Usually I like Marc Ambinder's blog. When it comes to up the minute political news he's been the man, but sometimes--I think in his search to be unbiased--he makes some really weird contradictions. Just take a look at this post about McCain's 'gaffe' (I'm really starting to hate that word) about troop size in Iraq. In it he makes two arguments that completely fall apart:
"Some brigades have returned home, so in some areas of Iraq, US troops have been drawn down to pre-surge levels; but other unit are returning, and while the number of combat troops in Iraq is slowly returning to pre-surge levels but it's not there yet -- not there by 20,000 troops -- and might not be there for a while. In what way is he wrong? Is he wrong because he knows the truth and wants to obscure it? It requires a willful suspension of belief to assume that McCain would lie about the status of the withdrawals, just as it requires a leap of imagination to envision a scenario wherein the Democrats wouldn't have pounced on his error like Tom on Jerry." (Itz mine)
But then later he states:
"Politics abhors a middle ground: either Iraq is getting better or it isn't. McCain has every incentive to maximize the success stories and project forward; Obama has every incentive to maximize the chaos and project forward." (Itz mine)
So if it's to his advantage...why should it require a 'willful suspension of belief" to think that McCain's lying, especially since all his previous 'gaffes' correlate to the idea that the situation in Iraq is getting better? If they were really mistakes, shouldn't some of them go against his 'incentives?' After all, when Obama has made mistakes they have worked against his message--but McCain's mistakes always seem to help him make his argument. Seems to me that Ambinder's denial of this stems from the media's infatuation with the McCain narrative that he's a 'straight shooter' (After all he named his bus the 'straight talk express' right? That's some real Jedi mind trick shiz)
Here another one:
"The question for voters is: the present is almost as unknowable as the future, so whose vision do you trust more? Polls show that less than half of Americans trust McCain and less than half trust Obama. Obama has an advantage on policy -- Americans want troops home soon and consider the Iraq adventure a failure -- , but the advantage disappears when voters are asked to think about who should lead the policy, whatever it turns out to be. That's probably because McCain retains enough of the aura of a straight-talking, tell-it-like-is-is reformer whose words reflect reality."
I'm not sure if he's just selling the public stupid, or he really thinks this is the case. According to his numbers the public just about equally trusts McCain and Obama on Iraq, and the public happens to agree with Obama's message so...they're going to vote for McCain? I mean that just doesn't make any sense.
I know most of the M$M wants to make this thing a horse race, but call it as it is--don't just summon incoherent arguments to plead a case. We have enough of that BS with Hillary.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Does Scotty McCellan Have A Death Wish?
Obviously he never heard of the saying, Snitches get Stitches:
"WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday he would be willing to comply with a rumored congressional subpoena to discuss the administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he’d be “glad to share my views” if asked to testify."
You know, if you substitute 'Scotty' for 'Curtis' then this is quite fitting:
"WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday he would be willing to comply with a rumored congressional subpoena to discuss the administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he’d be “glad to share my views” if asked to testify."
You know, if you substitute 'Scotty' for 'Curtis' then this is quite fitting:
I Thought It Was Over...
But the debate continues:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The fate of nearly 2.3 million Democratic presidential primary votes belongs to 30 party activists.
"The activists sit on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which was to meet Saturday to decide what role Michigan and Florida should play at the national convention in August."
She keeps going, and going, and going, and going...
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The fate of nearly 2.3 million Democratic presidential primary votes belongs to 30 party activists.
"The activists sit on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which was to meet Saturday to decide what role Michigan and Florida should play at the national convention in August."
She keeps going, and going, and going, and going...
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Buck Stops Here
Did George W. Bush authorize the Plame Leak? According to Scott McCullen's interview with the Today Show this morning, he all but pointed the finger:
"Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.
"Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?
"Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback."
Can we finally impeach Bush? I mean seriously...
"Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.
"Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?
"Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback."
Can we finally impeach Bush? I mean seriously...
Now Her Own Party's Against Her
...or so she'll undoubtably say:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects of persuading Democratic officials to override party rules and recognize all delegates selected in the Florida and Michigan primaries suffered a setback yesterday after lawyers for the party ruled that no more than half of those delegations could be legally recognized.
Glad to see that's over, but she'll still continue to run, and run, and run, all the way into an Energizer commercial.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects of persuading Democratic officials to override party rules and recognize all delegates selected in the Florida and Michigan primaries suffered a setback yesterday after lawyers for the party ruled that no more than half of those delegations could be legally recognized.
Glad to see that's over, but she'll still continue to run, and run, and run, all the way into an Energizer commercial.
Top 10 Pics from Seattle
1) Wok & Roll is AWESOME
2) The view as we ate massive amounts of clam chowder at the Public Market
3) View from the top of the Space Needle
4) Hiding behind the Great Wall at Shorty's:
5) The Worse Band Ever:
6) The Album Cover:
7) The Beautiful Bride and Groom:
8) No One Will Ever Believe This is Seattle:
10) Meeting New Friends
Until Next Time!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
More Lobbyist Woes For McCain
Another crooked wheel on the Straight Talk Express:
"For months, John McCain has been bragging on the fact that he's got fmr. Sen. Phil Gramm as his key economics advisor. That's scary enough as it is, if you're familiar with Gramm's policy predilections and legislative history. But now it turns out that Gramm, who advised McCain on his mortgage relief policy and speech, was also a registered lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS, which is obviously heavily concerned with the mortgage crisis. According to MSNBC, which has just broken the story, UBS only deregistered Gramm on April 18th of this year, which I'm pretty certain was after McCain rolled out the policy that Gramm had a hand in crafting."
But wait, it gets sexier:
"On the McCain/Gramm/UBS front...it seems that not only is Sen. McCain's top economics advisor, fmr Sen. Gramm, lobby and work for UBS, but according to today's Financial Times the company is advising members of its private banking team not to step foot in the United States in order to avoid indictment."
Well, at least Gramm can work with McCain via the Net--ain't technology great!
"For months, John McCain has been bragging on the fact that he's got fmr. Sen. Phil Gramm as his key economics advisor. That's scary enough as it is, if you're familiar with Gramm's policy predilections and legislative history. But now it turns out that Gramm, who advised McCain on his mortgage relief policy and speech, was also a registered lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS, which is obviously heavily concerned with the mortgage crisis. According to MSNBC, which has just broken the story, UBS only deregistered Gramm on April 18th of this year, which I'm pretty certain was after McCain rolled out the policy that Gramm had a hand in crafting."
But wait, it gets sexier:
"On the McCain/Gramm/UBS front...it seems that not only is Sen. McCain's top economics advisor, fmr Sen. Gramm, lobby and work for UBS, but according to today's Financial Times the company is advising members of its private banking team not to step foot in the United States in order to avoid indictment."
Well, at least Gramm can work with McCain via the Net--ain't technology great!
And It's Banal Too!
MY makes a perfect point to collaborate what I said, here:
"On the one hand, it's a huge deal that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is now out there admitting that the Iraq War was a mistake sold with lies. But on the other hand, it's sort of banal. We've known this for years. It's a shocking truth about our current state of affairs, but not a truth that any longer has the capacity to shock me, On the other hand, this from Byron York was interesting:
"One of the main reasons John McCain is facing such an tough job today is that we are now in the sixth year of a war that the president of his own party started by mistake. That's a major headwind when you're running for president; an error of that magnitude will exact a political price. Would anyone be surprised if voters say that they've had enough?
"That all seems reasonable enough to me, but what York is missing is that McCain doesn't think it was a mistake. One would think the virtue of nominating a guy who doesn't have close personal ties to the Bush administration would be that McCain could say something like "hey, I think liberalism is wrong and conservatism is good, but that doesn't mean I'm a sociopath who loves war so much that he still thinks the invasion of Iraq was a good idea." But he doesn't say that, presumably because he doesn't believe it. At even a time when the chief propagandists of the Bush administration are willing to admit that there BS was BS, he's a true believer."
That ultimately, that's what makes him (and possibly Hillary, for a reason that will be soon shown) even scarier that Bush. Remember this simple equation: True Believer = Fanatic = Bat shit crazy. For McCain he's a true believer in not just the Iraq War, but in the righteousness of military dominance by the United States over the world--everyone else be dammed. Hillary on the other hand is a true believer in the power of herself, the voting public and the rules of the DNC be dammed. Either one doesn't seem to be the option of sane people.
"On the one hand, it's a huge deal that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is now out there admitting that the Iraq War was a mistake sold with lies. But on the other hand, it's sort of banal. We've known this for years. It's a shocking truth about our current state of affairs, but not a truth that any longer has the capacity to shock me, On the other hand, this from Byron York was interesting:
"One of the main reasons John McCain is facing such an tough job today is that we are now in the sixth year of a war that the president of his own party started by mistake. That's a major headwind when you're running for president; an error of that magnitude will exact a political price. Would anyone be surprised if voters say that they've had enough?
"That all seems reasonable enough to me, but what York is missing is that McCain doesn't think it was a mistake. One would think the virtue of nominating a guy who doesn't have close personal ties to the Bush administration would be that McCain could say something like "hey, I think liberalism is wrong and conservatism is good, but that doesn't mean I'm a sociopath who loves war so much that he still thinks the invasion of Iraq was a good idea." But he doesn't say that, presumably because he doesn't believe it. At even a time when the chief propagandists of the Bush administration are willing to admit that there BS was BS, he's a true believer."
That ultimately, that's what makes him (and possibly Hillary, for a reason that will be soon shown) even scarier that Bush. Remember this simple equation: True Believer = Fanatic = Bat shit crazy. For McCain he's a true believer in not just the Iraq War, but in the righteousness of military dominance by the United States over the world--everyone else be dammed. Hillary on the other hand is a true believer in the power of herself, the voting public and the rules of the DNC be dammed. Either one doesn't seem to be the option of sane people.
No Salvation For Darth Vader
From Sully:
"It would be easy to think of Scott McClellan's new book as a piece of dish, designed for sales, pitched for controversy, packed with juicy detail. And it is that, of course. But it is also something more. It is an argument by a man very, very close to the president, and deputed to be his spokesman for many years, that the president deliberately deceived the country about the reasons for going to war. We're not talking mistakes here; we're talking about a deliberate shading of the truth to hide the real motivation for risking the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians:
"In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.
The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.
"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."
"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concluded, noting, "The lack of candor underlying the campaign for war would severely undermine the president's entire second term in office."
"If this is true, if the president intentionally ignored data refuting the existence of Saddam's WMDs, he should be impeached."
Well duh. If you haven't woken up to this fact by now, if you haven't seen the Downing Street Memo, Bob Woodward's books, Richard Clarke's warnings, Fahrenheit 911, and the rest of the evidence of incompetency and maleficence, then you deserve George W. Bush as your President. But beyond the obvious guilt of George W. Bush, I am also pretty sick of guys like McClellan and George Tenet who think their deathbed confessions will lead them to some type of salvation. Both of them in various ways have admitted that they consciously and unconsciously, willingly and unwillingly, have aided and abetted GWB's various war crimes. In the Star Wars saga we see a native and gullible Anakin Skywalker get seduced and corrupted by the dark side of the Force and the charismatic Emperor Palpatine. Even before Ani turns into Darth Vader he, just like McClellan and Tenet, helps his "master" break both legal and natural law to consolidate power for various ends. He gets his salvation through sacrifice, killing his boss to save his son. This is great in a Sci-fi movie, and perhaps does make a great metaphorical and spiritual conclusion, but in the real world justice for war crimes, mass murder, and theft on a grand level isn't made with symbolic shows of rebellion and sacrifice--it's made with trials, investigations and finally the submission of the law breakers to face the punishments that the people that they have oppressed and maligned find fair and just. If these men really want to atone for their actions they should submit themselves to the Hague to await trial. Anything less than that, like writing confessional novels who's goal is self-absolution, is meaningless and insulting.
"It would be easy to think of Scott McClellan's new book as a piece of dish, designed for sales, pitched for controversy, packed with juicy detail. And it is that, of course. But it is also something more. It is an argument by a man very, very close to the president, and deputed to be his spokesman for many years, that the president deliberately deceived the country about the reasons for going to war. We're not talking mistakes here; we're talking about a deliberate shading of the truth to hide the real motivation for risking the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians:
"In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.
The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.
"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."
"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concluded, noting, "The lack of candor underlying the campaign for war would severely undermine the president's entire second term in office."
"If this is true, if the president intentionally ignored data refuting the existence of Saddam's WMDs, he should be impeached."
Well duh. If you haven't woken up to this fact by now, if you haven't seen the Downing Street Memo, Bob Woodward's books, Richard Clarke's warnings, Fahrenheit 911, and the rest of the evidence of incompetency and maleficence, then you deserve George W. Bush as your President. But beyond the obvious guilt of George W. Bush, I am also pretty sick of guys like McClellan and George Tenet who think their deathbed confessions will lead them to some type of salvation. Both of them in various ways have admitted that they consciously and unconsciously, willingly and unwillingly, have aided and abetted GWB's various war crimes. In the Star Wars saga we see a native and gullible Anakin Skywalker get seduced and corrupted by the dark side of the Force and the charismatic Emperor Palpatine. Even before Ani turns into Darth Vader he, just like McClellan and Tenet, helps his "master" break both legal and natural law to consolidate power for various ends. He gets his salvation through sacrifice, killing his boss to save his son. This is great in a Sci-fi movie, and perhaps does make a great metaphorical and spiritual conclusion, but in the real world justice for war crimes, mass murder, and theft on a grand level isn't made with symbolic shows of rebellion and sacrifice--it's made with trials, investigations and finally the submission of the law breakers to face the punishments that the people that they have oppressed and maligned find fair and just. If these men really want to atone for their actions they should submit themselves to the Hague to await trial. Anything less than that, like writing confessional novels who's goal is self-absolution, is meaningless and insulting.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A Quick Note
From MY's blog:
T"his weekend veterans from around the country paraded through the streets of DC on motorcycles, but last week the Senate passed massive Webb-Hagel GI Bill reform legislation with a veto-proof majority. While the bill on the national level is still in the works, it looks like some states are starting to step in and attempt to repair the GI Bill legislation on their own. New Jersey's proposed legislation is particularly generous, limiting the amount that a veteran or veteran's widow to pay only $50 per credit for a public in-state college or university. Other states that are offering free or reduced-fee tuition are Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Louisiana. The worry, of course, is that states will pass the legislation without compensating for the added cost. This could end up causing higher tuition among non-veteran students." (Italics mine)
Speaking for myself--I see no problem with this, assuming that the extra charge isn't too substantial and agreed to by state boards. (I say this by the way with the belief that state education should be free for everyone, but assume that that policy is far in the future) Our vets make a great sacrifice for our nation and we should all chip in to give them the benefits they deserve. It's about time we started acting like a team rather than a bunch of whining divas. Here's an idea, maybe we should tie their benefits into what ever retirement benefits congressmen get. If they want wars that create veterans maybe linking their pensions to their decisions will make these chickenhawks a bit wiser in their use of military force.
T"his weekend veterans from around the country paraded through the streets of DC on motorcycles, but last week the Senate passed massive Webb-Hagel GI Bill reform legislation with a veto-proof majority. While the bill on the national level is still in the works, it looks like some states are starting to step in and attempt to repair the GI Bill legislation on their own. New Jersey's proposed legislation is particularly generous, limiting the amount that a veteran or veteran's widow to pay only $50 per credit for a public in-state college or university. Other states that are offering free or reduced-fee tuition are Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Louisiana. The worry, of course, is that states will pass the legislation without compensating for the added cost. This could end up causing higher tuition among non-veteran students." (Italics mine)
Speaking for myself--I see no problem with this, assuming that the extra charge isn't too substantial and agreed to by state boards. (I say this by the way with the belief that state education should be free for everyone, but assume that that policy is far in the future) Our vets make a great sacrifice for our nation and we should all chip in to give them the benefits they deserve. It's about time we started acting like a team rather than a bunch of whining divas. Here's an idea, maybe we should tie their benefits into what ever retirement benefits congressmen get. If they want wars that create veterans maybe linking their pensions to their decisions will make these chickenhawks a bit wiser in their use of military force.
Another Reason I Was Glad To Be In Seattle
Because I missed this nonsense:
"Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out."
I mean seriously? Seriously? Beyond the crassness of bringing up the issue, as an actual tactic this is the best you can come up with? You're pinning your hopes on someone killing him? I am actually at a loss for words. Just when you think she can't get any lower she does. What an embarrassment.
PS: By the way, considering that Hillary is a smart woman it seems pretty apparent that she's putting this idea, not just out there, but in play. May God help her if a Clinton supporter, even a tangential supporter, kills Obama because...I literally get sick at the thought.
"Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out."
I mean seriously? Seriously? Beyond the crassness of bringing up the issue, as an actual tactic this is the best you can come up with? You're pinning your hopes on someone killing him? I am actually at a loss for words. Just when you think she can't get any lower she does. What an embarrassment.
PS: By the way, considering that Hillary is a smart woman it seems pretty apparent that she's putting this idea, not just out there, but in play. May God help her if a Clinton supporter, even a tangential supporter, kills Obama because...I literally get sick at the thought.
Dang This is Good
From Obama's commencement address at Wesleyan:
"Each of you will have the chance to make your own discovery in the years to come. And I say “chance” because you won’t have to take it. There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.
"But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt.
"It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story."
Is this the new "Ask what your country can do for you." speech? Only time will tell, but it's encouraging to see a politician challenging the public.
"Each of you will have the chance to make your own discovery in the years to come. And I say “chance” because you won’t have to take it. There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.
"But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt.
"It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story."
Is this the new "Ask what your country can do for you." speech? Only time will tell, but it's encouraging to see a politician challenging the public.
I'm Back
Even though I bet you didn't notice I was away.
This weekend I went to a friend's wedding in Seattle and it was amazing. The city is clean and friendly and when I post up some of the wedding pics you'll won't believe how beautiful they were.
Shoutouts to Ani (my friend who was married) and her new husband Mario, they made an adorable couple, and their families and friends, and to Shorty's which turned out to be the coolest bar outside of 1020.
Needless to say, Seattle is Obama country--suck it Hillary!
More pics to come, but in the meantime I need to refresh myself about the news of the world. I'm pretty sure something happens when I'm not around.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Something Nice To Say About John McCain
Yeah I know I'm usually downing Mr. Keating 5-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-McCain, but I have to say this was particularly funny:
Funniest line? "Crazy? Crazy exciting!" HA!
Note to Democrats--every joke has a hint of truth; time to wrap this thing up. Thank you.
Funniest line? "Crazy? Crazy exciting!" HA!
Note to Democrats--every joke has a hint of truth; time to wrap this thing up. Thank you.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Ironic...Don't You Think
So the Tennessee Republican Party has a new ad attacking Michelle Obama because of her "first time proud of her country" statement. The ad flashes Michelle saying that key line against several "regular" Tennessee Republicans who talk about some of the times they were proud of their country. What's ironic about all this? Well it's pretty apparent, at least to me, that the context of her comment was based on the African-American experience, which as well all know, hasn't been one of the best experiences in America, full of institutionalized racism and discrimination. So how did the Tennessee Republicans answer this?
By having four white people and a really light skinned Latino testify how much they love this country. And according to them, every thing's great! Especially when they all tell us that anyone can come to this country and make it, 'if they work hard enough." Glad they reminded me of that!
I personally love the old white dude playing pool, with his super-duper gun rack in the back. He totally doesn't scare me.
By having four white people and a really light skinned Latino testify how much they love this country. And according to them, every thing's great! Especially when they all tell us that anyone can come to this country and make it, 'if they work hard enough." Glad they reminded me of that!
I personally love the old white dude playing pool, with his super-duper gun rack in the back. He totally doesn't scare me.
How Would Republicans Like It If...
You know, I think Chait makes an even more profound point than he thinks when he says:
"President Bush's thinly-veiled shot at Barack Obama was, in the words of Obama's spokesman, "an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil." Jamie objects, "Bush has every right to criticize" his political opponents. I think Jamie's missing the point of the last three words -- "on foreign soil." Obviously, it's not unprecedented for a president to criticize his political opponents. What's unprecedented is for a president to do so before the legislature of a foreign country."
Not just is it unprecedented, but it's really in bad taste. Can you imagine if Obama went to Germany or France and made a speech dissing Bush? The FOX News building would literally blow up from the power of their holier-than-thou indignation, and Bill O'Reilly...well we know what he would do:
"President Bush's thinly-veiled shot at Barack Obama was, in the words of Obama's spokesman, "an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil." Jamie objects, "Bush has every right to criticize" his political opponents. I think Jamie's missing the point of the last three words -- "on foreign soil." Obviously, it's not unprecedented for a president to criticize his political opponents. What's unprecedented is for a president to do so before the legislature of a foreign country."
Not just is it unprecedented, but it's really in bad taste. Can you imagine if Obama went to Germany or France and made a speech dissing Bush? The FOX News building would literally blow up from the power of their holier-than-thou indignation, and Bill O'Reilly...well we know what he would do:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
