Friday, March 02, 2012

Cruising the Web

George Will refutes all the myths about Citizens United and the supposed evil of Super PACS.

Charles Krauthammer is absolutely right. Rick Santorum has no one to blame but himself for his position now behind Romney after rocketing up to the top of the polls.

Aw, poor Dennis Kucinich, redistricted into a race against another Democrat.

Mona Charen wonders who the real conservative in the race is.

John Hinderaker asks "Why can't the Obama administration makes its case without disseminating hate?" Perhaps because that is all they have.

Liberal media figures face a backlash when they start mocking politicians' religions.


mark said...

The real conservative in the race is Buddy Roemer, a respected former Congressman and Governor.
If only he hadn't spoken up against corruption by both parties, repubs might have at least given him a glance. If only he had pretended that climate-change is a hoax.
Instead, the party got distracted by two fake candidates, one who quoted Pokemon and coined the phrase "Shucky-Ducky", and the other who appealed to racists in the party with the birther nonsense. How could he compete with that?
Oh well, at least you've still got El Rushbo to steer the party.

tfhr said...


If you think of Limbaugh as a helmsman, then you must very uncomfortable with Special Ed Schultz at the wheel for the S.S Dem. I'd warn icebergs everywhere - oh wait - they all melted while AlGore was jetting around in his Gulf Stream, buying a beach front mansion and scamming his carbon credits.

If you like Buddy, then by all means, you should vote for him. You tell us you're not happy with the genius you voted for last time, then this would be an upgrade for you, no? What's the hold up?

I do like that you find his (apparent) track record of fighting against corruption. I wish you had the same hopes for someone on the left. I'd tell them to get started over at Holder's Justice Department. That Fast & Furious thing should be making you furious. Imagine what the MSM would be doing if they found out that a firearm that was deliberately transferred to a drug cartel was used to murder a federal law enforcement officer? Which Dem member of Congress would be calling for hearings first? They're strangely silent. You'd probably demand that the President take action, wouldn't you? Crickets from the left.

Again, I'm glad you admire the anti-corruption angle. Pelosi once claimed to be about "draining the swamp". That fizzled out pretty quick under her watch. But another woman challenged her state's entrenched party - her own party - but Palin never gets credit for that accomplishment from the left. I wonder why?

mark said...

Palin? Seriously? She quit her job partly due to all the ethics investigations she was facing.

Locomotive Breath said...

Palin quit her job due to the financial cost to her personally of the false ethics investigations she was facing.

mark said...

You're lying, LB.
She was found in violation of a state ethics law (by a bipartisan panel) prohibiting the use of her office for political gain.

Other investigations were ended when she quit. We don't know whether she was guilty or innocent.

Locomotive Breath said...

Yeah that wearing a race sponsor's jacket. That was real serious.

tfhr said...

Here goes mark (again):

"We don't know whether she was guilty or innocent."

There is a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, mark, even on trumped up allegations. No wonder you Progressives are so Constitution averse, it just gets in your way, doesn't it?

Of all the wild allegations leveled at Palin, the only one that had any traction was the handling of her legal defense fund. While there was no substantial difference in the way she managed it when compared to Bill Clinton's or John Kerry's respective legal defense funds, there were Alaskan rules that made such a fund, while in office, a potential target for partisan critics. Still, no criminal charges ever gained traction, did they mark?

No, the crime that Progressives charge Palin with is this: Conservatism. For that she will receive a lifetime sentence of hate, derision, and insults. She can handle it but the case for "Progressivism" suffers in the process as creeps like Andrew Sullivan and Bill Mahr carry the Progressive standard as they continue to obsess, defame, falsely impugn, and insult a woman they fear.

mark said...

It's always fun to see who you'll defend.
The facts: LB said they were all false charges. They were not. She has been found in violation of at least several, including the firing of the trooper.

A number of impending investigations ended when she quit the governorship. That in no way means she is innocent. You continue to make a mockery of the Constitution.

Whether it's Palin, Rushbo or Sandusky, you have a bizarre penchant for defending losers. Touching, in a sad, pathetic way.

tfhr said...


Anytime you get specific you manage to shove both left feet into your mouth. Example: You claim, falsely, that Palin was "found in violation...firing of the trooper".

You are wrong. If I were to follow your example, I would shriek that you were "lying" just as you wrongly accused Locomotive Breath. In your specific case, rather than "lying", I think you've been drinking the Left's Koolaid for so long that you believe whatever you've been told without bothering to verify any of it. I’m trying to cut you some slack here with that assessment as I would hate to think you were deliberately misrepresenting specific, establish facts, as that would be lying.

I will correct your failure (again) by providing facts you are too lazy to find for yourself. From The Guardian:

Sarah Palin cleared over 'troopergate' by fresh report

The Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has been cleared of wrong-doing in the "troopergate" controversy by a report released on the eve of the US election.

Palin did not apply improper pressure to try to dismiss a state trooper who was her former brother-in-law, and did not violate state ethics laws in the firing of her state public safety commissioner, according to the report by the Alaska Personnel Board.

Read the entire article and begin sounding less like a moron. Really mark, if you have to be spoon fed, go to a source that can provide facts. I will do this for you but you are becoming a burden.

Here's another article from 2008. It's from the LA Times in case you find The Guardian too conservative! When I say "get with the times,", I mean update your knowledge base. The fact that even the LA Time can improve yours should scare the daylights out of you. You shouldn't be four years behind on commonly known facts. You've ended up sounding like an imbecile. Again.

Once more, mark, the concept of innocent until proven guilty really matters. I hope you are never brought up on criminal charges or even trumped up politically based accusations, but if you are, I hope people will not find you guilty regardless of any legal proceedings that are incomplete, pending, or dismissed.

Since you are obviously plagued by an inadequate grasp of the facts or an unwillingness to do basic research, you should probably stick to events that are more current. Maybe you could focus on the economy or even Obama's record on the economy, then you could dazzle us with glowing statistics...I'll wait.

mark said...

Wrong again, tfhr:

And pretending to hide behind the Constitution to defend Sandusky continues to be pathetic. Nobody has argued that he doesn't have the right to a trial and impartial jury. That does not prohibit anyone forming an opinion based on the information available. Commenting on a blog is not the same as taking an oath in a courtroom. Everyone here, including you and me, have passed judgement on people without hard evidence or a guilty verdict.
Palin, Rushbo, Sandusky: You need to pick your heroes a little better.

equitus said...

Did you even read the article you referenced, mark? The finding was very controversial and likely political. Among other reasons, the purpose of the investigation, why Wooten was fired, was dismissed. (It was found to be "a proper and lawful exercise" of power.) The ethics violation referred to in the headline was a result of her husband's efforts to fire a trooper who threatened the governor's family - an effort the governor urged him to drop (a fact not considered in the finding).

The point of bringing up Palin in this thread was her efforts to fight corruption prior to becoming governor. What? You haven't heard about her fights with the AOGCC? Did TPM not mention it?

A final question, mark. Who do you consider the leading light and future of the Democratic Party. We know now it is not Obama. Is it Ed Schultz?

equitus said...

What happened in Alaska is known as "lawfare" - using legal technicalities and processes to achieve outcomes regardless of the merit of the legal action.

Shortly after Palin was nominated, a concerted effort was begun to flood the state with ethics investigations against the governor. It is very easy and free for anyone to file a charge.

Furthermore, Alaska is the only state where the governor must use personal funds for defense. So you can see it was a brilliant political move to destroy a politician, albeit grossly unfair. Of the suspected dozens of filings, only one or two resulted in even very weak and lame findings. The vast majority of complaints were simply bogus.

But anyone who knows the facts, including leading Dem and progressives, is aware of this. Now mark can say he is too.

Your welcome.

mark said...

"Furthermore, Alaska is the only state where the governor must use personal funds for defense"

The fact is, she committed an ethics violation, contrary to what tfhr and lb maintain. Doesn't really matter if you consider it unfair, now does it?

Yes equitus, thanks for proving me right.

I wish I could offer up some dems that I were certain were incorruptible (which is mostly why I am independent: Both parties are corrupt. But if I were to offer up someone, I'd be a bit more judicial than tfhr. (Then again, I wouldn't have defended a child-molester (just to be contrary), as tfhr did.
Gotta pick your battles.

tfhr said...


You seem to be especially challenged on the chronology of this particular case. Your report was concluded in October 2008 and the Alaska Personnel Board's report was concluded in November, making it the final report.

I'll paste this Guardian excerpt in for you again since you are having such trouble:

Palin did not apply improper pressure to try to dismiss a state trooper who was her former brother-in-law, and did not violate state ethics laws in the firing of her state public safety commissioner, according to the report by the Alaska Personnel Board.

The report contradicts a separate inquiry by a bipartisan legislative panel, which concluded that she abused her office.

The personnel board's report said it found "no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official", violated Alaska's executive ethics laws.

You can continue to obsess over Sarah Palin if you like, I'm sure you prefer to do that than to give consideration to the poor performance of Obama and his administration but really, even you have to admit that this election will be about him, not Palin, not Bush, and not birth control pills.

tfhr said...


The Constitution protects all American citizens, even those accused of the most horrific crimes. Even politicians. It is the law of the land and we all benefit from it, even you.

That an accused child molester, like Sandusky, is protected by the law while he awaits trial may seem like a bad thing to an overwrought, emotional basket case like you, but apparently your intellectual shortcomings and impetuousness also prevent you from seeing the importance of "innocent until proven guilty" as it is applied everywhere else, including the object of your political obsession, Sarah Palin.

mark said...

As I said from the beginning, Sandusky deserves a fair trial with impartial witnesses. Were I to be called to jury duty, I would be honest and confirm that I'd already formed an opinion. That's what jury selection is all about.

You've claimed he's innocent until proven guilty, which means you think that right now he is innocent. I think you're lying about that. You wanted to be contrarian, so you ended up backing a child-molester. And I'm being generous to call you a liar. If you're not lying, you're an idiot.

But we do agree on one thing. The election should come down to the economy, and not the repub clown show. If the economy continues to gradually improve and gas prices don't skyrocket, Obama will win. If not, he'll probably lose.

tfhr said...


Does the name Richard Jewell mean anything to you? You should look it up if you don't know what happened to him.

We all know who Ernesto Miranda was and while you might not think the difference between the two men is that significant, the fact that one was found guilty in court and the other was found guilty only in the court of public opinion, I find the distinction to be beyond historic.

mark, it cracked me up when you said, "You've claimed he's innocent until proven guilty, which means you think that right now he is innocent."

Wow! He is innocent until proven guilty. That is a legal fact, whether anyone likes it or not. That is why we have trials, mark. But then you fall into your old habit of reading minds. You would do well to share some of my insight directly from the source but alas, you cannot. You cannot read anyone else's mind either, I'm sorry to say. So, no, you do not KNOW what I think, you only know how I believe the accused should be treated. Radical, isn't it?

You routinely label people that disagree with you as "frauds" and "liars". I find that offensive. I suppose you do that because you are challenged when it comes to making a coherent argument to support your opinions. Limbaugh used a terrible label last week when all he had to do was address the argument. Maher has his opinions but chooses to label the object of his hatred with the "C" word and gets a pass from the left wing MSM and the President of the United States, the beneficiary of the Hollywood misogynist's million dollar donation. Clearly there is a price on decency and some people think they can buy it but it appears that the presumption of innocence is worthless to you. I think our judicial system has been run into the ground by corrupt lawyers and legislators that have turned the process into an industry but the principles are sacred and must be preserved. Go back to that thread where you said that Sandusky deserved a fair trial and then tell us where that fell in relation to your assertion that he was guilty.

All that said, I'm glad to hear that you would ask to be dismissed from a jury if you were already prejudiced. I even suppose if you sent me a million dollars I could overlook your sloppy and often rude commentary but it wouldn't make you a comedian or any less uniformed, so keep your money. But I'll give you credit for returning to an issue of substance, the campaign and what is relevant to it, now that you've been thrashed over your PDS outburst. You're not out of the woods but it is a good step forward for you mark. You get a gold star.

mark said...

You must feel bad about him being under house arrest. Did you shed a tear when he spoke of the lonliness? Rage with injustice that an innocent man can't hang around with young children?
Perhaps you should contact Amnesty International. How about the ACLU? Maybe you can become penpals. I'll bet he needs a new bff.

tfhr said...


OUCH! You're the angry Peace Corps vet today, aren't you? You're lashing out. What happened? Did you take the old Prius in for a fill-up? Gasoline prices are shocking! I thought you would've bought a Volt by now. Better hurry!

Whatever Sandusky is going through right now has been legally sanctioned. I'm fine with that and if he is convicted, I hope he draws the heaviest sentence possible. A side note: Contrast my use of the word, "if", with the President of the United States' use of "when", as he once conveyed certainty over the outcome of his administration's ill-conceived plan to try KSM in NYC. That foot-in-mouth, off-teleprompter moment reminded me of Obama's ad-lib, press conference conviction of the Amherst Police officer that had arrested the President's buddy. Certainly not a Richard Jewell moment and the wrongfully accused cop got a free beer out of the deal but he had to sit next to Biden, so I think it was still a pretty raw deal.

When the President blurted out his KSM pretrial determination, I began to wonder if Obama would try to make up for revealing the outcome of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial by having a beer with the Sheikh! "Praise Allah and pass the Beer Nuts, Joe!"

I bring all that up because you guys on the left seem to believe that you can accuse and convict people of things without offering proof or in the case of legal matters, benefit of trial. It gets really ugly in politics when a pile of human garbage like John Murtha does it to a bunch of Marines. If you think being declared guilty ahead of a trial doesn't matter, try explaining that to the Marine that has just heard the head of the House Armed Services Committee call him a murderer. This stuff matters, mark!

There is no certainty to the Sandusky outcome but we can hope that the jury gets it right but in the meantime, try and keep your prejudices in check, OK?