Friday, November 19, 2010

Cruising the Web

Matt Lewis wonders if being overweight helps Chris Christie. Maybe ordinary people aren't as repelled by the overweight as the national media is.

Peggy Noonan has some advice
for those possible candidates considering running for the presidency in 2012.

Charles Krauthammer sees the statement "Don't touch my junk," as a metaphor for how Americans are thinking about their government today.

Samuel P. Jacobs writes
at The Daily Beast about the prospects for three Democratic incumbent senators in 2012. Things look ominous right now for Jon Tester and Jim Webb. Bob Casey might survive because the Republican bench in Pennsylvania is weak. But who knows who will emerge as a challenger for an unpopular senator like Casey? Who knew that Ron Johnson would be the new senator from Wisconsin a year ago? Once people start scenting blood in the water, there may well be several good candidates out there.

Nancy Pelosi blames all the GOP attack ads on her for why she has such a low approval rating. But she's been unpopular even before the ads started. She can't throw the blame on ads; she needs to examine the policies that earned her that unfavorability rating.

Cheers to Mitch McConnell for opposing passing our budget in one huge omnibus bill.

The Washington Post excoriates Obama's failures clinching the South Korea free trade agreement because he preferred politicking than accepting the agreement that Bush's administration has negotiated.

Jennifer Rubin observes
that what Obama needs to do in order to win in 2012 is to separate himself from Nancy Pelosi. Yet the House Democrats just tied themselves even more firmly to her leadership. It will be interesting to see if Obama continues his strong alliance with Pelosi or if he starts trying to separate from her.

26 comments:

Rick Caird said...

If you did not know, or forgot, you can get to WSJ subscriber only articles by using Google. The Journal has some kind of agreement with Google so that if Google is the referer, the Journal let you into the whole article.

For example, the Noonan story is titled: "To Run or Not to Run, That Is the Question ". If you Google that and then click, you get all of her column.

Bachbone said...

Sen. McConnell gets credit for opposing the omnibus spending bill ploy, but deserves at least slap on the wrist for having to be dragged to the place that he agreed to a "moratorium" on earmarks. "Moratorium" only, Senator? Why not an outright ban? Which Sen. McConnell should we believe will follow conservative principles when the new Congress convenes?

The Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who pronounces Gov. Christie as unelectable, because "...he's fat.", is a an admitted leftist. In addition, he's an egotistical publicity seeker. On his own Web site, he describes himself as, "Professor, Author, Speaker, Activist, Public Intellectual..." and includes dozens of You Tube links to his TV appearances. He further describes himself as "...one of the leading hip-hop generation intellectuals in the country." Perhaps Dr. Hill also opines on how candidates for the presidency would fare if they have "fat heads." He must be expert on that, since he looks in a mirror every morning.

mark said...

I was curious to see whether Krauthammer or other repubs would lambaste the party for their disgraceful postponement of the START treaty. Instead, Charles sees how many times he can talk about his "junk" in a column.
Once again, the same people who had a fit when they thought Obama was playing politics with our security lack the integrity to criticize repubs for putting politics over our security.
Yes, airport security is a hassle and at times seems absurd. And like the Patriot Act, it infringes on our privacy. But I've thought it was a small hassle we have to put up with to help protect our country. Next time you're getting screened or patted down, try thinking about the soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, or are over there fighting for us now. Or perhaps you should just stay home and cower in you living room.

Rick Caird said...

Are you for real, Mark? First, you complain because Krauthammer does not write the column you think he should. Next, you assert, without offering any justification, that the START treaty is so good no one could possible oppose it.

You follow that with a paragraph, a completely unclear paragraph, that starts about Republicans playing politics with our security. It is totally unclear as to whether you are talking about the START treaty or airport security. You never bother to say.

Somehow, you complain about the Patriot act, never explaining what part of the Patriot Act you disagree with, and then tell us to think about the soldiers or we are, somehow, cowards. Well, I don't know about you, but I never, never think of soldiers when someone is patting my privates so I can get on an airplane. Do you?

Pat Patterson said...

The New Start Treaty, over nine months late being finalized almost a year after the old treaty expired due to confusion in the State Department, is already being implemented because as per usual practice the President can begin some of the obligations laid out in the treaty as the Russians seem to be doing as well.

The legitimate complaint is that the President has promised to modernize the nuclear deterrent but as of yet as not revealed how he plans on doing it nor has he asked Congress to appropriate the money. Another potential problem is that the Russians will still have 90 silos that can be modernized to take the RS-20 which is MIRV capable. And that is due to the US negotiators not insisting that the RS-20 be included in the reduction.

mark said...

Rick,
Not sure if you're being disingenuous or you're really that slow, but I'll type slower so you can follow along.
I never claimed the treaty is "so good that nobody could oppose it". However, John Kyl has stated he was for it (before he was against it). Def sec Gates wants it passed. The reason it is being postponed is so that repubs can deny Obama any kind of victory. And that's according to one of the few repubs who puts our safety above politics, Sen. Dick Lugar. No one with a shred of integrity can deny politics is playing a role.
I'll be more clear: Repubs are playing politics with the START treaty AND airport security. Just as conservatives had a hissy fit over the "Mosque" near ground zero, they're getting their panties in a wad over airport security. Yes, it's a hassle and awkward, but if we can ask our soldiers to risk their lives to keep us safe, perhaps we can inconvenience ourselves at the airport without whining.
Suggestion: Just choose the body scan. After seeing thousands of scans, nobody is going to give a crap about what you've got.
BTW: The new extra-invasive procedures just started. If someone's been "patting your privates" at the airport, don't blame the TSA.

Rick Caird said...

Mark,

That is quite the scatter gun you've got: START, mosque, Airport Security. I guess your silly little plan is shoot various strawmen in the hopes one will land. However, rational people pick one target at a time to try to hit.

I don't know who you have been reading to get such a skewed view, but Kyl has been concerned aboout the treaty since his first op ed in the WSJ in 2004 and his latest in July of ths year. In that op ed, Kyl lays out his objections. No matter how slowly you type, you cannot get away with just claiming Kyl's objections are merely designed to deny Obama some kind of "political victory" that will come at the expense of our defense.

If you are going to use Gates as a reference, get back to me when he is not a part of the administration. In the meantime, you might just as well tell me Biden favors it too. Neither is any kind of deciding evidence.

Now, I have more than a shred of integrity and it is clear Kyl's concerns are the same ones he has had all along. It is difficult to debate an "all knowing" Carnack like you who seems to feel mere assertion suffices for argument. If you read the Kyl op ed, you will find, he is concerned about:

"First, it's not clear that the treaty's verification provisions are adequate. Second, the treaty's failure to take into account Russia's enormous tactical nuclear weapons arsenal (more than 10 times larger than that of the U.S.) and the limitations it places on U.S. conventional global strike capabilities are serious flaws. Third, the treaty links missile defense to strategic arms reduction--a linkage that had been wisely broken by the Bush administration."

And, there is more that concerns Kyle, as he spells out in the journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575343360850107760.html

Finally, you are really stupid to question my claim of a pat down. I have a pacemaker/defibulator. I cannot go through the metal detectors. It is not at all clear how that will be handled with the body scan. Last April, in Newark while returning from England, I had such an invasive pat down, I have not flown since. You are a typical little lefty. You think you know what you don't know. Reagan's description of our "liberal friends" is still correct.

Rick Caird said...

Mark,

That is quite the scatter gun you've got: START, mosque, Airport Security. I guess your silly little plan is shoot various strawmen in the hopes one will land. However, rational people pick one target at a time to try to hit.

I don't know who you have been reading to get such a skewed view, but Kyl has been concerned aboout the treaty since his first op ed in the WSJ in 2004 and his latest in July of ths year. In that op ed, Kyl lays out his objections. No matter how slowly you type, you cannot get away with just claiming Kyl's objections are merely designed to deny Obama some kind of "political victory" that will come at the expense of our defense.

If you are going to use Gates as a reference, get back to me when he is not a part of the administration. In the meantime, you might just as well tell me Biden favors it too. Neither is any kind of deciding evidence.

Now, I have more than a shred of integrity and it is clear Kyl's concerns are the same ones he has had all along. It is difficult to debate an "all knowing" Carnack like you who seems to feel mere assertion suffices for argument. If you read the Kyl op ed, you will find, he is concerned about:

"First, it's not clear that the treaty's verification provisions are adequate. Second, the treaty's failure to take into account Russia's enormous tactical nuclear weapons arsenal (more than 10 times larger than that of the U.S.) and the limitations it places on U.S. conventional global strike capabilities are serious flaws. Third, the treaty links missile defense to strategic arms reduction--a linkage that had been wisely broken by the Bush administration."

And, there is more that concerns Kyle, as he spells out in the journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575343360850107760.html

Rick Caird said...

Mark.... some more:

Finally, you are really stupid to question my claim of an invasive pat down. I have a pacemaker/defibulator. I cannot go through the metal detectors. It is not at all clear how that will be handled with the body scan. Last April, in Newark while returning from England, I had such an invasive pat down, I have not flown since. And, that one used the back of the hand on my genitals.

You are a typical little lefty. You think you know what you don't know. Reagan's description of our "liberal friends" is still correct.

mark said...

Rick,
Robert Gates, as much as Gen. Petreaus or anyone else, turned the Iraq war around, saving lives and salvaging a disastrous situation. He is an honorable, intelligent man who deserves far better than the cheap shot you took at his integrity simply because he now works for Obama. While I don't share the scorn and ridicule people here have for Joe Biden, making that comparison is particularly insulting. I believe that if Gates had serious issues with Obama's foreign policy, he would resign. I'm sure that if you actually do have a shred of integrity, you regret that comment.

Rick Caird said...

Mark,

You are a heck of a gambler: you take a losing hand and continue to double down. You have just made the silly little argument that anything Gates said must be his true opinion because otherwise he would have resigned. Are you usually such an "all or nothing" kind of guy? Further, anyone who disagrees must not have a "shred of integrity". Yeah, sure, right... I suppose, then, all support for all of the administrations positions is heart felt. You make no allowance for the idea of arguing against a policy in private, but supporting that policy in public after the decision is made. So, no, I do not regret my comment and not regretting the comment is not acknowledging your claim of not having a "shred of integrity". That was a stunningly dumb comment for you to have made.

I also point out to you, the surge was the Patraeus strategy, not the Gates strategy. It is hard to see how Gates could have been very instrumental in the development of the surge strategy while he was President of Texas A&M. In other words, you are making things up again. And, while you are supporting Biden, I would love to hear your justification for Biden (and Obama's) claim the surge would not work.

I am glad to see you backed off your claim that Kyl was simply playing politics and the equally inane claim that I was incorrect in claiming my experience with a pat down was relevant.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

patdowns, and the "patriot" act were both instituted for the ostensible purpose of fighting terrorism

one makes it legal for the government to read your private communications and business records without warrant; the other mandates that somebody touch your thighs

ironic, isn't it, that the same people who have no problem letting the government read their private records get all upset if somebody touches them

i have metal in my body also, so i also have to get a patdown, but somehow i can't seem to get emotionally worked up about it

by the way, rick - your habit of including at least one personal insult in every reply you write tends to make your argument considerably less effective

Rick Caird said...

TV, AKA the Black Knight

I am surprised you actually find physical touching to be equally invasive than your conversations with suspected terrorists or having someone search your library records. Besides, the Patriot Act has actually caught terrorist while TSA has been one big 0-fer. Even then, you are wrong, as you frequently are, about warrants. The Patriot Act does require warrants.

I suppose you haven't had the full Monty pat down yet. But, the horror stories are accumulating. TSA is not equipped to handle colostomy bags and prostheses. I don't particularly care for being felt up by some guy every time I want to fly. Maybe that appeals to you, but not to me. I predict fewer airline passenger miles. Great.

I am sorry, too, you are so sensitive to the rough and tumble internet. I suppose the DU and Kos are much more careful of not insulting anyone. Oh wait, they aren't.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

I am sorry, too, you are so sensitive to the rough and tumble internet

be careful what you ask for

Tacitus Voltaire said...

I am sorry, too, you are so sensitive to the rough and tumble internet

ok, how about this

your habit of including at least one personal insult in every reply you write makes it clear that you are frustrated with being unable to win an argument on facts or logic, and also leads me to wonder if you are older than 12

is that better?

mark said...

Rick,
You have a bizarre fixation with the patdowns. We get it: you really, really(really) don't want anyone near your "junk". And anyone who submits to a patdown must get a cheap thrill from it.
Yes, I have questioned the wisdom and utility of all the airport security. But I see it as a necessary hassle and a small price to pay for the ability to travel to different countries. Given the threats and close-calls we have had, our enemies are constantly adapting.
I think it's bizarre that you are so revolted by the traumatizing patdown you got in England that you won't travel anymore, but I support your decision. I think we're all better off if you just stay home.

Rick Caird said...

TV,

That is not the Patriot Act as you claimed. So, once again, in spite of your claims, I did win. You changed to a different act to try to support your claim about the Patriot Act. But, even then, you are still wrong. The The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is concerned with surveillance of foreigners suspected of terrorism. That has always been fair game. The "faux" complaint from the left has been that, somehow, NSA should stop the surveillance if it turns out one half of the conversation is coming from the US. But, that is no different than wiretapping a Mafiosa and telling the FBI to stop the wiretap if a non covered US citizen called. The answer to that has always been "No". This is no different. The real question is why someone in the US called the suspected foreign terrorist. NSA is chartered for foreign signal intelligence operations.

See, you still cannot mount a coherent argument. Maybe when you grow up....

Rick Caird said...

Oh Mark, either your reading comprehension is poor or you are unaware that Newark is in, wait for it Mark, New Jersey.....

We have gone from metal detectors, to removing our shoes, to taking our computers out, to x-ray machines and invasive pat downs. Are you going to submit docilely to the next step on this slippery slope, a cavity search? Are you aware of how to boil a frog?

Besides all that, it not just travel to different countries as you suggest. It is to board any airplane. It must be past your bed time.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

no, rick, the real question is why you think it's just fine for the government to read our private communications, but you get all upset if somebody touches your thigh

Tacitus Voltaire said...

the Patriot Act has actually caught terrorist

go ahead and name them, then

Rick Caird said...

TV,

here are two references:

http://beapatriot.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/terrorists-caught-before-they-could-act/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412145945AAFV9H2

You really need to learn to use Google or Bing.

Second, if I have really private information, there are a lot of ways I can communicate it so that it cannot be intercepted. Try PGP, for one and courier for another.

BTW, it is not the touching of my thigh, I object to. Clearly, neither you nor Mark has had one of these pat downs yet.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

http://beapatriot.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/terrorists-caught-before-they-could-act/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412145945AAFV9H2


your continuing gullibility to unsubstantiated postings on blog pages is impressive

no, i was patted down several times in the course of our trip to italy two months ago

the point you keep on evading, however, is why you are so upset by a little touching when it worries you not a whit when the government announces, with ostensibly the same aim, that all american citizens will now have less privacy in personal communications and business records.

Rick Caird said...

TV,

Unless you have a reason to claim the names I gave you were not apprehended with the help of the Patriot Act, you have had your answer. You just don't like the fact that you cannot contradict the claim.

Second, I am not evading your question. The answer is so blindingly obvious as to make me wonder about your sanity. My business and personal dealings are all quite above board. I never have phone conversations with suspected terrorists. However, if the government wishes to wiretap any conversations I do have with foreign terrorists, they have my full permission. If they wish to see any of my records, they can already get a warrant.

Now, I seriously doubt your pat down included your genitals nor, if you are old enough to be married, your wife's breasts and genitals, so you do not really have any experience with the invasiveness of the search. However, I will make you this deal, if I can select the screener (female, young, and sexy, of course) I would be much more forgiving of her fondling my genitals. Women would prefer young dark, handsome males, I presume. So, when TSA agents get those "movie star looks" we can talk again. Here is the SNL take on TSA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joIxWcFO3bY&feature=player_embedded

Ya' know, I can't believe you are actually equating the government looking at your banking records with fondling your genitals. You are quite the sick puppy.

mark said...

Who's the sick puppy, Rick?
From the beginning of this thread, you've been hinting that the patdowns have a sexual element to them. The fact that your vigorous protests would go away if the agent was "sexy" is beyond bizarre. It may be invasive patting, but it's not meant to be excessive petting. I'm fairly certain that most agents feel as awkward giving the patdowns as fliers do getting them.
Do you insist that your doctors be "female, young and sexy, of course"?
You really are quite the creep.

Rick Caird said...

Not even a nice try Mark. You are a parody. if fact, not just a parody, but a self parody without even a sense of humor.