, you’re dying, so why not shop around for a better deal?
What an assrocket.
The ever-polite Ezra Klein ever-politely rips a new hole into David Brooks for his latest preposterous column in the NYTimes. Here’s my favorite exchange:
DB: In my ideal world, the Obama administration would do something Clintonesque: They’d govern from the center; they’d have a budget policy that looked a lot more like what Robert Rubin would describe, and if the Republicans rejected that, moderates like me would say that’s awful, the White House really did come out with a centrist plan.
EK: But I’ve read Robert Rubin’s tax plan. He wants $1.8 trillion in new revenues. The White House, these days, is down to $1.2 trillion. I’m with Rubin on this one, but given our two political parties, the White House’s offer seems more centrist. And you see this a lot. People say the White House should do something centrist like Simpson-Bowles, even though their plan has less in tax hikes and less in defense cuts. So it often seems like a no-win for them.
DB: My first reaction is I’m not a huge fan of Simpson-Bowles anymore; I used to be…
…which is about as ham-handed a way to change the subject as I’ve ever seen. But it was either that or admit that he is a pontificating poltroon who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Let the facts lead you to a conclusion as Bill Moyers used to say. And the fact is thus submitted into evidence: David Brooks doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The conclusion of course is that the paper of record just got swatted on the nose, and they need to get rid of Bobo sooner rather than later.
Why Brooks agreed to talk to Klein will remain a mystery of the ages.
NEW YORK (AP) — David Gregory has re-upped as host of “Meet the Press.”
NBC News shared no details, but described the new deal as “a long-term commitment.”
“What a great vote of confidence from NBC,” a pleased-looking Gregory said Thursday. He said his first four years in the moderator’s chair have passed quickly.
“In some ways, it feels like we’re just getting started,” he said. [Ed. Sweet Jeebus!]
But was Grandpa Walnuts’ contract renewed, too?
Famous Reagan-era UN diplomat and former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations who ran as a candidate in three Republican Party presidential primaries, Alan Keyes is in the news again for saying something stupid about the possibility that the Boy Scouts might stop discriminating against gay kids.
‘The Boy Scouts of America may imminently abandon the organization’s commitment to true Christian morals, allowing homosexuals into the ranks and leadership of its troops,’ Keyes wrote.
‘All Christian churches should immediately and spontaneously withdraw from their cooperation with the BSA’s corporate entity which would, from that point on, be usurping the name and reputation of the Scouting movement. The thunderous impression of their withdrawal would alert and warn all believers of the pitfall any association with the usurpers must henceforward entail.’
‘It will speedily become evident that what masquerades as tolerance is actually indoctrination, seeking to mould boys according to the standard the BSA trustees will have raised above God’s standard.’
‘On many campuses now, refusal to experiment with homosexuality is frowned upon as a sign of bigotry, so henceforth in Scouting braking down this prejudice would be recognized as a meritorious activity,’ Keyes claimed.
‘Though camouflaged in different words there will be a merit badge for this experimentation as part of the regime of homosexual indoctrination.’
Yes, you read that right: Merit Badges for gay sex. I suppose it will even out the program with the Knot Tying Merit Badge for bondage, though. And let’s forget the Animal Husbandry one entirely. This is, after all, a family blog.
There must be quite a shake-up going on there. In addition to E-Squared, expired shelf-life pundits and Clinton-era throwbacks James Carville and Mary Matalin are now out the door, too.
Yup, it seems that his contract was not renewed, and in a surprising turn of events, Erick Erickson wrote a very gracious post about his time with the network. Here’s the surprising part:
“Frankly, before I went to CNN I was oblivious to the fact that there are ways to say things, without sacrificing or compromising my view or principle, that come off as more respectable and honest without invective than how I might have otherwise said them. There are ways to say things that draw people to you and ways to say things that push people from you. There are also times that facts and “known facts” get bounced around by both sides of the political spectrum without them ever actually being actual facts. We should all be more mindful of that. CNN made me mindful of that.”
Aside from the reflexive Both Sides Do It®, that is a rather remarkable statement to read coming from the man who once called a sitting Supreme Court Justice “a child-molesting goat-fucker.”
He entitled his post at RedState as moving-on, and perhaps he is in more ways than one.
…Mark Halerpin continues his streak of being wrong on everything, always. Anyway, after reading/listening to the speech (or more likely, after listening to other pundits reaction to the speech, because he’s both lazy and one of the crowd), Halperin’s take-away questions are:
Among the interesting choices [Obama] faces:
- How thoroughly does he embrace the House Republican efforts to delay the debt ceiling showdown for a few months?
- How much does he work with Senate Democrats on a gun control package (both in private and in public)?
- How successfully can he build a quasi-Bush-style business-Hispanic-Democratic-religious-labor coalition on the front end of launching a major immigration reform effort?
- Which Senate Republicans does he try to draw in to working with him on immigration, climate change, and budget cutting?
- At what moment (if ever) does he choose to show his cards on how much entitlement reform (and benefit cutting) he is willing to do, which will bother the left?
- Does he overload the system with climate change, immigration, guns, and budget all at once, or try to sequence them in 2013 so that one gets a fall push as the others pass or fail?
- Does the President’s new Organizing for Action outfit go after some congressional Democrats from the left any time soon?
“Bay-bee, I’m sorry you made me hurt you.”
Mika, get OUT while you can!
Famous GOP etymologist Frank Luntz tells us that the GOP has serious ideas, but doesn’t know how to communicate them well. Here’s the tell:
“Republicans on Capitol Hill have great thinkers and communicators with serious ideas and specific answers, from Reps. Paul Ryan and Dave Camp to Sens. Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey. The party should unleash them — now. But they need a new language to communicate their ideas effectively; it starts with abandoning ugly phrases such as “a hostage you might take a chance at shooting” to describe budget negotiations. And Republicans need to stop expressing a willingness to shut down the government if they don’t get their way on the debt ceiling. Americans don’t want a government shutdown — for any reason.”
Note that he is not saying don’t do it. Also, too: killer material, Frank. You are ready for open mic night.
“Another way for congressional Republicans to gain an advantage is to reframe the questions being asked, because whoever controls the question determines the answer. Since his first election, Obama has been asking America, “Should the rich pay more?” Thanks to public disdain for lobbyists and tax loopholes available only to the wealthy, election exit polls put support for this notion at 60 percent. But change the question to “Should Washington take more?,” and the answer is a resounding no.”
Or, if you don’t like the answer, change the question to one you do like. And here’s more suggestions from Luntz:
“The unforced GOP language errors are many. Here’s a start:
- Instead of smaller government, they should talk about more efficient and effective government. The former is ideological language of the 1980s; the latter is practical language of today.
- Instead of tax reform, talk about making the IRS code simpler, flatter and fairer. Speak to what people really hate about the code: its complexity.
- In addition to cutting spending, they must talk about controlling — not capping — it. What angers Americans more than how much politicians spend today is how much more they know Washington will waste tomorrow. A “cap” can be lifted, but “controls” are constant.
- Instead of entitlement reform or controlling the growth of Medicare and Social Security, talk about how to save and strengthen these programs so they are there when voters need them. After all, they paid for them.
- Better than discussing economic opportunity and growth, Republicans should talk about creating a healthier and more secure economy. Everyone benefits when economic health is restored. And while economic opportunity would be nice, security is a necessity.”
The problem with these talking points is that the policy behind them is exactly what no one wants. When the GOP talks about holding the government hostage and being prepared to kill it, that is exactly what they mean. It is ugly, Frank. They mean it to be ugly.
Keep polishing that turd, Frank. Sooner or later it will look really pretty.
David Gregory dancin’ to the Karl Rove Rap
The DA for DC decided to not press charges against David Gregory for possessing a 30-round clip in DC (which is illegal) , thus again proving that there is a Club, and you are not part of it.
The DA is also alleged to be a friend of the Gregory family, so it shows that who you know is still the rule of the land.
I’m not agitating for Dancin’ Dave to be thrown in the pokey for a decade for this (though having him off the air is tempting), but I do think this is another example that there are two sets of laws in the US. The next person arrested in DC for possession of a high-capacity clip should scream bloody hell.
She’s calling it quits.
What a sad ending for a grifter, an unwed mother (twice!) who figuratively leapt on the national stage by accepting a bribe from Chimpy to promote marriage, and then parlayed it into a career move to deny civil rights to gay people, squander donations from her dwindling fetus-fondling god-botherers and fellow Xristian Xrazies, and to attach herself, remora-like, to an under-aged pornstar wannabe finger-banging beauty queens.
But I will always be grateful to her for the worst commercial ever:
And this is your free and unfettered press hard at work, fellow citizens. Cherish these moments.
Jeebus, some people!
But in this post I’m specifically addressing a question that is raised by one economist or another almost every year: isn’t Christmas a huge waste? All those presents that no one wants represent huge deadweight loss. Wouldn’t well all do better by giving cash, or skipping the process entirely?
This seems like a silly question in a world of wishlists–I got the exact martini glasses I wanted, the exact electric pressure cooker I wanted, and the exact 13-inch cast iron skillet I wanted, because people could go right on my Amazon wish list and identify them. And yet, I still had the surprise and thrill of opening gifts (well, okay, I knew what the skillet was before I opened it), because there were a number of things on my list. As far as I know, this experience was shared by everyone else around the McArdle hearth. And by millions of other families in the United States.
“This seems like a silly question in a world of wishlists”
It does indeed.
No one knows how to use props for dramatic effect like Ann Althouse, who gives us a Zapruder-like, frame-by-frame analysis of David Gregory brandishing the ammo clips on his Sunday Morning Talkie.
Althouse, being Althouse the greatest legal mind of her generation of wingnuts, then wants to know other times people have used props to great effect and seems stumped, but luckily recalls pro-lifers using a fetus replica. This is wingnuttian free association at its finest: guns, fetuses. All she needs is a gay and she wins a prize.
Charlotte Allen, the low-rent Phyllis Schlafly at the NRO (the most intellectually dishonest rest-stop on the Information Super Highway), says that the lack of men at the Sandy Hook Elementary School was really the problem. Damn feminists, it’s their fault:
“There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable [sic] number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school) [K–4 -- TG], all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor [not true --TG] to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees.”
Aside from throwing a bucket at the knees of a gunman armed with high-powered guns with enormous bullet clips, what else have ya got for us, Charlotte?
“Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm.”
Dawn Hochsprung seemed to have performed bravely? Most men I know would not have had the presence of mind, let alone the (lady) balls of Hochsprung. Rushing the kids into locations like closets and bathrooms seems to have helped all but 20 of the kids, which in itself is as close to a miracle as we seem to get most days.
“Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.”
Protecting the weak. Jeebus, are you really saying that ladies should be ladies and let a man do the protecting? Also/too: aside from there not being any husky 12-year old boys (K–4, remember), don’t boys count as children to be protected, too? Isn’t this some sort of Megan McCardle twattle?
But then, our pal Charlotte moves onto her next topic in her thesis: the coddling of men. I guess it is not enough to want menfolk to protect the wimmins, but you need to keep those boys rugged or something. Anyway, take it away Charlotte:
“Parents of sick children need to be realistic about them. I know at least two sets of fine and devoted parents who have had the misfortune to raise sons who were troubled for genetic reasons beyond anyone’s control. Either of those boys could have been an Adam Lanza.“
But they aren’t, Charlotte, but they aren’t. I’m not sure what Charlotte means that they were troubled for genetic reasons; is that a dog whistle for something else? I can interpret that as schizophrenia, being gay, being mixed race? What does it mean, Charlotte, what does it mean?
“You simply can’t give a non-working, non-school-enrolled 20-year-old man free range of your home, much less your cache of weapons. You have to set boundaries. You have to say, “You can’t live here anymore — you’re an adult, and it’s time for you to be a man. We’ll give you all the support you need, but we won’t be enablers.”
Oh, so what she’s saying is, tough love, and now you are society’s problem? “You genetically troubled kid, out of the house with you! I’m done! And keep away from my Uzi, too.”
Unfortunately, the idea of being an “adult” and a “man” once one has reached physical maturity seems to have faded out of our coddling culture.
OK, so in short, from Charlotte’s confused mind: Women are weak (except for unarmed Dawn Hochsprung, who sprang like a coiled tiger on the armed gunman), men are coddled, but women need them anyway to take down killers. Everyone know your gender-role behavior now? Good.
It doesn’t surprise me that some wingnut wrote this, what does surprise me is that anyone would publish it, but then again, it is on the NRO (the most intellectually dishonest rest-stop on the Information Super Highway).
Newsweek’s own Libertarian, Megan McArdle, brilliant strategist that she is, has the WWI tactical solution for when you find yourself in a gun battle:
“I’d also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.”
Ever see the movie Galipoli, Megan?
Jeebus, some people.