Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

FILM THIN: Hollywood's Top Power Women Aren't Yet Excited about Hillary Clinton

MIA: Hollywood's Power Women for Hillary - Hollywood Reporter

Says one female executive (anonymous):
"Every woman I know who hasn't given to her feels guilty about it," says the industry dealmaker. "We all want a woman to be president — some of us just wish it were someone else."

Lara Bergthold, a campaign strategist at a group called RALLY, says:
The "fear factor" of the Republican field will drive donations from the notoriously liberal-leaning Hollywood. She says it is hard to imagine a Republican presidential candidate more likely to ignite anxiety in Hollywood than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. 
"The stakes are so high given the candidates on the other side," she says. "They're scary."
Not asked in the article: ARE YOU WAITING TILL THE OUTCOME OF FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HER MISUSE OF SECRET COMMUNICATIONS? Err, not even likely many of them are aware of the facts behind the email investigation, nor do they want to accept it. They're elitists just like Hillary. They probably still suspect Benghazi was actually due to a crappy video from a whack-job pastor. Or, they just don't care about such distractions since they have no direct or apparent impact on their lives.



 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Flint Water Crisis -- Snyder a scapegoat for mass failures

Via Reason, on Flint MI water crisis:

This Flint Lead Poisoning: The Anatomy of Government Failure - Hit 
"A dissection of the events... suggests that it isn’t government austerity that  is responsible for the debacle but the government itself. And at every level: local, state, federal, elected officials, administrative agencies, you name it..."
and this The Flint Water Crisis Is the Result of a Stimulus Project Gone Wrong


 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Dude, it's like genocide or something! Flint water crisis brings out the worst and best in celebrity dullards

Thank you, music industry, for allowing such an idiot to prosper. It proves what focusing on specialized skills can do for a person. Too bad this idiot – P Diddy Combs or whatever he's calling himself this year – thinks his entertainment skills make him worthy to stand at the podium of social commentary. And fling turds from it.

Flint Michigan – run by Democrats since 1973 or something – only switched their water source from a Detroit water system to a local river in 2014. Problems ensued. The CITY water system and everyone else involved were slow in reacting to BLATANTLY obvious water issues. Like, the water was coming out of the tap brown. Not even beige – BROWN!

But it is not local elected officials' stupidity to blame, it is not horrible local managers, or even a failed environmental bureaucracies. It's RACISM.

More than that – it is not the fault of anyone... EXCEPT for the Republican governor. Who should be arrested.

I don't want to make bold assumptions, but I suspect this tragedy is being  used as a political tool. By idiots. For idiots.

  


P Diddums isn't the first to make the disgusting water problem about fostering feckless, heartless, brainless political divisiveness against a governor who had nothing to do with the decision to change sources of Flint's water. Piddle Dee Dumdum also won't be the last. 

Thankfully, the rapper-actor-producer-jerk is using his $$$ for good in the Flint situation, even if he cannot use his brains for it. 

See Breitbart for more on the happier side of the story

--

J Ruse 


Like, Totally Political, Dude! 
The LTPD blog on Blogger
Follow on Twitter: @airfarceone

Slate: Cruz & Rubio called each other soft on illegals, and they're both wrong

Another day, another commentator gets border control and ILLEGAL immigration wrong.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both got immigration facts wrong. 
[C]onservative Hispanic leaders met with Cruz’s campaign chairman on Monday to raise precisely this point with him. They were concerned that he was “perhaps worse” than Trump on immigrationafter Cruz’s campaign expressed to them that he believes in "attrition through enforcement”—the idea that if life is miserable enough for immigrants, this will act as a deterrent to other potential immigrants, thus solving the immigration crisis in one easy, inhumane step. This is also known as Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” immigration position that cost him the Latino vote in 2012, and thus, many argue, the presidency.... 
Cruz and Rubio are the only two Latino candidates on both sides of the race. They are both of Cuban immigrant parents. And neither of them have strayed far from the Republican Party’s hard line against immigration, a fact Latino groups have duly taken note of, calling them “traitors” and “sellouts.” But the truth is that even though Cruz’s claims about Rubio were wrong, and even though Latino groups are angry at them both, Rubio is slightly softer—or as I like to call it, slightly more humaneon immigration. Offering some kind of path to citizenship, however narrow, is something Rubio should be proud of, not trying to hide.

Or, as honest people call that, "ILLEGAL immigration.
" Something that I understand no other country tolerates as much as the U.S. That needs to change. We export plenty of money, missions and other support to lesser developed countries to be required to foster an underclass of uneducated, non-American, non-English-speaking in this country. We are babysitter, foster parent and guardian of other countries as it is.

So, another self-appointed expert on immigration conflates legally entering the United States with the continuing problem of ILLEGAL immigration. Illegal immigration, as in, entering the United States in a fashion that flouts every law regarding immigration, and continuing to evade legal habits while in the country, such as stealing Social Security numbers and utilizing government clinics and other programs meant for destitute and poor citizens and -- should be -- legal visitors to this country. LEGAL immigration is an ENTIRELY different matter. It's taking the legal route to being in the country.

Here's a few facts that this expert, like too many on every side of the debate, forget to include:
First, it is NOT the fault of the illegal immigrants that they are here; it is the fault of our government and political leaders on both sides. Taking a hard line against illegals as people is crude, but as both Rubio and Cruz accept (just ask them), a hard line against ignoring our own laws by the system itself is an honorable thing to do. We -- U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, descendants of immigrants, or Native American -- cannot blame illegals for their being here. We should not make them a target of our rancor, because that is not going to solve the problem. It is our failure as a nation to enforce our laws that have permitted illegals to remain, and it is through the encouragement of businesses that exploit the very cheap labor many of them provide, and Democrat politicians and bureaucrats who use them to draw Hispanic/Latino voters that are to blame. The illegals are overwhelmingly trying to cheat the system to have some sort of better life. There are the gangsters and the problem of "sanctuary cities" that blindly protect illegals, no matter their criminal tendencies that are nothing I sympathize with.
Second, is this idea -- it seems the Slate writer holds it -- that most illegals would want to be American citizens if given the chance. I don't know who exactly that would be, but I do not think it is the low-wage workers from Guatemala or Mexico. I think you will discover that, for the most part, they just want to work here and earn money for their families (here and in their homeland). Many do not have any interest in becoming Americans. I suggest we figure out if they are interested in citizenship or not. Because it is a false and distracting argument promoted by left-leaning activists and shills for Democratic Party campaigns that all these illegals crossing our southern borders are coming here to become citizens eventually. I think that is only likely among a small percentage of them, and a small percentage of those who overstay their student or work visas. They might want to continue to work here, but they want to be expats, not citizens.


 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

GW Bush, mass panic gave us Patriot Act, let's curtail it now

In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford. 

Sometimes, scary things happen in politics. Here's an example: far right web sites agree with the wildly leftist (and silly) MoveOn.org on something. They agree that we need to END THE PATRIOT ACT.

Thank goodness some polar political opposites can agree on something, huh? The left and right can't even manage to agree on which death-lusting terrorists are worth ridding off: The fringe left wants to provide jobs, food and education to some terrorists, while the fringe right believes everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But, we can agree that nosing in on Americans, not merely inconveniencing them at airports (TSA), but listening on without lawful purpose (Patriot Act, potentially), is bad.

Of course, I dislike the Patriot Act because there's clear principles being shoved out of the way, and they were given a clear voice in the U.S. Constitution. That matters. Some who I would generally disagree with on political matters seem concerned that black extremists (but they think of them as merely put-upon poor people), Occupy Wall Street dweebs, pederasts (simply gay people), or potheads (pot is no worse than alcohol, so it should be at every kitchen bench) might be among those snared by officials who are supposedly looking for terrorists. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the whole of the Bill of Rights, are just a convenient table to stand on while they're fighting the Progressive-Statist power-grab fight. (Yeah, I'm not a fan of Obama Democrats, if you didn't guess.)

I think it's simple: the USA Patriot Act needs to go. As least, it needs generous curtailing. Tell your US Representative and your US Senator, and tell anyone to do the same. Here's a link to save you some time in reaching your reps.

But don't bother with Senate boss Mitch McConnell (R - KY), who is all for it, it seems. Not much of a Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is proving to be in the era of Obama statism. He plays right along. (As does House Speaker John Boerner of Ohio.) Radio and nonfiction book great, Mark Levin, has bashed McConnell as never before, in recent weeks (one time and another; and then some).

If the Patriot Act is extended as it looks like it will be -- a mistake -- it's still going to require a vote another day. Make it stop. The Patriot Act is GW Bush's contribution, along with DHS, TSA, and a massive military debt, to the nanny state, to his legacy as BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICAN. He was not a complete modern American conservative, he was a religious and social conservative only. He isn't a bad man, but he was, fiscally, a very expensive president. He is not solely to blame, of course, but his presidency will keep that reputation into the future telling of it in history books, I believe. You cannot blame him alone, as plenty of citizens were all for the Patriot Act back in the day. They were afraid.

Frightened people are not good at making rational decision, or making up sensible rules. You've watched a horror movie or two, right? Scared people are bad at making decisions --- VERY BAD! The Patriot Act proves it, I think. In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford (I mean "afford" in every sense of the word that comes to mind). It's not a Prohibition Act for security, because that would look like a totalitarian police state; but perhaps it was as bipartisan and as reactionary as Prohibition.

We must fix the damage added in GW Bush's time along with Obama's. I am very comfortable pointing out that Obama has done nothing but add to the problem of a massive and ever-growing federal debt and bureaucracy. But I refuse to be partisan in my disgust with big government.

This comes with burdens that have been added for decades by an ever-growing federal government that has weakened the states, and the citizens, and hurt liberty for every person.

WAKE UP. Stop big government.


We went from the GREATEST generation during World War Two, to the MOST SELFISH GENERATION. Well, to be nice, let's call it the most distracted generation -- that of the 1950s-1980s. Now we're ringing in the STATIST GENERATION, as a result. 

It's not too late, but it's time to change tack. Because, as so many FINALLY recognized in the economic upset of 2007-2009, things have gotten out of hand. Either government stays in control, or we get some control of it.

WAKE UP. Obama and other far left so-called liberal Democrats (they're statists, not liberals, dammit) have taken a bad thing -- the Great Recession -- and extended it. It is high time to stop it.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Very American, Tea Party Republicans


This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan



MORE FAKE BLAME: It's almost entirely the Republicans' fault we have political discord and federal economic problems. Oh yeah?
Aside from the helping-nothing partisan bias and rampant mass media affection for sloppy budgeting, the tragically disinterested and ignorant (the nanny state lovers among which the Democrats are fully invested in pandering to), and the feckless "I wanna be on the smooth talkers' side" fanboy-ism among otherwise seemingly healthy population, there's this:

Obama called GW Bush's efforts to lift the debt limit "un-American" in a lengthy lecture about how terrible it is back when he was a senator and our fiscal situation was far less dire -- thanks to the Bush and Obama agendas, however, it is worse.

But Obama has seen to it that it got much more worse, while he and the Democrats had all the cards. In Jacksonville, Fla., recently, as Sunshine State News spelled out, "Obama boasted of 'halving the deficit.' That means every year [of his administration] the government has spent FAR MORE than it took in but now the OVERspending has diminished yet STILL IS MUCH HIGHER than the highest deficit that occurred under [GW Bush]. That's his (OBAMA'S) measure of success?"

Uh, yes it is? 

What else is there to brag about, but backing out of Iraq (leaving a mess: how very hopey changey and caring that was, Mr. President) and killing bin Laden (ooo, no other president would have signed off on that, what a big man)? What else: ObamaCare? That isn't a success and probably won't be, because the very propaganda about it deceives everyone and the nearly all the mass media IGNORES THE GORILLAS PANTING IN THE CORNERS.

One example: the WH and nearly every story I stumbled across does not mention -- and certainly aren't doing it clearly, if they do -- that the deductibles under Obamacare's "low-cost" health coverage plans are ENORMOUS. Like, around $3500 or $6000 per year, to start. So, are we just wanting to have the poor to pretend they have insurance that means something, like the poor were allowed to pretend they could afford to buy a house under a horrendous 1990s federal mortgage program?

The unseemly propaganda machine behind ObamaCare seems to me to be simply a multilayered, purposefully confusing pressure sales effort to badger anyone who's breathing, a citizen, and not insured (or insured and looking) into getting this subsidized insurance. As if those who use ERs for general medical care will no longer do so, just like that, in a matter of years. Problem solved.

Nope. Still going to happen.

We need to change the system, and Obama deserves respect for being idealistic enough to put health care reform out front back in 2008-09. But too much about ObamaCare is just bureaucratic and regulatory carpet-bombing of the medical industries, hurting professionals, certain types of jobs, various providers, small businesses, and even the economy as a whole. Health care is often claimed to be 1/7 to 1/5 of the entire economy.

Yet, Obama and the Democrats REFUSE to consider adjustments to that one-party law -- no Republican voted for ObamaCare. The Democrats are casting outrageous names and phrases against those who have refused to accept no for an answer from the White House, regarding fiscal compromise. That is the White House and Democratic leaders compromising? How so, exactly??!

ObamaCare's estimated costs have risen so fast, and it's tie-in with the growth of the IRS (what's the IRS got to do with health care otherwise, for crying out loud?) is so ominous, that it seems obvious that it is more a government growth plan than a help to citizens. It will mostly build federal and state bureaucracies and burden a chunk of medical industries and not really "save money" for government or industry, or help poor and uninsured people. Why is this OK with people? Lack of awareness? Is it the desire to adore the U.S. President, no matter what? Is it a blind belief it will help the poor?

Don't discard all that is ObamaCare, but work it into something... less pro-government.

But maybe too many Americans are no longer in favor of America. A recent poll showed that the huge majority of people in the U.S. think government is supposed to control the people. Guess what: America was founded on the idea that government isn't supposed to do that. Ever heard of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Look it up if you haven't. Government is supposed to be servant, not master, in America. Kinda the reason why we busted Britain's chops in the 1700s -- too much elitism in government. 

There's no reason to stop piling regulations onto private industry if the public and the industries don't push back. So, who's pushing back?

In the case of ObamaCare, it looks like it's primarily some House Republicans who are treated like the unwanted stepchildren of a miserable dysfunctional home, by the crusty, nanny-state bureaucrats they are acting out against. This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan.

Tea Party Republicans are traditionalists, not radicals, not extremists, except by contrast to the sad state of politics in America today. Their views are simple: limited government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. In other words, more freedom for the people, not for the government to control the people. That's radical? I would think desiring MORE government would be the extremist leaning in America. 

If there were something big worth celebrating out of the Obama White House, why would the Democrats' top echelon of leaders -- for starters, Obama, Reid and Pelosi -- be tossing around half-arguments, practice in so much schoolyard name-calling and peddle in such outright untruthful propaganda about Obamacare, the shutdown and the fiscal realities of today?

Name-calling, you ask? Yes, name-calling. How about the terms "anarchists" and "extremists", and the phrases "taking hostages" and "gun to the head"? It that meant literally? Of course not. Is it still absurd to use? Yes, it is. Apparently, Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (of "just die, and die quickly" ObamaCare rhetorical infamy from his first Congressional term) has opened a school for crazy-talk. Or is it Ed Schultz? Maybe Reverend Wright?

If you don't think that these fringe-worthy phrases from the heart of the Democrats are desperation, then you should just return to your previous state of apathy, distraction and unawareness, because you're just not paying attention. How about "Jihad"? A Democratic congressman (who I won't name because I never heard of him before and hope I don't hear of him again) called Tea Party Republican actions to fight stubborn Obama with equal stubbornness a jihad against ObamaCare. At least he said  an intangible not that it was a jihad against people -- the congressman was more civil than Obama, Reid and Pelosi, as a result.

People elected Obama because they wanted change. But it seems they didn't want healthy change, just more of the nanny state, irresponsible spending, un-American (as Obama himself put it years ago) deficit spending that will turn America into the next has-been world power in another generation or two.

Let Obama be the one to blink for a change. Force him to bend for a change. Instead of claiming he's trying to compromise in silly, baseless sound bites, actually have Obama sit at the table to really, truly compromise, in the spirit of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and other less rabid political dogs. Obama's easily agitated ego won't allow him to do this without a full-force, duck-and-cover excuse to cover him, but that will at least be fun to watch.

Seeing Obama be a tad fiscally conservative will be a lot more fun than seeing the political orphans in the House GOP get beat up and kicked to the street by their less principled party members and Democrats.

Let the insanity continue, and pray that each sides relents a bit so our fiscal mess won't become even worse. Go on, play chicken with the debt limit, use fiscal conservatism to push some of the left's buttons. Let Obama think about being the president under whom America failed to pay its bills, if he so chooses. Because it won't matter who we blame today. He'll be remembered for it. Let the most stubborn one, Obama, be forced to bend to some of what the political minority in the federal government wants. Other, less cynical and shrill presidents have done so. No reason to Obama should win every time in his chosen game of highly cynical political tactics where tax dollars are concerned.

This country was designed the way it was so that a simple majority rule is weakened by the lesser force of minority opinions. That's part of how the Founders assured that a monarchy would never take hold so long as we didn't reject the essence of the Constitution. America is not designed from a true majority rule concept -- which is often, in effect, mob rule -- as partisan Democrats so often insist. This is a checks and balances design with an ear for the minority, no matter who's in charge.

Like it or not, the POLITICAL MINORITY in this country's federal government isn't the black president, but the Republicans. The GOP ought to get the same regard of any minority. Funny how all the liberals' talk of pandering to minorities disappears when it comes to political choices while they are the majority. Suddenly, the minority is petulant, radical, extreme and threatening to the country. 

A small group of Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans, are trying to make the proven self-absorbed, egotistical cynic in the White House blink. If it doesn't actually reach the point of being honestly dangerous to the country (read: legitimately extremist, not bullshit political name-calling extremist), it isn't to destroy the country, it's trying to make a principled, reasonable minority voice heard amidst a din of pro-government misdirection and hysterical rhetoric.

That is very American.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Cry dog! Florida's Rick Scott abused by Democrats and loony left over his return of rescue dog

I Google searched the madness over Reagan the, uhh, mistreated governor's dog today, about a month after (Jan. 16. 2013) the story apparently went wild (I didn't know). See the search here.

Stunning: The joyful hate and spastic outrage against Florida governor Rick Scott upon the revelation, by his admin., that his family gave back his first rescue dog because it was too nervous in the mansion. And, as a result, the big dog made people nervous. So, he returned the dog, it's said, and it may or may not live on a ranch.
Oh, yes... horrible man! Just horrible! Bad governor! Baaad! The poor doggie has to live on a ranch! Oh my Goooood!
That must seem so cruel, to leftist sheep who live around almost nothing but concrete and steel, in the city, I guess, making anyone or anything live on a ranch like, eww, like George W. Bush does. Ahh, city liberals. (Kidding. As if there's any rationalizing the response as anything but blind partisan sniping.)
Obviously, folks like the Daily Kos are leading the misleading: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179352/-Gov-Rick-Scott-Bad-Reagan-T...
Others are rational about the story, because reality-challenged leftists aren't completely ruling the news media yet. For instance, Politico, and doubtless many others. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rick-scott-shelter-dog-reagan-86245.html
Miraculously, those who aren't unhinged at the brain stem wind up well below the Daily Kos links on the search engine. I wonder why that is?
I can see a new ad from some leftist operator of dog adoption operation:
"Must loved dogs. Must hate Rick Scott!"
- jR

Forbes token lefty: Republicans don't care about the poor because they take care of more poor

Media_httpblogsimages_cudvn
Per "UPDATE: My old friend, Jon Vein, brings to my attention the greatest irony of all – the states with the greatest number of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes …lean Republican."
So, what you're saying is, it turns out that areas which lean Republican do, in fact, take better care of people who can't, for whatever reason, do as much for themselves as others?
Oh no, that cannot be what you're saying. What you're saying is that people who vote Republican don't pay their taxes! Right? They are also not into donating to the needy (not), or being charitable (not), or encouraging people to succeed (not), or ...
Thanks for pointing out all the spots on those who wish to push for individual liberty and effort over government pandering and suck-up-itude. That would be the Republicans, right?
Clown.

GOP: Priebus steps into the spotlight (Politico)

(Now, hopefully his next step won't be a foot in his mouth)

Perhaps the man who had helped Steele take the chair of the conservative GOP in 2009 can serve as more of a guide and chairman, and less of a media target, as the exiting chair. For that to happen, it will also require certain media segments to act like professionals and not gossips, of course. But it will be up to Chairman Reince Priebus to opine with clarity all the time, not fire one-offs that miss the mark, as Steele had done. Several times.

POLITICO: The diminutive chairman of the Wisconsin GOP vanquished Steele to become national chairman.  
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47644.html

"Priebus often jokes about the pronunciation of his Greek name. The name is Rhine with a hard 's' at the end and pree-bus. After winning a hard-fought contest, he still pronounced his name carefully for reporters at a hastily convened press conference....

Priebus's mother, Dimitra, said in an interview that her son started volunteering for Republican causes when he was 10 years old by putting signs in people's yards. His father, Roula, was once a union electrician and now works in real estate...."

- jR
Enhanced by Zemanta

Alan Grayson (Nut-job, FL District 8): Beck fans wore “sheets over their heads”

Alan Grayson: Glenn Beck fans wore "sheets over their heads"
(FROM ORLANDO SENTINEL'S Political Pulse]
Since his election two years ago, Orlando Democrat U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's fame has multiplied exponentially with every inflammatory remark.
Every time he says something like the Republicans' health care plan is to "die quickly" or that Dick Cheney is a vampire who should "STFU," he becomes a bigger hero to liberals and a bigger target of conservatives. Now there's another addition to the list of Grayson's greatest hits.
During an appearance on the progressive talk-radio "Stephanie Miller Show" on Thursday — part of a regular segment called "Face the Grayson" — the congressman likened those who attended Glenn Beck's rally last week at the Lincoln Memorial to Ku Klux Klan members.
Miller: "The Glenn Beck thing — is that going to have an effect in November? To me, they were, I'm sorry, mostly old, white … mostly McCain-Palin leftovers, weren't they? These aren't new voters, these are people that have always voted Republican."
Grayson: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."
The congressman also repeated one of his recent favorites: "You only have three friends in life: God, your mama, and the Democratic Party."
You can listen to the whole 12-minute, 18-second segment below, if you scroll down on this widget and click on the "Face the Grayson" segment.
UPDATE: The Grayson campaign wanted to respond to, well, Grayson's own comment. So, here's an addition from campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala: "[Grayson opponent] Dan Webster should prove Representative Grayson wrong by rejecting the endorsement of David Barton, a man who has spoken at two neo-Nazi rallies, denies the Holocaust, and has led the effort to rewrite history books with a narrative of hate, fear, and discrimination."

Hello, Orlando? Get this kook out of office. Florida already has enough nuts in office, doesn't need this one. Accepting an endorsement or not is far from being in the same court as that person. But Webster ought to reject that guy's endorsement, if the claims of his practices are true.

 - jR

Conn. poll puts Sen. Dodd on notice, boosts GOP governor's cache


I am at the right of center in my views generally, and definitely to the right in my fiscal thinking
-- that's part of who "jR" is, politically. Because of that, in case it appears I am picking on Democratic leaders, such as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd all the time, that's not because I agree wholeheartedly with any Republican policy independent of my free thinking. It is also not because I think the Dem leaders are now, ever have been, or ALWAYS have been, evil, ignorant, shallow, or completely partisan. However, to be fair, perhaps Dem leaders' own voters ought to have sway in my opinions, just to help keep me "on track." If only just for fun.

Well, I am happy to say I agree with Connecticut citizens on one of the aforementioned leadership's ratings, while my personal view of him, as a longtime and ineffective national leader of late, would be lower. This guy is one of the bigshots in financial matters, and a man who received a very sweet deal from widely disparaged Countrywide, on a mortgage.

Connecticut's Rell Is Queen Of The Hill At Midterm, Poll Finds; Dodd Has Worst Approval Ever - Quinnipiac University
Halfway through her first elected term as Connecticut Governor and one week after a grim budget message, [Conn. governor] Jodi Rell has a 75 - 19 percent approval rating and tops any likely Democratic challenger by 21 to 40 points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Connecticut voters split 41 - 42 percent on whether they think Sen. Christopher Dodd is honest and trustworthy and disapprove 48 - 41 percent of the job he is doing, his first negative approval rating in a poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

Even Democrats approve of their Republican Governor 67 - 26 percent, while Republicans approve 85 - 11 percent and independent voters approve 75 - 18 percent.
Imagine that: a poll that sugests an evil Republican -- a governor -- is steeply more popular than a longtime, and vocally anti-Bush and anti-conservative, member of the U.S. Senate. I wonder if someone is hiding some of those poll results?

Thanks to twittering of Matthew Gagnon for tipping me off on this one.

This has has inspired me to see what the other Democratic leaders are rated by their voters. It might be easy to forget, in all this current hubbub, but since 2006 when the Dems took over, Congress' ratings plummeted quickly below those of Prez GW Bush. Those ratings remain very low.

So it would be no surprise if all the majority leaders and their flying monkeys are suffering at home. (The reference to monkeys in the preceding sentence refers to the soldier beasts in the Wizard of Oz, and is not a profane comparison of black people to monkeys, but is a comparison of many congressional leaders' thinking to the limited complex logic skills of lower primates.*)

Lucky us! We have a pack of professional politicians who are liberals in charge after the quickest downturn in the economy (evidently quickest, though a long time coming, as far as mortgages) since the late 1970s - early 1980s. Boy, I hope they listen to the some actual businessmen and economists (assuming these types gain favor in economic policy over the social workers and other professional politicians among them).


- jR

* This parenthetical comment is a necessary while obvious explanation brought to you by the Rev. Al Sharpton's crass and pandering race-baiting over blatantly nonracial political cartoons.

Powered by ScribeFire.

GOP selects black dude, 'what?' moment courtesy of NY Times


The Mexican-sponsored, conservative-bashing, often deceptively liberal clarion (OK, The Nation and TIME do it as much, so perhaps "clarion" is harsh) publication, the NY Times, continued its jab and run efforts to brazenly distort the ranks and reach of the biggest party for conservatives and political right of America upon the selection of the new Republican Nat'l Committee chairman.

While reporting on the election of the new, -- take a breath in order to state some "obvious," "bigoted" reasons why they did it, lefties -- black (!!!) RNC chairman, they might as well have belabored the fact that the guy is not a black space alien, thus the RNC is still -- as they see it -- the small-minded party of bigots. After all, they took Al Gore from the White House, the bad people.

Republicans Choose First Black Party Chairman - NYTimes.com
From the start, Mr. [Katon] Dawson, while well-liked in the party, was hampered by worries that his selection would reinforce the notion that Republicans are increasingly becoming a Southern regional party.
What? The GOP is risking being considered a regional party. Seriously? Notion, huh? Of whom? And barbecue-lovin', drawlin', Democratic Party paragons Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, are what, exactly? Too far into the past, are they? Not sure they would agree.

Is that quote the dumbest sentence in the NY Times for the day? I want to hope so, but I can only guess. It is a poorly written sentence (but since I note it in a hastily written blog, I will only point that out in passing, adding that the NYT piece was not from a blog).

I suppose around the NY Times offices, GOP chairman Michael Steele might be nicknamed Uncle, uhh, Mike, for being in with the slave owners of the GOP, too. Next there'll be a cartoon on their opinion page with Uncle Mike being denied service at the GOP's HQ cafeteria.

The paper also mentioned this, before bothering to go into Steele's win any further:
Mr. Dawson also withdrew from an all-white country club he belonged before he started running for office, a point that was raised by Republicans concerned that it would provide a bad contrast in a year when the country elected its first African-American president.

Now, the fact that there exists clubs that are intentionally (I don't care what they claim, I mean a presumed intent) all-white anywhere is disgusting to me (unless, of course, there are nothing but white people in the general area). But, to me, such clubs simply remind us that there are more white snobs than other types of snobs in the country. I wish they'd spend more time in those clubs, and less time ruining the fight for scraps of the rest of us.

Democrats should really beat this one to death, even though this Dawson dude didn't get the chairmanship. You know there's never, ever been a white Democrat member of an all-white country club, that's simply unimaginable. And never were any of the important members of the Democratic Party ever in any groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, or some all-white frat or anything, or directing hoses to be fired in the direction of blacks, or anything like that. Nope! Never!
Mr. Steele made no mention of his race in his acceptance speech, and members said that was not a major factor in their decision. Nonetheless, it was clearly a force, playing out at a time when the nation has just inaugurated its first black president.

In addition to Mr. Duncan’s experience with a white country club, another candidate for candidate — Chip Saltsman of Tennessee — came under fire after distributing a Christmas CD with a song parody entitled, “Barack the Magic Negro.”
The song was a parody, and it actually was a response, meant in humor, to a LA Times article from which that phrase came. But don't confuse anyone with the facts, just poop out propaganda for sucker liberals to step onto -- and walk it around.

As usual, the liberal obsession is with things such as race, sexual interests, and how to ban dodge ball and God from playgrounds. Let's hope at least one knows how to save the world from the bums that hate America. A JFK-type of Democrat. In other words, not a rabid, bellowing liberal.

Ron Brown was the first and only black chairman of the DNC, from 1989 to 1992.

- jR

Forbes: Paul Krugman let out to pee on NY Times

Help! The crazy economist is after me! OK, Krugman takes a wild pitch at supply-siders, that's all. But it is a wild throw! Read the piece in the NY Times, you'll notice the rest of it is not even cohesive with the first paragraph. I assume this means he is now forging ahead full steam with a "hate Republicans" career (even though he was an economist affiliated with a pretty big one, once). I guess the getting's easy now, huh?

Forbes' writer Karlgaard blogs his defense of supply-siders and business, and damns -- rightfully, I say -- the immoral capitalists. We could use more of that!

Failure Of Morality, Not Of Capitalism - Forbes.com: Digital Rules By Rich Karlgaard
“Old-fashioned voodoo economics--the belief in tax-cut magic--has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.”

Take a guess. Who wrote this?

If you said "one of those anonymous twerps posting on Daily Kos," you are forgiven. Had I not cut and pasted this crazed quote myself, I might have guessed it came from a reedy tenor in the Huffington Greek Chorus.

It was actually Paul Krugman, writing in today’s New York Times.

...supply-side capitalism is just a simple and benign idea. It posits: Only suppliers can supply us with goods and services. The demand side can’t will a product or service
into existence. Society therefore advances economically when it reduces tax and regulatory barriers to the creation of goods and services.

Hardly a cultish idea. One can unpack this simple idea into entire books, and many of Krugman’s betters have. The reputations of Smith, Say, Schumpeter and Hayek surpass that of the dyspeptic economist writing for The New York Times.

In fairness, Krugman is not alone. Many people do blame capitalism for bringing us to this low moment in the economy. Do they have a point?

They do if capitalism, as they define it, is devoid of any underlying morality. True enough, it is hard to see any underlying morality when one surveys the present carnage caused by liar loans, shady banks, duplicitous politicians, Ponzi schemers and regulators angling for Wall Street jobs.

The author continues by reflecting on the title of his piece, and I think perfectly, rightly, so in his suggestions on how to get back on track. Lest we ultimately FAIL (!!!), I should note.
This weekend, I caught a BBC radio program on the meltdown in “The City”--London’s financial district. The program quoted many young Brit bankers who said morality was a barrier to personal success in The City. Better to have the sociopath gene if one wants to become a billionaire.

What we are hearing and seeing, in other words, is a failure of morality, not of capitalism.

How do we get back to the old Adam Smith/Benjamin Franklin idea of free enterprise based on a moral foundation? It won’t be easy, but I think we need to start with these:

Please read the piece to review his kernels of good old American business... goodness, and keep going.

Krugman, a Nobel-winning economist (that was the old days, while today some suggest he's merely a political pundit who hates the GOP and favors state-heavy economics) will have NOTHING to do with that remotely unpartisan, working together thing. He wants to blame it all on the same people that 18-year-old video game addicts who don't read want to blame it on: the bloody Republicans.

Oh, please, will someone please out him as a slimy little socialist -- and uncover some sickly thing he likes doing in his free time or something -- so we can move past this kook?!! Geez -- where's Noam Chomsky when you need him!!! (Gaaag!)


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

In the end, did money win the White House?


Obama Spent Four Times as Much as McCain at Race End | Bloomberg.com
McCain spent $26.5 million in the final weeks of the campaign, with $9.5 million going for advertisements, $4.5 million for message phone calls and $2.2 million for salaries. He ended up with $4.9 million in bills still to be paid. McCain also had $25 million in his legal and accounting fund, which can cover expenses incurred during a mandatory FEC audit.

After Oct. 15, Obama reported spending at least $80 million on advertising, mostly on television. He listed another $14.5 million in expenses for travel and lodging, $7.9 million for “staging, sound, lighting,” $7.9 million for payroll and $4.3 million for telemarketing.

Obama also listed $14.7 million in contributions. As in the past, he made payments to state political parties. The Minnesota Democratic Party, for instance, got $350,000, and the Missouri Democratic Party got $550,000.
The vast difference in the finances of the get-out-the vote efforts -- in the end, it's all about getting votes -- suggests that the soon-to-be president is wise to not dance to the tune sung by his goofy worshipers. They are claiming that his election was a landslide. Landslide is a fun word that is often used by people unwittingly showing their own lack of logical, factual awareness (to be kind). Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC as an example.

First, it is absurd to presume that this was a landslide since the difference between the Dem and GOP takes were not even into double digits. So, no, not a landslide. Compare it to Reagan's 1984 victory, and his 1980 win, which was a solid win -- in double digits -- in both popular votes and states won. Second, it was simply not a landslide, if so much money was spent and they won by a very small margin.

Historically, even when Democrats lose, they spend more money than the GOP, in national elections. While this lends itself to a good joke about the difference in money and economic policy of the two parties, it also points out that, having won with such a small margin against a foe with such a small cash amount, that Obama ought to assure his victory is sweet by having it be a realist's victory, not an MSNBC-style, MoveOn.org-style, Karl Rove-style victory.

The Democrats will flaunt the win at their peril -- and are, evidenced by the blow-hard tactics of Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) in the midst of this economic crisis. Doddering Mr. Dodd has proclaimed quite loudly that it the fault of the Fed Reserve and Treasury that the banks -- which he oversees as a Congressional leader -- are not giving out loans with the money shoved at them.

- jR

Note: Have a look at this later post, for a more concise and easier to digest view of what the organizer and money-spender sides evoke in one little pontificater: http://totally-political.blogspot.com/2008/12/organizer-check-money-spender-check.html

Powered by ScribeFire.

What is today's liberalism?



What's wrong with liberal ideals?
Part I


I consider myself a center-right conservative. I think that there is nothing wrong with certain liberal ideals. It is the outlandish, no-holds-barred "rights" and government funding and taxing that I have a problem with. Some so-called issues promoted by liberals extended to the absurd, offensive, amoral, fascist, one-party demagogic, and irrational, in my lifetime (I am around 40 yo). The issues were even more absurd just prior to my birth, in the 1960s. Civil rights is one thing, walking around naked, having sex with anyone and using drugs freely and openly (like pot, acid, etc.) was beyond idiotic.

Naturally, the same adjectives can be placed on some conservative ideas. However, renaming French fries as "freedom fries" was a goofy reaction to something that offended someone and it wasn't combative; calling nearly all whites racist, simply because they are the majority skin color and facial features in this country, is extreme and offensive. These two have been in the common dialog in recent years.

As an example of going liberally overboard, a guy who maintains a solid status among liberals despite his hate-filled agenda, Spike Lee seems to have in him a belief that non-liberal whites - especially George Bush and any aligned conservatives - hate poor black people. Or at least they hate all poor black people who are living in New Orleans, LA. Yet this guy is a champion of cinema (deserved, artistically) and is somehow an example of someone who stands up for civil rights (undeserved, for his irrational and paranoid viewpoint). Ignoring the truth that Hurricane Katrina was a one-in-400 storm seems awfully convenient, and his avoiding an outright damning as well of the Democratic operators of the city and the state pours gas on a fire of political bias. It is agenda over truth that Lee chose to favor in his movie about Katrina. It's sad. I would say it is pathetic, but Spike Lee knows what he is doing. Hardly pathetic - more like divisive.

I suspect one problem is that some people who are socialist or Marxist stumble into the liberal camp and they are welcomed to stay. If that's the liberal, or the Democratic Party, idea of inclusiveness -- welcoming bizarre, ineffective or dangerous ideologies -- then liberals will hopefully never succeed in becoming a long-term dominant force on America. That, or we will lose our position as a capitalist, freedom-loving society. It is simple. If Bill Maher represents your ideas, you are unsavory and never going to gain traction with self-respecting, self-motivated people. Perhaps such people are the minority in America now. I suspect that spoiled celebrities such as Maher, Larry King, and Al Franken are among the minority, though.

The Republican Party, or conservatives, are generally not interested in extreme right ideas, such as white supremacy, racial inequality, racial separatism, or any kind of fundamentalism. There was a time when a conservative would not be deeply troubled by liberal views. There was a time when the great dividing line was tradition and economics, not social issues. As such, calling rabid KKK members conservatives misses the point, just as immediately pairing fascists or socialists with liberals. Ideas such as racial equality are liberal; pay equity for women; non-prejudice against blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, homosexuals, and the disabled. If these are liberal ideals, then I am a liberal. But I am not a liberal. How so? Because I do not agree with the extremes brought about by those whose ideas are today considered liberal. And I am conservative where economics comes in.

For instance, FDR was a liberal - he'd gag at some of the obsessions of liberals today, I suspect. Woodrow Wilson was liberal. JFK was an old fashioned liberal, and he got us into Vietnam (much as his many worshipers want us to forget that).

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bill Maher on Larry King: There's gotta be something funny about Obama

Special Feature: comedy on CNN!

So funny yet still nobody tuned in.

Bill Maher appeared on Larry King the day after the presidency was won by Barack Obama.

Really, Mr. King? You're attempting to hold some cultural and news relevance (judging from the ads for your program) and the best you can do is the garrulous atheist with a pompous smirk (and presumably some dark, unresolved Daddy issues)? What? Obama's aunt not available? Jon Stewart too busy to come by and chat about the fun times both of you have had over the years, pretending to be newsmen? No Chevy Chase retrospective on political parody with a cynical flair? It could mean Larry King is losing his booking effectiveness. Or that he thinks Bill Maher is the new -- who? Saul Bellow? Not sure even Saul Bellow would like that, despite Maher's success and their shared distaste for anything traditional (outside of cynicism, that is).

This booking tells us volumes about Larry King without even watching the program, for its timing and topic. I did watch and then I read part of it. The oddest bit is when Maher proclaims the "real Americans" to be those other than some slice that Palin referred to as "real Americans". That is, that "real America" is not the 80% who are white, not small town Americans, and not "Joe the Plumber" types. The man is unhinged -- but it is good to see that people such as Palin get on his nerves. The weaker they are, the quicker they screw up. He hides behind humor so that his commentary can quickly turn from "here's the real deal" to "hey, it's just comedy, man!" Because he has his own firm ideas, but he is at heart a smarmy, spoiled bully. He is like the rich kid with all the toys in the neighborhood, punching holes into everyone else's hopes and egos, just because no one's punched his lights out for it yet. Give it time.

Oh, and while I'm at the place of this girlish-lipped, Hollywood metro-sexual bagman: Thanks, HBO, for encouraging his brand of jolly (ignorant, unscientific) atheism, freely vacant of relevance, and rich with one-sided vitriol. If HBO won't punch his card, someone is going to eventually suck some wind out of his black sails.

Here's a simple reason: Maher cannot find anything funny about Obama because he would not dare look, or even want to ask it. To keep his scam going, he will work at it, but he's fool enough to admire Obama too heartily. There is no softer spot for a liberal than their messiah. Just like some TV anchors and supposed journalists (Olbermann, Matthews at the top, and when resistance is low, Campbell Brown, Couric, Gibson, yadda yadda), Maher has a one-eyed view. He can seemingly only make jokes about what he hates. That's not humor, that's bullying. You're simply a punk with friends who let you bully. Such cynicism, such laughing at things you do not comprehend much less appreciate has worked for bullies and satirists for a long, long time.

However, good satirists aren't shameless publicity hounds who crave their own like-minded folks, as Maher sure seems to.

Here's another jewel from this freak-mouth, via the Huffington Post (in 2006), on the same CNN show:

During the live broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live, Bill Maher suggested to Larry King that [the former] Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman is gay. (Watch the clip from the live broadcast and read the transcript on the site)

BM: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first. Ken Mehlman. Ok, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it when he's been, people have suggested, he doesn't say...

I guess this is funny to Mr. Hell in a Hand Basket because what? All conservatives hate gays? So this would be ironic is Mehlman were gay? I guess to Maher this was like the irony of Hitler apparently having some Jewish ancestry. What a totally despicable man this whining preacher of un-God is. Why is he considered funny, because, like the guys of Jackass, he's so thoroughly much of an ass that it is entertaining to watch him? Or is it because his views make sense to people? He's cynical, not satirical. Satire, aside from most SNL skits of the past 25 years, is funny. Cynicism, however, is only funny only to those who share in an unwillingness to see others' views as legitimate. You know, like fascists.

Bill Maher: the fascist of funny, the czar of cynical comedy. Fully backed by HBO.So, why should you be backing HBO? I would prefer not. Maybe I will drop HBO, because I have had thoroughly enough of Maher. Perhaps bringing HBO to its knees will be the way to end his reign of smug, cynical, godlessness words of terror.

- jR

Diggy Duggy suggy Digg.com: comments, because Digg didn't seem to keep them.

I copied these comments, since Digg apparently forgets to post them sometimes. What a joke that is.

I am voting for McCain because I believe stubborn extremes in the GOP have distracted McCain, not the other way around.

Bush is not McCain, and that is the dirtiest tag that Obama's campaign has so sarcastically put on McCain. (Sadly, the same can be said the other way around, but at least they aren't calling him a Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter). I think the GOP has forced McCain out of his element, not that McCain has pulled the party from its core.

I think a McCain presidency will help set the GOP on a course away from a silver-spoon leadership (a curse, if you ask me) of GHW Bush and GW Bush toward more of a realist, common-man party as it had started out. Even if he loses, that change in the GOP has begun.

Or, I can only hope it has. That, or I will be registered Independent come the new national, the 2010, election. So, look out so-called mid-term politicians. Boogedy!

Orlando Sentinel endorses Barack Obama for president


Powered by ScribeFire.

Republicans in Hollywood feel bullied

Rabid liberality?

Republicans in Hollywood feel bullied

One "Big Hollywood" blogger is Andrew Klavan, an accomplished novelist-screenwriter who made a splash with a Wall Street Journal article comparing Batman and the "The Dark Knight" to President Bush and the war on terror.

"It's not easy being different," he said. "The liberals aren't all that liberal. We think they're wrong, but they think we're evil, and they behave like it."

Klavan said a producer, worried that Klavan's political reputation had become common knowledge, asked recently whether he could pitch something Klavan wrote but under an assumed name. Klavan declined.

"I don't want to be the Dalton Trumbo of the right," he said, referring to a notable screenwriter who fell victim to Hollywood's blacklist during the anti-communist hysteria of the 1940s and 1950s.

If you lean right, pitch to those who are sympathetic, or at least tolerant of conservative viewpoints, Klavan said. Mel Gibson, Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Surnow come to mind.

Klavan also said liberalism seeps into too much Hollywood content nowadays and offers as proof the several anti-Iraq war movies that have been boxoffice bombs.

"These aren't even movies about the war on terror," he said. "They're Vietnam War movies, made by people who sit around at Skybar discussing their pacifist world view."

TV also is too one-sided, he said. "They don't even make fun of Barack Obama," he noted. "How is that possible? The guy's hilarious."

Another "Big Hollywood" blogger is Evan Sayet, whose writing credits include "Win Ben Stein's Money" and "Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher."

Six years ago, while a staff writer for a popular talk show, Sayet said, "I was informed I could not write jokes about ebonics, global warming or any other cause coming from the left."