Friday, February 14, 2014

Cruising the Web

Charles Krauthammer is smack on in his analysis today of the liberals' attitude towards work as they pretend to celebrate that people can choose now to work part-time since they don't have to worry about health insurance.
Pelosi’s vision is equally idyllic except for one thing: The taxes of the American factory worker — grinding away dutifully at his repetitive, mind-numbing job — will be subsidizing the voluntary unemployment of the artiste in search of his muse. A rather paradoxical position for the party that poses as tribune of the working man.

In the reductio ad absurdum of entitlement liberalism, Jay Carney was similarly enthusiastic about this Obamacare-induced job loss. Why, Obamacare creates the “opportunity” that “allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, and if they will work.”

If they will work? Pre-Obama, people always had the right to quit work to tend full time to the study of butterflies. It’s a free country. The twist in the new liberal dispensation is that the butterfly guy is to be subsidized by the taxes of people who actually work.

In the traditional opportunity society, government provides the tools — education, training, and various incentives — to achieve the dignity of work and its promise of self-improvement and social mobility. In the new opportunity society, you are given the opportunity for idleness while living parasitically off everyone else. Why those everyone elses should remain at their jobs — hey! I wanna dance, too! — is a puzzle Carney has yet to explain.

How robots saved Pittsburgh and the lessons for other post-industrial cities that have lost their whole reason for being.

Was Bob Costas's pinkeye a punishment from the Sports Gods for his increasing hubris? It's nice to think so.

Despite calls for trimming the budget, there are still some favored entities that can score major bucks from the federal government.
During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations that Congress and the media made sound so tough -- as if every last penny were pinched -- Congress still managed to slip in plenty of special deals for cronies.

--NASCAR got $70 million for new racetracks.

--Algae growers got $60 million.

--Hollywood film producers got a $430 million tax break.

Remembering the disaster of Jimmy Carter's decision to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

Ah, the contrast continues to be stark between Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama who has tried since his before his first inauguration to spark direct comparisons.
President Obama’s hero Abraham Lincoln had a famously worshipful view of the rule of law. “Let reverence for the laws,” he said in his Lyceum Address, “be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.”

President Obama’s implicit rejoinder: “Whatever.”
The administration won't release the number of people who have paid for their new Obamacare policies, but indications are not positive that those numbers match the numbers of enrollees. There are many unanswered questions in the administration's most recent report on enrollment for Obamacare. Notice how that storyline could be repeated every time they make one of these enrollment announcements?

Here is another looming Obamacare disaster story.
Residents in 515 counties — nearly 1 out of 5 counties nationwide — only have one insurer selling coverage on HealthCare.gov.

The cost of plans on HealthCare.gov is significantly different when residents have only one insurer versus more. According to the Wall Street Journal, the average price for a 50-year-old for a “silver plan” through the exchange jumps from $329 in places with four insurers to $406 in those with only one.

The Journal reports some insurers are only offering plans via the exchanges in areas with lower health-care costs and stable financial standing. As a result, in many rural areas, where health-care costs and unemployment are high, consumers must often choose between limited plans offered on HealthCare.gov or buy policies directly from the insurer outside of the exchange if they want more than one insurer as an option, but are ineligible for federal subsidies.
Liberals are coming to the sad realization that "Wendy Davis is no Ann Richards."

Daniel Henninger has his own view of how to determine if a politician really cares about income inequality.
Let's cut to the chase: The real issue in the American version of this subject is the low incomes of the inner-city poor. And let's put on the table one thing nearly all agree on: A successful education improves lifetime earnings. This assumes one is living in an economy with better than moribund growth, an assumption no one in the U.S. or Western Europe can make anymore.

If there is one political goal all Democratic progressives agree on it's this: They will resist, squash and kill any attempt anywhere in the U.S. to educate those low-income or no-income inner-city kids in alternatives to the public schools run by the party's industrial-age unions.

Reforming that public-school monopoly is the litmus test of seriousness on income inequality. That monopoly is the primary cause of America's post-1970s social-policy failure. And that monopoly will emerge from the Obama presidency and de Blasio mayoralty intact. So will income inequality.
Even the New Republic wonders why Hillary Clinton is still getting a free pass from supposed feminists and those who purport to believe in feminism.

Hear, hear. One brave teacher in Queens, NY dares to write in praise of teaching to the test.

George Will is his usual acerbic self in ridiculing progressive love for "Downton Abbey."
It is fitting that PBS offers “Downton Abbey” to its disproportionately progressive audience. This series is a languid appreciation of a class structure supposedly tempered by the paternalism of the privileged. And if progressivism prevails, the United States will be Downton Abbey: Upstairs, the administrators of the regulatory state will, with a feudal sense of noblesse oblige, assume responsibility for the lower orders downstairs, gently protecting them from “substandard” health-insurance policies, school choice, gun ownership, large sodas and other decisions that experts consider naughty or calamitous.

Robert Tracinski explains how Michael Mann is a modern-day Lysenko.
Or perhaps there is a better historical analogy. Mann is attempting to install himself as a kind of American Lysenko. Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet scientist who ingratiated himself to Joseph Stalin and got his crackpot theories on genetics installed as official dogma, effectively killing the study of biology in the Soviet Union. Under Lysenko, the state had an established and official scientific doctrine, and you risked persecution if you questioned it. Mann's libel suit is an attempt to establish that same principle here.

Mann has recently declared himself to be both a scientist and a political activist. But in attempting to intimidate his critics and suppress free debate on global warming, he is violating the fundamental rules of both science and politics. If it is a sin to doubt, then there is no science. If it is a crime to dissent, then there is no politics.

Mann vs. Steyn may be the trial of the century. It may determine, not merely whether the environmentalists can shut down industrial civilization, but whether they can shut down the independent thinking of skeptical dissidents.
Major Garrett looks at those who will be on the wrong side of Obama's extension of the employer mandate for some employers.
In the same breath, Obama made clear that this process of photo-shopping, rewriting, and reimagining will continue apace, depending on the hassle that is Obamacare compliance and the political terrain.

“That’s going to be our attitude about the law generally: How do we make it work for the American people and for their employers in an optimal sort of way?”

Optimal.

How would you like to work for a company (more than 115,000 of them in 2012) that you thought would have to provide health care coverage for you next year but now won’t? And how would you like to be one of the employees who works for a big company (more than 94,000 of them in 2012) but falls just on the other side of the 70 percent coverage threshold in 2015? Your health falls on the other side of Obama’s arbitrary coverage line, and you don’t have coverage.

I’m willing to bet “optimal” is not the word that will come readily to mind.

For Obama, it’s all about flexibility. He was asked if the Affordable Care Act would usher in the end of employee-based insurance in America.

“I don’t think that an employer-based system is going to be, or should be, replaced anytime soon,” Obama said.

Considering the creative clock-management and time-machine quality of Obamacare implementation to date, “anytime soon” sounds almost wistful. For Obama, that is, not necessarily for employees who have care they like and want to keep (yes, that phrase still matters ... and will matter more as Obamacare’s regulatory reach becomes fully manifest).

“What the Affordable Care Act does do is, it gives people some flexibility.”

But which people? And why?

There is no optimal answer.
That awe-inspiring Obama turnout machine somehow failed to work in San Diego.

Kevin Williamson has a very good essay on the real lessons to be learned from Ray Nagin's conviction for corruption.
The Obama administration is willing to undermine the U.S. economy when its political self-interest is served by doing so: That is the lesson of Keystone and much more. But the problem goes all the way down: A Michigan teachers’ union has been fighting tooth-and-nail to ensure severance pay for a teacher convicted of sexually molesting a student — the union’s financial clout is the only thing in which it places real value. That will occur to a few taxpayers the next time the union comes demanding a little something “for the children.” Education is crucial to long-term productivity and to technological innovation. What Ray Nagin did was a crime, but there are worse things than crimes. It is possible to undermine critical institutions without ever violating a law.

Combined federal, state, and local spending in the United States is about the same as it is in Canada, so it is not as if we were starving our public sector to death. The problem is that our institutions are not full of Canadian budgeters, Finnish school administrators, and Swiss train conductors. They are full of Ray Nagins.
The left is not as respecting of scientific results as they would like to pretend. They are quite happy to ignore results that are not in alignment with their ideology, particularly when it comes to social science.
Health, education, and energy are three arenas in which progressives display a universal tendency: They champion evidence that gels with their intuitions but shrug off data that disrupt them. This phenomenon knows no party, as the psychologist Jonathan Haidt demonstrates. All humans are inclined to rationalize backwards from our preconceptions.

But while progressives are not uniquely guilty of this phenomenon, their movement is uniquely ill-equipped to guard against it. If a measure of intellectual blindness inheres in who we are, that is all the more reason to cultivate epistemological modesty. All the more urgent that we should stay skeptical, even—or perhaps especially—of things we consider proven.

This skepticism is a central pillar in right-of-center thought. It was the conservative patriarch Edmund Burke who mused that “we are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small.” It was the libertarian hero Friedrich Hayek who insisted that we recognize “the insuperable limits to [man’s] knowledge” and favor organic social arrangements over clever schemes of our own design. And today, it is not progressives but leading center-right voices like Jim Manzi and Nassim Taleb who eloquently remind us that things are almost always more complicated than they seem.

The theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once quipped that “the first principle” of science is “that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” If we take the genius at his word, “the party of science” starts to look like a paradox. To insist that only your ideology is empirical and enlightened is to conclusively prove that it is neither.
I think that Bill de Blasio has lost Al Roker's vote.

NBC shouldn't get away with its contributions to a whitewashing of communism in order to make everything seem so lovey-dovey at the Olympics.

No, National Review is not going out of business.

24 comments:

mark said...

Of course, Krauthammer ignores previous conservative thought that ending job-lock was a good thing.
Back when conservatives supported it, it was noble. Now, of course, it's 'parasitic'. Likewise, he (and other conservatives) neglect to mention that more freedom in the job market could lead to higher wages for workers.


– “Today, leaving a job or changing jobs means leav­ing behind the health insurance provided at the place of work. Individuals who wish to take a better job, change careers, or leave the workforce to raise a family or to retire early take substantial risks. [...] Under the McCain plan, which links tax breaks directly to individuals instead of to their place of work, individuals would no longer feel obligated to stay with their employers simply because they need to keep their employer-based health insurance. [Heritage Foundation, 10/15/2008]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-buried-lede-in-the-cbo-report-obamacare-will-raise-wages-2014-2

tfhr said...

mark,

Couldn't help but notice that the dot, dot, dot in your Heritage "quote", taken most likely from Think Progress or HufPo, captures some of the most egregious failings of ObamaCare. Here's what you left out by using someone else's critique without question:

They may find themselves going without coverage, purchasing non-group insurance with substantial tax penalties, or giving up a well-developed relation­ship with a physician or medical specialist. This health insurance obstacle to labor mobility is some­times called "job lock."

We all know that Obama lied repeatedly about keeping insurance and doctors, so I'm not surprised to see that this detail is not included in your misleadingly edited quote.

The Heritage article raises quite a few questions about government in healthcare, not just McCain's proposal. Maybe you should read the entire article. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-health-care-plan-more-power-to-families#_ftn26

While I'm no fan of McCain's plan, it did give consumers more control over their healthcare, interstate competition, portability, and proposed reductions in liability - all characteristics completely absent in ObamaCare - it stood a chance of reducing costs if it didn't become a pathway for more and more regulations, as we've seen with ObamaCare.

The Heritage article is clear: The government, however, should refrain from such efforts that choose winners and losers in the health care marketplace. With proper market incen­tives in a consumer-driven system, private health plans would likely adopt reimbursement strategies to promote such facilities. Economic demand driven by consumers, not government officials, should determine the market for these alternative facilities.

But the bottom line is that your comment and the shoddy foundation upon which it is built does not answer Krauthammmer's complaint: ObamaCare is killing jobs.

mark said...

Misleading, lfm?
How so? That quote (and the others I provided before), prove my claim that conservatives once embraced the idea of ending "job-lock". Nothing more. Nothing less.
That you dismiss everything from huffpost, npr, etc. while clinging to the Daily Caller to "support" your perverted rapist/pedophile claim against Menendez is, of course, no surprise.
Feel free to continue bringing up Obama's lies about health care. It's a legitimate way to undermine him.
But please, stop whining about "personal attacks" when I bring up your lies and absurd claims about Hillary "enjoying abortion as a blood-sport" or your latest absurdity that you had to change your identity on this site due to computer problems. It's a legitimate way to undermine you.

tfhr said...

mark,

Read the Heritage article - your assessment of what conservatives "embraced" is faulty.

Now about the rest of the screed you've dumped into this latest effort of yours - is that directed at me or Equitus? It looks like you're blurring more of your "quotes".

Try to stick to the debate: Krauthammer says ObamaCare is a war on jobs. You've not been able to refute that.

mark said...

That's your new stategy? Deny you called Menendez a pedophile and rapist? Or are you denying you claimed liberals "enjoy abortion as a blood sport"? Both are heinous accusations that deserve some level of proof if they are going to be made. But perhaps I'm the only one here who thinks that.

Obviously, both sides have cherry-picked the CBO report. I correctly pointed out that conservatives have, in the past, supported/embraced/been in favor of ending job-lock. As usual, you are lying about what I wrote/claimed:

The quotes, again:

– “A lot of people change their jobs. So the tax benefit should change and go with them, and not be attached to their jobs. We want to address job lock. So, the key question that ought to be addressed in any health care reform legislation, is are we going to continue job lock, or are we going to allow individuals more choice, and portability to fit the 21st century workforce?” [Paul Ryan, 5/20/2009]
– “Today, leaving a job or changing jobs means leav­ing behind the health insurance provided at the place of work. Individuals who wish to take a better job, change careers, or leave the workforce to raise a family or to retire early take substantial risks. [...] Under the McCain plan, which links tax breaks directly to individuals instead of to their place of work, individuals would no longer feel obligated to stay with their employers simply because they need to keep their employer-based health insurance. [Heritage Foundation, 10/15/2008]
– “Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place…. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance, on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.” [Mitt Romney, 9/9/2012]

tfhr said...

mark,

I'm not sure why you are confusing portability with killing jobs.

ObamaCare is killing jobs and over-regulation along with ridiculous insurance packages that force consumers to buy things they do not want or need is continuing to drive up the cost of medical care in America. If Americans could be allowed to shop for policies across state lines, like we do for car insurance, we could have portability and with it, lower costs. ObamaCare controls competition, restricts choices, and drives up the cost of care.

Those quotes, taken from Think Progress, do not refute the simple fact that ObamaCare is causing people to lose jobs and hours. Trying to cover over that fact with some BS about freeing people from their jobs is just too cynical to believe.

Next from Obama: "If you like your job, you can keep your job. Period."

mark said...

lfm,
I have not mentioned job portability or killing jobs, so how am I confusing the two?
I have commented on conservative support for ending job-lock, and proved my point with several quotes. I have also mentioned that conservatives have neglected to mention that Obamacare will lift wages, according to the CBO report.
Once again, you resort to lying to try to win some "debate" we are not having. I suppose that, in your mind, anything is possible. Perhaps you're a war hero now working for military-intelligence. Sure, why not?

tfhr said...

To answer your question: Krauthammer said that ObamaCare is killing jobs - that's what his article was about and your aside on "job lock" is a red herring borrowed from the current Dem list of suggested talking points.

Obama's minions, inside his administration and party, have engaged in a deceptive yet ineffective effort to pretend that the program addresses "job lock", to explain away the massive loss of jobs and hours caused by ObamaCare.

No conservative ever suggested that separating healthcare insurance from employment should be a means to allow people to choose whether to work or instead pursue their dream as a mime in a welfare line. Recall Pelosi's ridiculous remarks regarding “A bill [ObamaCare] that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.” - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-obamacare-means-you-could-be-photographer-or-writer#sthash.vD5xLFPr.dpuf

A "passion" to do "whatever", is fine if you want to cover your own needs but to ask other Americans to foot your bill is greedy and irresponsible. No conservative shares Nancy Pelosi's view on job lock. Do you?

The new Dem "job lock" meme is a cynical deception. Conservatives have supported portability, largely through opening healthcare insurance to interstate competition, something that ObamaCare does not do.

Your edited quote taken from Heritage, was careful to omit two terrible failures that ObamaCare has delivered. Conservatives want less government and more free market in healthcare. We believe this will lower costs and place more control in the consumer's hands. Apparently you are against this because you blindly support ObamaCare and it's increased regulatory burdens, increased costs, reduced choices, and penchant for picking winners and losers, read cronyism. But you're OK with that and all of the lies that Obama has repeated over and over while Pelosi claims she has no culpability in this matter.

The claim that wages will rise is quite premature, don't you think? When you consider that the CBO report does NOT factor in the employer mandate (kicked down the road for a year or more by Executive Order), it is impossible to estimate what hiring will be like and as such, impossible to estimate where wages will be but given the fact that wages have remained stagnant or in decline in the face of so many millions being out of the work force in the current lackluster economy, I would not bet the farm on that CBO prediction. By the way, it might be useful to you to read pages 46 and 84 of the report on the CBO's reassessment of its prediction on inflation and about just who is projected to see the highest wage and salary increases before you celebrate.

Finally, your default to personal attacks on my military service highlights your inability to win the debate on merit. I've never claimed to be a "hero" and any claim on your part is, in fact, a lie. Period.

mark said...

lfm,
So, you'll accept CBO estimates unfavorable to Obamacare and discount anything favorable? Brilliant.

No, you've never claimed to be a war hero (as far as I know). Nor have I said you did. Given your bizarre black/white world in which you call liberals evil ("enjoying abortion as a blood sport"), I suspect delusions of grandeur might be a part of the mix. Perhaps.
The "debate" you think you're having is only in your mind. Good luck with that.

tfhr said...

mark,

No surprise that you cannot defend against the well supported charge that ObamaCare is a job killer.

You brought up the CBO and I showed you that there was more in the report than you cared to consider. You have a narrow mind, so no surprise there. I still think you should read at least some of it.

Then you return to the insults and diversions, as if on cue. So let's roll with that for a bit since it's all you've got. All of this "bloodsport" whining is really a hoot coming from someone that holds dear to his little heart the fantasy that Republicans are waging a "war on women".

Lets talk about a characteristic of real war: death. Females comprise roughly 50 percent of aborted babies in America and of course, the majority in the PRC. A very large percentage of those dead American babies were minorities. Should I change "bloodsport" to "war on minority baby girls"? Take your choice but you should probably decide soon because it is probably time for Bill's wife, Hillary, failed SecState, to pick up another Sanger Award.

Can you imagine the howl from the left if a conservative female or male took a pat on the back in the name of a noted racist and proponent of eugenics? The Margaret Sanger Award is Planned Parenthood's highest honor and I imagine that only gets handed to someone truly deserving of that group's appreciation. I'm thinking she earned it - not like a Nobel Prize - though that must surely be on the way for her heroic efforts to bring civility to YouTube videos.

mark, you took a shot at Krauthammer and conservatives and hit yourself in the foot because you could not back up your claims or refute his point. Now you've gone off on another squirrel-like dash around the yard about "bloodsports". You're running out of feet and if you could ever get that one out of your mouth, I'm afraid you'd put a hole in that too.

mark said...

If Hillary runs, she'll be hoping for insane attacks like that. Most people understand the difficulty and complexity of the issue. To make such a blanket, perverse accusation that "liberals" get a thrill from the idea of an abortion being performed may be acceptable here, but not in the real world. BTW: Why not include pro-choice republicans in your twisted mind?

tfhr said...

I see you've given up defending ObamaCare altogether - that's an improvement.

I'm pretty sure leftists would love to waste time on any topic that has little to do with the Presidency. Hillary will probably not want to talk about national security, given her contribution with Benghazi. We've seen that she cannot be bothered to do her job and when it hits the fan she folds up and lets her people die in place. I should point out that there were a number of State Department loyalists that received promotions following the massacre on the ground in Libya - how's that for accountability?

Maybe she'll want to make a case for improving relations with countries that have grown distant or angrier with us since Obama's tenure began but I'm at a loss to find a place where she did anything of value that would portend success in the future.

She's going to have to run against Obama on energy if she hopes to help the US end it's dependence on Middle East oil. Her boss has failed the country on Keystone and hurt relations with Canada in the process.

Unless you've got something to offer about Bill's wife that we don't know, why would she be a better President than any of the other women he slept with? She did nothing as a senator, she failed as a Secretary of State, and she is another Alinsky follower - a leftist fanatic. Well, I guess that last part appeals to you but you can see how well that translates into governance.

tfhr said...

Oh yeah, and what about jobs, mark?

Do you think she'll follow Obama'a policy on jobs - killing them with ObamaCare - or will she ask Bill what he thinks about jobs in the White House?!

mark said...

An alternative opinion:

“She’d make a tremendous president,” Petraeus says in the new book “HRC” by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes.
And for Petraeus, Exhibit A in why she would be a tremendous president is the very thing for which Republicans most aggressively attack Clinton: her performance as Secretary of State when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked.
“Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times,” Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes. “In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled.”

Don't worry, lfm/tfhr, I'm sure your opinion carries weight, too. And there's two of you, and only one of him. I like those odds.

tfhr said...

Wow! Are you kidding?! You picked another serial adulterer to sing Hill's praises. Are you trying to make Bill jealous?!

I see that you quoted crap from Hillary's fav fanboy, George Stephanopolous. But why not include one of the next paragraphs, like this one:

The book does not specify what, if anything, Petraeus had to say about the failure of the State Department to respond to repeated requests for improved security in Benghazi in the weeks and months before the attacks. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/did-petraeus-just-endorse-hillary-clinton/

I believe Hillary once said that she felt it necessary to "willfully suspend disbelief", or some such crap, when she essentially accused him of lying about the Surge. Funny now that one of her fanboys - two to include you - think he's the bee's knees all of a sudden! Why just a few years ago he was "GEN Betrayus" to the rhyming types that opposed the use of force in Iraq. Do you remember how Hillary and the current fool that has her old job at State were "for it before they were against it"? Very resolute, indeed.

The worm has certainly turned - attacking Libya without Congressional approval. No clever rhymes, not even a complaint from the compliant left, for that adventure unless you'd like to bust a rhyme with "lead from behind". She folded up like a cheap card table when it came to explaining her role in the Benghazi scandal.

But you're never about job performance - the Obama train wreck is a perfect example - no it's just about the campaign, so try this on:

The screen is black but a phone is ringing...it's 3AM in the White House...." There are rustling and grunting noises. The light snaps on to a set of narrow, squinting eyes. It's Hillary gasping and fumbling for the phone. "Damn it, Bill. If that's Monica again, I'll have you by the short hairs! (Bill snorts from somewhere, the floor possibly) "Yeah, what now?! An attack?! It's 3 o'clock in the @#$!$# morning. At this point, what difference does it make anyway?!" Slams the phone down, yells at Bill to get off the bed and goes back to sleep.

We'll have to see if she invites Petraeus to join her campaign.

mark said...

hmmmm. that was strange.

tfhr said...

She's your girl, mark. She's also the one that came up with that prescient "3AM phone call" campaign ad. Turns out that Obama wouldn't pick up the phone and Hillary phoned a friend. Bet Susan Rice wishes she didn't take the call to go out in place of the SecState and lie to the American public over and over again about some BS YouTube video.

You have to give Hill some credit for realizing what a disaster it would have been to do what Rice did. Sure, Obama can lie through his teeth about keeping insurance, keeping doctors and saving thousands of dollars for individual families, but with a name like Clinton, trying to redefine the meaning words isn't so easy anymore and particularly not with the phrase "terrorist attack". Bill used that pixie dust up when he redefined the meaning of the word, "is". I still laugh when I think about how you lefties were happy to inhale that key component of his war on women.

So Hillary's time at State and in the Senate will be chalked up as "experience", albeit lackluster at best. Her puffery about being the one to take the call in a crisis has been deflated just as her ridiculous claim to have landed under Bosnian sniper fire. No, the only real "experience" she can truthfully claim is that which is alluded to in the closing paragraphs of the Stephanopolous column you cited.

I'll have to willfully suspend disbelief, if you think the common thread of "experience" between Hillary and Petreaus has any value to anyone but them.

mark said...

You realize (don't you?) that your very first sentence regarding the Hillary quote was a personal attack on Petreaus. And after all your whining about personal attacks! (While I know about Petreaus' affair, I'm not sure about the "serial-adulterer" charge. Is that one of those extra kicks-in-the-teeth you like give people who contradict your mindview).
While I think our country would do well to avoid another Clinton or Bush, there are things I admire and things I disdain about both. But a Clinton-Bush match-up would be entertaining, especially when the crazies come out in full swing.

Thanks for the preview.

tfhr said...

Thanks for your preview.

The word within the DoD is that Petreaus was reckless and flaunted his dalianceS in Afghanistan and Iraq. People that I work with say that they saw Petreaus engage in behavior with some of his strap-hangers that suggested that he betrayed his wife over a considerable amount of time.

While he betrayed his wife, Petreaus did not betray his country in Iraq, no, that was a job left to the leftest of the left, Obama. I would be remiss to point out the Obama has to share some the credit and incompetence with the blithering Biden when the latter fell on his face with the SOFA agreement debacle. Many thousands have died because of that disaster. No, the nursery rhyme on Petreaus' name was just a small and unwarranted cheap shot, much like Hillary's stupid quip about the Surge.

The real injustice: Hillary, Kerry, Reid and Obama worked very hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and now their efforts can be seen bleeding out in al Anbar, Baghdad, and especially in Syria, the destination of much of the weaponry and personnel sent from Iran through and over Iraq to help Assad. Well done lefties!

tfhr said...

By the way, this back and forth about Hillary, the Clintons, and whatnot, sure beats trying to defend the job killing ObamaCare fiasco, no?

tfhr said...

This just in:

BILL CLINTON'S DOORMAT FOR PRESIDENT

(bumper sticker suggestion I just heard)

mark said...

So, your "personal attack" on Petreaus is based on some gossip? God, you're a disgrace.

tfhr said...

I'm not sure if that falls into the range of personal attacks to say that Petraeus cheated on his wife - it is a fact, afterall. What many don't understand is that it went on for longer than what is attributed in most press accounts, but if that's personal to you, so be it.

I can only relate to you what others have said from observing Petraeus and his entourage in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They saw Broadwell and thought her actions and interactions were not normal. But if you want go along with whatever story you feel makes Petraeus a good reference for Hillary, then do what you've got to do, mark.

And don't worry about Broadwell, I hear that she's hired Dee Dee Myers to help her rehab her image. Isn't it funny how all of this sort of stuff just leads right back to a Clinton?!

mark said...

I didn't even realize I was supposed to be worried about Broadwell. But thanks for the hot tip.