Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Afternoon Web-Cruising

Brent Bozell marvels at the media's double standards in how it is approaching a year when Republican women are winning primaries and have a good chance of being elected to offices across the country compared to how they triumphantly proclaimed the "Year of the Women" in 1994. It is only great to trumpet women winning elections when they are liberal women. Conservative women are somehow to be distrusted. In fact, they might not really be women at all as one Democratic woman alleged.

Erick Erickson does an excellent job of fisking
Obama's speech with its internal contradictions and obfuscations.

Ben Stein marvels at how this administration blithely ignores the rule of law and no one seems able to stop him.

Here's a way to make sure minorities get elected: have a judge order that everyone gets six votes each and hope that the minorities will cast all their votes for the minority. Anything to guarantee the correct electoral outcomes.

North Korea has figured out how to solve the problem of how to get some fans to the World Cup to cheer on their team without risking that they would talk to a reporter about the real situation in their country or even try to defect. They hired Chinese actors to portray North Korean fans.

Michelle Malkin notes
that Obama's stuck-on-stupid approach to the Gulf clean-up continues as he names one more czar to add to the czar, AKA Thad Allen, who is already in charge of the efforts down there.

Dan Riehl notes
that, with such bad reviews from the President's speech, one thing has changed: It's now possible to criticize Obama and not be tarred as a racist. As Riehl writes, "Now, that's change!!"

David Harsanyi
reminds us that Jerry Brown once said, that ""the conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs." Ah, that's a leader Californians need as their state sinks ever deeper into unsustainable debt. And the Democrats couldn't come up with anyone better to run for governor?


ic said...

6 votes? Even Saddam hadn't thought of that.

Legal? Constitutional?

The judge, the justice dept. should be impeached or fired.

Kurt said...

I loved the summary of the speech at The Anchoress best of all. Follow the link and listen to the song!

Pat Patterson said...

The women candidates need to remember to wear red power suits, have faces only a mother could love and be on the stumpy side of life.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Right wingers have been trying to roll back progressive gains in this country for about 100 years now. They have never really succeeded. At the same time, big money has always ruled politics. Somewhere in between the determination of the American People to govern themselves fairly and the inevitable power of wealthy interests our American destiny keeps moving forward. Powerful corporations are not interested in the fantasies of right wingers, only in rolling back taxes and regulations. However, the crisis of the Gulf Oil Disaster shows us that even this can only go so far.

The republican party will or won't regain control of the House of Representatives this fall. If they do, they are likely to make an ineffectual show of protest that will alienate them from most Americans who are likely to be feeling better about the economy and looking for action on whatever crises occupy their attention at that time. The Tea Partiers will notice that once again the Republican party makes a lot of promises but act like politicians. Did I mention that there is a distinct tendancy for all politicians, Democratic or Republican, to act like politicians? Curious... Anyway, a Republican majority after the 2010 midterms will probably lead to a fizzling of interest in right wing revolutionary activity and prepare the way for Obama to be re-elected in 2012.

If the Republicans fail to take the House in 2010, I imagine that craziness will peak for a while. Clearly, a large contingent of Tea Partiers will be absolutely convinced that the election was fixed and that Tyranny Has Done Stomped On Our Face. (You will have to imagine the inevitable mis-spellings yourself.) Could there be a shocking act that will discredit the Teabag movement for years? I hope not. More likely, wild screaming crazy will prevail and be its own corrective, and prepare the way for Obama to be re-elected in 2012.

Because, what future does Tea Party Philosophy have in the United States? It is already accepted and repeated by Tea Partiers that "Bush and the congressional Republican majorities did not deliver 'conservatism'", and that's why they lost in 2006 and 2008. But - they want to force Republican politicians to do things that Republican politicians don't want to do. Um, did the Republican Party in power 2000-2006 "become liberals", as the Tea Partiers want to believe? I think not! Are Republican politicians going to repeal Social Security and stop the windfall of billions of guaranteed american taxpayer dollars to insurance companies under HCR? Really? Pay down the debt? Cut off gazillions of dollars in government contracts? Cut off the flow of tax money to the health care industry under Medicare and Medicade? Really?

It took about 20 years for the evangelicals to realize that the promises that Ronald Reagan made to them would never be kept. It took another 8 years for fiscal conservatives to realize that the Republican party wasn't giving them what they wanted, either. Now they passionately believe that the American People will put the power into their Tea Party hands and they will take over and reform the Republican Party and remake american government they way they see it. Good luck with that!

I give it maybe another 5 years, max.

Dr Weevil said...

"the Teabag movement"? Bzzzt. No need to read further. Tacitus Voltaire is a foul-mouthed bigot who ought to just go away until he can argue like a grown-up.

tfhr said...


Paragraph 1:
Right wingers have been trying to roll back progressive gains in this country for about 100 years now. They have never really succeeded.
Hence the crushing debt and insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, etc. By the way, those Progressive gains have been our loss.

...big money has always ruled politics.
Yes, from the pauper upbringings of home-growns like FDR and JFK to the recent import of George Soros. At last, TV, you and I agree on what is real. Of course until Palin landed that huge book deal, she wasn't exactly rolling in money and I seem to remember Reagan as having a pretty humble start in life and were they ever savaged in the liberal media for their lack of elite "credentials".

Powerful corporations are not interested in the fantasies of right wingers, only in rolling back taxes and regulations.

Taxes that inevitably get passed along to the consumer. Our corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world. Do you actually wonder why so many of our jobs end up overseas when our corporate rate runs around 40% compared to lower rates in Sweden and 11% in Ireland, for example? Want more regulations? How about the EPA regulations that are currently preventing the use of skimmers in the Gulf? Some regulations are just plain stupid.

Paragraphs 2 & 3:

Just the usual preoccupation with party politics with a nauseating dose of your typical disparaging insults directed at people you dislike because they're values and priorities do not conform to your Progressive world view. Very typical. (By the way your Tea Party misspelling prediction - does it include errors like "medicade" for Medicaid? See your 4th paragraph)

Paragraphs 4 & 5:

You're foaming here and maybe that's why you can't see what so many Americans know well: current spending and entitlements are unsustainable and must be corrected or the whole house collapses. Left unchecked, that may take less than five years, to borrow from your closing comment.

See you at the polls!

JorgXMcKie said...

I haven't visited in a while, but it seems that some things never change. TV is still unbalanced and foaming.

About cumulative voting, however: In IL we used such a system to elect our House of Reps until current Gov and Populist nutcase Pat Quinn managed to get it changed.

In IL, we had Rep districts that elected 3 reps each. Each voter had 3 votes and could either cast 1 for each of 3 candidates or 1.5 for each of 2 or 3 votes [called "a bullet"] for a single candidate.

In matter of practice, this tended to result in having at least one minority party candidate elected in almost all districts, which meant more representation for either Dems or GOP in the opposition stronghold. It is easy to show that a 25% voting bloc casting "bullets" can win a rep in such a case just about every time.

It resulted in govt that worked much better than the current lashup.

Don't knock it simply because it's different.

tfhr said...


Wow, it has been a while...but welcome back.

Can't say I agree with a process where one man gets more than one vote, but if you tell me that comes with TERM LIMITS, I'd give it a try. (TV is still foaming and I'm still pushing TERM LIMITS - you're right, nothing's changed)