Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Cruising the Web

Ah, this explains it. Newt Gingrich's vision of his own historical, transformational role in government comes from science fiction.

Speaking of science fiction. George Takei, the actor who played Sulu on Star Trek, is taking on "Twilight."

Marijuana growers have taken to national parks
to grow their crop. And they're damaging the ecosystems in the parks in the process.

Georgia Republicans are not jumping in
to help their fellow Georgian, Gingrich.

The 99% can't afford the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The becoming modesty of Barack Obama: He rates his achievements
over the past three years exceeding all previous presidents except Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ. yeah, sure.

Harry Reid thinks that the existence of millionaires who are job creators are about as real as unicorns.

Close to 2/3 of the American public think that big government is a bigger threat to the country than big business or big labor. That's close to an all-time high in Gallup's polls since they've been asking that question in 1965.

The eternal cluelessness of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz who denies that unemployment has increased under Barack Obama. When the facts aren't in your favor - just make stuff up.
Chris Dodd wants to emulate China when it comes to regulating the internet.

How 60 Minutes wasted the hour it had to interview Barack Obama: Well, of course. You don't think they were going to ask hard-hitting, penetrating questions instead of giving him an opportunity to spout his campaign rhetoric, did you?

Richard Epstein takes down Obama's ignorance
of the economy as displayed in his populist demagoguery. And as Michael Barone points out, such populist arguments haven't won elections for Democrats since Harry Truman.

Dick Cheney said that Obama had three options after our drone went down in Iran, but rejected those options and instead asked Iran to return our drone. If that is true, it counters all the positive vibes that Obama has accrued from killing Osama bin Laden. I have no idea if it would have been possible to have destroyed the drone with an airstrike or if a team could have recovered it. It's difficult to believe that the President passed up a legitimate attempt to destroy the drone once it had gone down.

Fred Barnes argues that the debates have not served the GOP well by distracting attention from Obama's weaknesses and diminishing the leading candidates. On the other hand, the debates have given people who aren't in Iowa and New Hampshire to get a feel for these candidates. But Barnes is absolutely correct that the debates have placed a disproportionate amount of attention on their skills in short answer questions instead of their policy positions and by allowing the peripheral candidates the opportunity to hang around. But shouldn't such candidates hang around at least until people cast actual ballots?


Davod said...

"Fred Barnes argues that the debates have not served the GOP well by distracting attention from Obama's weaknesses and diminishing the leading candidates."

I thought distracting attention from Obama was part of the overall Republican campaign strategy.

The Democrats have been on the attack since Obama was elected, but especially since the 2010 elections. The lies and obfuscations have been allowed to go unanswered in any meangingful way.

I know money is an issue but surely the conservatives can come up with the cash to mount an effective and ongoing rebutal to what is essentially a scam being perpetuated on the US population.

Davod said...

Kelly-Anne Shiver's "Five Lessons for Republican Candidates Courtesy of Herman Cain" Is well worth a read.


"Number 1: Every contender must play harsh devil’s advocate with himself before announcing… or prepare for unceremonious roasting...

WILL: …now and 2016, both parties have to do some serious thought as to whether they can develop some filter to prevent this process, particularly with made proliferation of debates from being hijacked by charlatans, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial charlatans.

AMANPOUR: Who would you label as one of those?

WILL: Well, the one who dropped out, Mr. Cain, who used this as a book tour in a fundamentally disrespectful approach to the selection of presidents. Now, we have a December 27th debate proposed that would be moderated by Donald Trump. Surely it is time for these candidates to do something presidential, stand up and say we’re not going to be hijacked and participate in this...

I could not help but wonder where in the world Will kept all this unique insight and professional candor in 2008, when a “community organizing” charlatan and Chicago-machine-made thugocrat received permission from establishment commentators to pose unchallenged as the consummate Anointed One for whom the U.S. presidency had waited so long.

Is it possible that Will has forgotten the presidential election of 2008, when he and every other enabling media elitist, along with the Democratic Party, allowed the presidency of the United States of America to become a garish, iconographic, messianic, banana-republic ego trip for a single individual with no qualifications but a teleprompter and a real-world resume fit for the back of a postage stamp?

Our media elites seem to harbor an adolescent streak of magical thinking as they attempt to put this charlatan-genie back in its bottle, hoping to return to an equally magically-imagined state of American politics where no one save the most able, most noble, most amply experienced citizens would dare to run. There has indeed never been such a state. And as long as America remains a constitutional republic of the people, there won’t.

Herman Cain had every right to run for president, just as every other American citizen who meets the very basic qualifications outlined by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Cain made a good run of it, as was his right. Millions of Americans appreciated his plain speaking, ardent patriotism, and willingness to face off with smooth talking heads, most of whom have never had a real job in their lives."

tfhr said...


Well said.

Stuffed shirts like Will are revulsed by the "fly-over country" rubes (anyone that does not travel in the DC cocktail party circuit or amongst NYC gentry) that don't much care for the part played by RINOs in the growth of government and its ever expanding intrusion in our daily lives.

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

"He didn't take any of the options." Cheney said, "He asked nicely for them to return it and they aren't going to do that."

Gee, I wonder how he knows that.
How many things did Dick Cheney get wrong when he was part of an administration? Now he's not, and somehow he has all this knowledge?
What Cheney does have is the blood of about 150,000 people, including 4500 troops, on his hands.

tfhr said...


Do you really believe that Iran will return the UAV? I guess you believe them when they say they are not developing nuclear weapons too.

As for the human costs of war, add to your calculation the costs to come from abandoning Iraq when victory was in hand, ignoring the 2009 popular uprising in Iran when the US could have helped if our President only would have made any effort at all to coalesce international support for the Iranian people, and the unbelievable political calculus behind the decision to announce our withdrawal timeline in Afghanistan.

Bush(and Cheney)had the support of the US Congress to remove Saddam. When you talk of "blood on hands" you should include Hillary Clinton, among others but let's not forget who came to power, sustained power and sought to expand power through bloodletting. Over the length of his tenure, Saddam killed many more than the numbers you cite. He used blister and nerve agents against civilians and troops on a large scale. The decision to remove him was correct. Maybe you think he was going to turnover a new leaf, if so I'd like to hear why you think that but by refusing to give the WMD inspectors unfettered access and then by refusing to step down when given the final ultimatum, Saddam made the decision that set the course for war, just as Ghaddafi made his choice.

mark said...

It's pretty simple, tfhr:
Cheney was wrong about WMDs, being greeted as liberators and the insurgency being in the last throes. The former CEO of Halliburton (talk about "picking winners" was wrong about many of the issues, and many people died as a result. Apparently you believe him, but I suspect his errors make you feel better about yours.

LarryD said...

Mark, it seems to me that you need to be reminded that Bush, at the Democrats request, requested an Authorization for Use Of Military Force against Saddam's regime. And Congress issued it.

You have a right to hold the opinion that invading Iraq was a mistake, but you cannot blame Bush and Cheney alone. And Congress in the AUMF listed a whole bunch of reasons, of which WMDs were merely one.

mark said...

I have never blamed Bush and Cheney alone. However, as president and vp, they get the largest share (just as Obama deserves the largest share of blame for the lousy economy).
I wonder if it were discovered that an Obama official had a blind trust with Solyndra,, as Cheney has with Halliburton, if that wouldn't be criticized here. I'm thinking yes.

tfhr said...


Care to offer documentation supporting your Halliburton insinuations about Cheney? Lately I've noticed you've made frequent use of insinuation to assign guilt when you cannot back your claim up with facts.

Kerry and Edwards tried the same thing in 2004 and were smacked down by FactCheck.

As for Solyndra, go ahead and defend squandering tax payer's money in a bogus investment scheme if you want but the only people that seemed to have benefit from it so far are Obama campaign supporters.

mark said...

Cheney lied about severing his ties with Halliburton,
Halliburton stands to make billions more as it continues to skirt laws regarding trade Iran.

As Perrspectives detailed three years ago, Halliburton had side-stepped the U.S. sanctions regime in place against Iran since the 1990's by using a Cayman Islands subsidiary. And what should come as a surprise to no one, CEO Dick Cheney opposed those very sanctions until, of course, he became George W. Bush's Vice President.


tfhr said...


Your link is invalid. Try again.

While you're out looking for a functional link, ask yourself, if Cheney was doing something illegal or if Halliburton was in violation of the law, why haven't the Democrats pursued that?

Anyway, let's have a link that works and we'll take a look at what you've got.

mark said...

Sorry about that. Go to:

and enter Halliburton in the search box.

Halliburton is very good at manipulating laws. One of their tactics (to avoid lawsuits for shoddy work and war-profiteering) has been to create subsidies and sell them off at signs of trouble.

I have no idea why the dems aren't going after Halliburton harder. I assume there are enough corrupt dems with their own disgraceful deals to block serious inquiry.

tfhr said...


Your search parameters, when entered at your blog of choice returned non-specific results ranging from "Energy Archives" to "Conservative Threat Level" (sounds paranoid).

I'd rather know what specific article you would like to use as your evidence to back up charges of "warprofiteering" by Halliburton or any criminal charges that have been filed against Cheney. Given the smackdown that Kerry-Edwards got for their failed campaign tactic, I'd think you would have known better than to pick up that steaming pile, but you did it anyway. Once again you are leveling criminal charges without proof.

Rather than lob conspiracy theories around regarding your unsubstantiated belief that there must be some sort of Halliburton plot to control Congress, why not find a mainstream media outlet that can back up your charges? Or are they all bought too? By now, if there was truth to your claims, the NYT or the WaPo would have had one of their fine writers finishing the epitaph for Halliburton and Cheney. On the otherhand it would be refreshing to hear a lefty, such as yourself, admit that the NYT is so hobbled by its liberal bias that it cannot be trusted to provide accurate reporting on anything!

That you "assume" widespread political corruption rising to the levels needed to protect a highly visible target like Halliburton is in place and that you admit that you readily resort to "insinuation" rather than supported attribution shows just how flimsy, if not outright imagined, your accusations have become of late.

To be fair, I would do not have any faith in this Justice Department, you know

tfhr said...

...given their unwillingness to prosecute a well documented case of voter intimidation in Philadelphia and their scandalous program to send weapons to Mexican drug cartels, but Holder is Obama's guy, so I guess that comes back to you, mark.