Sunday, August 31, 2008
That's too rich. Dems nominate for President a man who's not even qualified for the office he holds now, put at the top of their ticket a man with less executive experience than the woman at the bottom of ours, and Lowell wants to play the experience game?
Please, Lowell. Indulge yourself.
And while you're at it, Lowell, please don't forget to mention how many of those Republican woman are, likewise, more qualified to be at the top of our ticket than the Dalai 'Bama is to be at the bottom of yours.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
What was interesting was their comments after their victory. First, Kerri Walsh pointedly said "Thanks, Mr. President," doubtless referring to President George W. Bush's famous visit with the women and the photograph taken with them, in their very skimpy uniforms.
Then, asked what was next for them, both women basically said that they wanted to go home and make babies.
One can only imagine the savaging they will take from the moonbatosphere for these variations from acceptable public discourse.
As for me, way to go, ladies. You may be the best ever in your event. You've made us all proud.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
No, the smear is Obama's whining about being called "unpatriotic."
Gee, Barry, who --- precisely --- is calling you "unpatriotic"? When? Where? Is your concern about the issue that someone serious is actually doing it?
Then again, perhaps we can play homo advocate for a minute. Applying their smear/reasoning, we should conclude that Obama worries about being called "unpatriotic" because of his own insecurities and fears that he actually is unpatriotic.
In reality, as far as I know, it's not the McCain campaign making such accusations, or any other serious GOP organization, for that matter. Now, I suppose that a few bloggers, or radio talk show hosts, or others might be doing so --- I wouldn't; I think you're a moron, not a traitor, and besides, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term --- but serious people don't take them any more seriously than the name-calling in the far-Left moonbatosphere supporting your candidacy.
In fact, the first serious item coming upon a Google search of "Obama unpatriotic" was a reference to your whining speech yesterday.
In short, the smear is not McCain calling Obama "unpatriotic." The smear is Obama's unfounded and specious accusation that McCain's legitimate questions about Obama's judgment, wisdom, and woeful inexperience are merely a challenge to his patriotism.
I don't expect that anyone in the so-called "main-stream" media will ever ask the Dalai 'Bama to put up (with specificity about who and when such accusations have been made) or shut up.
Then again, I never recall the so-called MSM ever asking John McCain to specify how money had corrupted the process, or required surrender advocates to tell us when the Bush Administration attempted to link 9/11 to Iraq.
The reason? Well, first, members of the MSM don't care what the answers are.
Perhaps more importantly, the sneaking suspicion or actual knowledge that the answer to the questions are, in each case, "Well, never."
As Barack Hussein Obama milks the veepstakes for all that it is worth (not that there's anything wrong with that), speculation abounds that he will select Governor Timmy! as his running mate.
All well and good. But if Governor Timmy! is selected to run for Vice President, he should resign from his current office.
Never mind that Virginia deserves another Governor; at a minimum, Virginia needs a full-time Governor, particularly in light of recent budget difficulties. After all, Virginia Attorneys General typically resign to seek their party's nomination for Governor.
Sooooo, if Governor Timmy! wants to become the junior member of the least-qualified national ticket in modern American history, he should surrender his office and commit to that quest his full attention.
Hey, at least he has some executive experience.
H/T to Riley at Virginia Virtucon for the graphic.
Soooo, this (BHO) is the crypto-Socialist who believes that "the rich" aren't shelling out enough for his vote-buying schemes ... er, "social welfare" programs?
Message to the socialist Democrats: don't soak me for more unless you're taking care of your own.
H/T to the Drudge Report.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
One could make a full-time job responding to the moonbattery of the far Left. Most times, it's just not worth the time or trouble.
But little "Truth-teller" over at Democrat official Clifford Garstang's --- or is that Clifford Claven? --- Cobalt6 blog is simply beyond the pale. Now, I suppose he can name-call as much as he wants, since it's not like he does much more than whine about the post he attacks (oddly, one in which I am pointing out an unfair question asked about the Obama campaign, and one which implies that he was associated with John Edwards' sleazy behavior). In fact, Garstang can and has done so here, a privilege he doesn't extend to those who don't register for his website.
But this is certainly odd: he notes that I "claim to be a lawyer, but that Alex Davis/Jonathan Maxfield used to claim that as well."
Well here's a little news flash, Cliffy: people listed as "counsel of record" (and scheduled to argue) before the United States Supreme Court don't merely "claim" to be lawyers; they are lawyers.
Now, I realize that the nature of the blogosphere and those who assume anonymous or pseudonymous persona might cause a certain skepticism, and here, I certainly respect a healthy skepticism. But I've been around the Virginia blogosphere a long time; people know me; I've even broken bread with no less a member of the Democrat blogosphere than Ben Tribbett. Even a Google search would make it pretty clear that I am who I say I am.
In short, Cliffy, your alter-ego or colleague might want to check easily-ascertainable facts before he questions someone's credentials, something he ironically does behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity. Not that such treatment and respect for others would be characteristic, or even expected from the far-Left slander machine.
But it would constitute simple decency. As would banning "Truth-teller" from your blog for his misdeed. Again, not something I expect from the likes of you or your website, Cliffy, 'specially since you endorse "Truth-Distorter's" tomfoolery.
Of course, our friend Carl Kilo pretty much gets it right.
Monday, August 18, 2008
In related news, Obama also announced the appointment of a food taster, a designated staffer to start all automobiles, another to open all door handles, and a fourth to insure no bombs are planted under his toilet (see Lethal Weapon II).
OK, for the humor challenged, this is a joke.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Other than the possibility that Edwards was being considered as a running mate (well, so much for that), I just couldn't figure this one out. What? Had Edwards been shtupping Michelle Obama? Being that it's Democrats, was he shtupping --- or being shtupped by --- Barack himself? That's certainly not the story, as I understand it.
As with any raging Socialist, I've little use for Barack Obama. But among his many sleazy associates, John Edwards is probably the least of them.
At least Edwards' sleaze was limited to personal corruption, not public corruption.
Now, hanging Weatherman terrorist William Ayers or race-baiting minister and confidante the "Rev." Jeremiah "God damn America!" Wright around the Dalai 'Bama's neck is perfectly appropriate. Maybe even convicted felon and Obama contributor Tony Rezko, since Obama had business dealings with him. Obama has a long trail of association with a virtual rogues' gallery of deeply sleazy associates.
But John Edwards? Not unless an Obama was involved in his illicit activities.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Now, no word on the merits or demerits of the relative positions being taken by either of the parties to the negotiations is provided. No word on whether Verizon is being unreasonable, or whether the relevant Communications Workers of America (CWA) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) locals are making unreasonable demands akin to those currently coming home to roost in the American automobile industry.
Simply reflexive support of a labor union, and an effort to facilitate its efforts.
'Bout what I'd expect from Democrats.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Now, never mind that the gentleman in question never bothered to establish whether the church he was criticizing had anything to do with putting the sign up (it apparently has been taken down).
Mr. Garstang instead decided to throw out an accusation of racism. He apparently considers a reference to "Black churches."
What; predominately Black churches don't exist? Democrat candidates don't flock to them in the weeks leading up to elections? Democrat campaigns have not verifiably provided "walking around money" to Black (or African-American) preachers? The media frequently reports that the most segregated hour is when Americans attend worship. Now, that's not the case in my church, nor in many churches I know in Prince William, including the one attended by my sons' godparents.
I've approved his comment (since I despise the bile anonymity promotes, I reserve the right to reject comments by anonymous/pseudonymous posters) on the theory than friends and readers will recognize that this accusation says more about Mr. Garstang's character than it could ever distort mine among those familiar with facts.
No word on how the sign got there.
One presumes that Mr. Garstang will exhibit similar high dudgeon when Democrat candidates like Mark Warner, Barack Obama, and others start making campaign appearances in Black churches as the election draws near.
Or will he?
Friday, August 08, 2008
After all, about the only thing respectable about the guy was the fact that a successful, good-looking trial lawyer didn't dump for a trophy wife his rather frumpy wife when she hit 40. Even more tragic is the fact that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has recurred, and apparenly is inoperable. In short, she is dying.
But I'm wondering about the moonbatosphere's response. After all, they savaged Newt Gingrich for "pressing his [first] wife for divorce while in the hospital," or so the story goes. Incidentally, the first Mrs. Gingrich survived, and is alive today.
Go ahead. Google "Gingrich divorce 'first wife' cancer." I came up with not fewer than 10,400 results in about a quarter second. Most on far-Left smear sites.
As for Edwards? Don't hold your breath waiting for the moonbatosphere to apply the same standard to their boy. After all, "principles" are principles for the far Left. They're mere tools of convenience.
UPDATE: Well, there's one exception. But I've never categorized Ben Tribbett as part of the moonbatosphere.
To what am I referring? The amazing op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal in which he come out against the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act," a pernicious little proposal at the very top of the union-boss wish list.
And what would EFCA do? Well, let's leave it to former Senator McGovern:
it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.So tell me again how Democrat supporters of EFCA (North Carolina freshman Congressman Heath Shuler comes to mind) are "moderates"? George McGovern is no moderate, and even he cannot stomach this proposal.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
I once labeled McGovern "George 'No Enemies to the Left' McGovern."
It would seem that I owe him an apology. I apologize.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Since the end of World War II, government policy has funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle, subsidizing highways while starving mass transit and keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries."funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle [by] ... keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries."
So, it's a "subsidy" when government refuses to seize more of the income of the producers?
Few comments so succinctly illustrate the Marxist/Socialist premises upon which so many of today's media based their "reporting."
Sunday, August 03, 2008
His One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich should have been required reading in every American government school, but wasn't. While I had read this work, I was reintroduced to his importance by one of my college professors, James Pontuso, Patterson Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at Hampden-Sydney College, whose doctoral thesis was on the great Russian author's work.
With a personal knowledge that the author of the phrase (Eric Blair AKA George Orwell) could not, Solzhenitsyn illustrated the reality of Marxist totalitarianism: "Imagine a boot in your face. Forever." And revealed its horrors to a world all too frequently willing to turn a blind eye.
Friday, August 01, 2008
By which the speaker means "We really don't want to or can't answer this, so we'll just dismiss it. Doesn't Senator Obama give a good speech?"
In short, it's just a "distraction" from the fact that BHO gives such a darn good speech. Says nothing, but says it well.
Once again, the far Left is demonstrating it's lack of respect for anyone who isn't on the far Left. And that the far Left fears real debate in the same way (and for the same reasons) that a vampire fears sunlight.