Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Obama tries to gloss over his flaming liberalism

Fantastic article by Politco that outlines Barry O’s staunch leftist viewpoints!  Excerpt:

When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seeking state office a dozen years ago, he took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns.

Filling out a 12-page questionnaire [part 1 of questionnaire, part 2 of questionnaire] from an Illinois voter group as he sought a state Senate seat in 1996, Obama answered “yes” or “no” — without using the available space to calibrate his views — on some of the most emotional and politically potent issues that a public official can confront.

The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent.

Here, Osamabamadingdong tries the Shaggy Defense (aka “It Wasn’t Me”):

A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.” 

“Yeah, yeah, it’s got my name on it, but it wasn’t really me who filled that out, so I may or may not believe all that stuff I…er, my assistant…answered!” 

As I have noted from the get-go, most of the time, liberal politicians flee from the “liberal” label like Ted Kennedrunk from an AA meeting.  In a blue state like IL, he can get away with his liberalism.  In the general election (were he to make it there), he has to be dishonest and hide it from as many people as possible.  Nuance and MSM assistance will be his friend.

December 12, 2007 Posted by | Obama | 1 Comment

Pelosi vows to be less bitchy in 2008

We all have New Years Resolutions, don’t we?  Pe-loco is no different: Bitch this year,  Bitch Lite next year.  From Politico:

“I certainly want my speakership to be distinguished by a level of civility and bipartisanship when that’s possible,” she said. “That is what I hope to do in this next year, I really do.” 

I’ll believe it when I see it.

December 12, 2007 Posted by | Pelosi | 5 Comments

MSM brilliance: Hilldawg has a “Plan B” if she loses Iowa

Whatever would we do with the geniuses (genii?) at the AP?  Intro:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s backup plan if she falters in Iowa can be summed up in two words: New Hampshire. 

Wow.  What an awesomely brilliant strategy!  If she loses the first contest, she’s going to try and win the second contest!  Boy, I never saw that coming!

December 12, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, media bias | 7 Comments

Top Ten Funniest Quotes By The Media In 2007

These are actually “inadvertantly funny” quotes, and I didn’t find all of them all that funny, so I narrowed the list down to those I did find most humorous.  Feel free to read the rest of them yourselves.

1. David Gregory:

“Now switching gears to a lighter note, it’s a murder, rather, actually, not quite a lighter note, still a difficult topic.”

2. New York Times Book Review:

“Michael Kinsley, who reviews Alan Greenspan’s ‘’Age of Turbulence’’ this week, has a résumé that seems to have been assembled with the express purpose of inspiring awe.”  (Isn’t that kinda sorta the purpose of all résumés? – Ed.)

3. Brian Lamb:

“Our coverage of funerals is popular.”

4. Helen Thomas:

“Why did we send a B-52 carrying nuclear weapons from South Dakota to Louisiana, jeopardizing America?”

5. Talking snowman in CNN’s Democratic YouTube debate:

“What will you do to ensure that my son will live a full and happy life?”

8.  A question from a member of the White House press corps, after the Virginia Tech shootings:

“Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools — that’s not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?”

9.  Washington Post correction:

“A Reliable Source item in the April 17 Style section incorrectly said that actor Nicolas Cage’s son Kal-El was named for Superman’s father. Kal-El is an alternate name for the comic-book superhero himself; Superman’s father was Jor-El.”

10.  And the rest all belong to Larry King…

Larry King to celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay:

“One of my favorite foods is bagels and lox and cream cheese. They put out a whole assortment. I have no idea what this is.  Peas?”
Ramsay: “They’re called capers.”

I placed this under the “media bias” category, because I didn’t feel like creating a “media idiocy” category.  Lazy, I know.  So sue me.

December 12, 2007 Posted by | humor, media bias | Leave a comment

Brit PM Brown to negotiate with Taliban

From NRO:

The news is stunning. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will announce that, “in a bid to end the war in Afghanistan,” he will begin negotiations with the Taliban. The quote from the “senior source” merely adds an exclamation point to it all.

The change of tack will be seen as the latest attempt by the prime minister to distance himself from the foreign policy of Tony Blair and his ally George Bush.

In a landmark statement in the Commons he will say that the Cabinet has agreed a three pronged strategy for Afghanistan which will [include] security guaranteed by NATO and the Afghan national army followed by economic and political development in the country.

The third prong of the plan is likely to be most controversial — to engage Taliban leaders in constructive dialogue.

A senior source said last night: “We need to ask who are we fighting? Do we need to fight them — can we be talking to them?”

Do we need to fight them? Do we need to fight them??? I am at a loss for words. Stunned.

Expect al-Qaeda’s propaganda machine, relentless in engaging the Information War, to bat this out of the park in short order. Recall that bin Laden’s latest message to Europe was a reminder of Russia’s futile struggle in Afghanistan. This, for him and for furthering his message in the region, serves to help bin Laden bolster the parallel.

One prays that Mark Steyn was not more right — and sooner — than we care to admit.

Yet, on the other hand, I prefer to be alone than anywhere near the new British policy.

Is it so inconceivable to end a war by winning it?

General Petraeus, if you have some free time in the relative near future, sir . . . 

Here’s how a negotiation with terrorist regimes go:

Good guys (for those of you on the left, that would be the US and its allies): So what do you want?

Taliban: Convert or die.

Good guys: We don’t like either option. What else?

Taliban: Die or convert.

Good guys: Sounds an awful lot like the first set of options. Still not liking it. What else you got?

Taliban: Cease living or become Muslim.

Good guys: What if we let you blow up a skyscraper once a decade and kill about 3,000 of our countrymen?

Taliban: That’s a hoot, but it’s not enough.

Good guys: We can throw in a few Hollywood starlets, minus the burqas, so you can beat and/or stone them?

Taliban: My loins tingle with excitement! Keep talking…

Good guys: How about a queer, gift-wrapped in time for Ramadan. The squeal like a pig when whacked with a rock…or so we’ve heard.

Taliban: Since Iran has no gays to give us, this is most definitely an enticing option! Throw in some free couscous and an Afghan goat for each of our mullahs, and we’ll think about it.

Good guys: Awesome! See? We can strike a deal, if we just put our minds to it.

Taliban: Yes. Trust us (*snicker*snicker*)!

Why didn’t we try this a long time ago, right?  For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

December 12, 2007 Posted by | Afghanistan, defeatism, dhimmitude, Euros, religion of peace | 4 Comments

Cuban TV personality flees Castro’s “workers’ paradise”

This is certain to make leftist heads explode!  From al-Reuters via Hot Air:

One of Cuba’s most popular television personalities, humorist Carlos Otero, defected to the United States with his family, Miami’s Nuevo Herald newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Otero, 49, asked for political asylum on Monday at the U.S. border with Canada, where he was producing a television show in Toronto. He was traveling with his wife and two children.

His interview show on Sunday evenings was one of the most viewed in Communist Cuba.

“I hope to earn a living in exile and see my children grow up with the opportunity to study what they want, without having to agree with the system,” Otero told the Nuevo Herald.

Otero said Cuba was “frozen in time” and Cubans lived in great uncertainty over their country’s future since Cuban leader Fidel Castro fell ill and dropped from public view 16 months ago. 

Why, this ingrate never had it so good, what with the “free” health care and whatnot!  Now he’ll have to actually pay to go see a quality health care professional!  Sure, he’ll also get earning (and learning) opportunity far beyond his wildest dreams.  And sure, he’ll get all kinds of rights that all humans should have.  (Sidebar: for those of you on the left, said “rights” can be found in that document we affectionately call a “Constitution”, m’kay?  Google it.)  But what good are rights, freedoms, property, money, etc., if you don’t have “free” health care, right?  For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was both rhetorical and sarcasm.

December 12, 2007 Posted by | Cuba, socialism | Leave a comment

“Mullahs Good, Bushitlercheney Bad”

That’s the title of this awesome op-ed from NRO that addresses, among other things, an odd conspiracy theory that Chimpy McHitlerburton is wheeling and dealing with the Iranian weirdbeards on the down-low.  From NRO:

I must confess that I am beginning to feel sorry for the people–the men, that is–who issued the now-infamous NIE proclaiming their near-certitude that Iran “halted” its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, and their heartwarming belief, at a lower level of certitude, that the mullahs haven’t resumed it. This embarrassingly crafted bit of fluff has failed to pass muster in London, Paris, Berlin and Jerusalem, and in much of Washington and New York. Most of us thought this would put an end to any aggressive policy toward Tehran, but life is full of surprises and if anything the call for tougher sanctions is stronger today than it seemed last week.

And apologists for the NIE–a group that more or less coincides with those who still believe in the likelihood of a “grand bargain” with the mullahs–are resorting to some pathetic attempts to advance their policy. Two of them, Hillary Mann Leverett and her husband, Flynt Leverett–both former Bush administration dissidents–have an odd oped in today’s New York Times, in which they argue a) that anyone who proposed “engagement” with Iran in the early Bush years was risking her career, and b) that Iran has really tried to cooperate with us in the past, but got nowhere.

As for a), I’m not aware that anyone was ever fired or demoted from the Bush Administration for advancing the “engagement” policy. Indeed, Richard Haas, an intimate of then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and head of State’s Bureau of Policy Planning, vigorously advanced it, and I think he got various high-ranking officials (perhaps Mr. Leverett himself) to go meet quietly with Iranian counterparts to explore the possibility of detente. And, as I have written several times, a bit more than a year ago, Secretary Rice asked former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales to go to Tehran, which he did. He met with Mr. Larijani, who told him to forget it.

So a) seems factually wrong.

As for b), you really have to read the small print. For Leverett and Leverett actually say this:

“Iran has tried tactical cooperation with the United States several times over the past two decades — including helping to secure the release of hostages from Lebanon in the late 1980s and sending shipments of arms to Bosnian Muslims when the United States was forbidden to do so.”

Yes, the Iranians were in a great position to be “helpful” to our hostages in Lebanon in the mid and late eighties. After all, they had instructed Hezbollah to take the hostages in the first place. They were running the old mafia insurance scam, first demonstrating their ability to kill us (as they did to at least two of the hostages, Higgins and Buckley), then showing their control by releasing a handful. If that’s the “grand bargain” that the Leveretts have in mind, I’d rather pay protection money. It saves on travel expenses and time wasted.

As for the provision of weapons to “Bosnian Muslims,” this was one of the Clinton Administration’s most scandalous undertakings. We enabled the Iranians to smuggle weapons into the Balkans in violation of formal international agreements (CIA at the time was within a hair of accusing the White House of carrying out a covert action without legal approval), and it enabled the mullahs to set up a substantial terrorist-training network through which many of the most infamous killers, including some involved in the 9/11 attacks, passed in the eighties and nineties. I wouldn’t hold that up as a great example of “tactical cooperation.” More like “American stupidity combined with Iranian murderous cunning.”

The Leveretts give us one more pathetic example of Tehran’s presumed virtue, and America’s meanness in response.

“Tehran’s expectations of reciprocal good will have been dashed by American condemnation of perceived provocations in other arenas, as when Iranian support for objectives in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was rewarded by President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil.”

Do they not know that the mullahs were playing both sides of the table? At the very moment Tehran was sitting at the negotiating table with us to discuss the future of Afghanistan, Iranian-guided terrorists were trying to kill Americans on the ground. Just as they are today, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

It’s kind of a template for the nuclear program: on the one hand they make a friendly gesture, on the other hand they continue to produce the ingredients of their atomic bomb. 

How sad (yet unsurprising) that we have high-ranking public service personnel who will take the word over some bloodthirsty jihadist camelhumpers over their own commander-in-chief.

December 12, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, dhimmitude, Iran, moonbats | 2 Comments