Archive for Politics

Mitt Romney announces at The Henry Ford Museum

It’s important to note that the announcement is being made at a museum that embodies everything that is really cool about the growing industry and technology in our country. If you are ever fortunate enough to visit the museum, you can stand before the vehicle in which John F. Kennedy was riding when he was shot in Dallas and the very bus Rosa Parks bravely became the “Mother of the Civil Rights Movement.”

So why would there be a problem with his announcing at The Henry Ford Museum? The NJDC has this to say:

“NJDC is deeply troubled by Governor Romney’s choice of locations to announce his Presidential campaign. Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life. Yet he chooses to kick off his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe. Mitt Romney’s embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford’s legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney’s words or his understanding of basic American history,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman.

Let’s get this straight – Democrat presidential candidate hires a Catholicophobe blogger and the left doesn’t have a problem with this. What she said in her blog should have nothing to do with the candidate (according to them).

Democrats elect a former Klansman as a senator.

Here are a few more great points from Yid with Lid:

OK so lets change the subject because Hillary is their sacred Icon and she can do NO wrong. How about other Democrats who are “Jewish Challenged” Why doesn’t the NJDC Blast them?

People like:

Congressman James “Jews control foreign policy” Moran (D-Va.)
John “I like Hezbollah” Dingell (D-Mich)

Or the Group who voted against a bill this past summer saying that Israel has a right to defend herself. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, John Conyers of Michigan, John Dingell of Michigan, Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, Jim McDermott of Washington, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Pete Stark of California. In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed her name as a co-sponsor of this important resolution because she didn’t want to be associated with it.

How come I never hear of the NJDC Blasting Hillary or Wesley or any of their cabal of “Jewishly” challenged representatives? But when Mitt Romney decides to make a Pro-Business declaration speech at the Ford Museum because the auto industry is badly in need of a solution….. WHAMMO! How could he do that?

Why weren’t they praising Romney when he said the following at the Herzliya conference last month?

“The war in Lebanon demonstrated that Israel is facing a jihadist threat that runs through Tehran, to Damascus, to Gaza. Hizbullah are not fighting for the coming into being of a Palestinian state, but for the going out of being of the Israeli state”

Certainly liberal Democrats wouldn’t be hypocritical?  Mitt Romney is announcing at a museum glorifying accomplishments of all Americans, not an anti-semite shrine for a man that died in 1947.

Comments (4)

Prince John (Edwards) Charming comes through for sweet Amanda Marcotte

What a guy

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

And Cinderalla herself speaks up:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.

The sum of genteel Miss Marcotte’s personal writings are a testament alright. And this whole situation is a testament to a disconnection with reality.

But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.

Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisley the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.

And they lived happily ever after…

More from one of my favorites (Allahpundit).

And another favorite. (Mary Katherine Ham)

And Michelle Malkin

Comments (1)

Mystery post of William Arkin

Where did that come from?

The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
New Middle East Commander Correctly Stays in His Lane

See that post tucked in the middle – it wasn’t there yesterday. In fact, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out, only appeared on his side bar on the front page for a short time yesterday and the post itself was on the front page for a very short time.

I popped over there today and see the Arrogant post along with this new mystery post A Note to my Readers on Supporting the Troops. And the timestamps make it VERY interesting.

Arrogant timestamp: Posted at 09:39 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
Note to my Readers timestamp: Posted at 05:31 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007

First comment under Note to my Readers:

You’re a jerk, Arkin.

Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 05:47 PM

First comment under Arrogant:

Being subjected to such things isn’t fun, is it?…

{snipped}

…Keep in mind how all your words affect them, not just the ones you direct at them.

Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 04:08 PM

Now, it’s not so much that the timestamp of the comment on Arrogant comes before that of the Note to my Readers first comment – it’s the question of where are all the comments that were there before 4:08 PM yesterday for Arrogant and why were they removed? Is it because they want us to think that the “apologetic” Note to my Readers came first?

Leaning Straight Up analyzes the apology more closely.

Poetry at Michelle Malkin’s blog. 

Comments (2)

Could the religion of environmentalism have gotten it all wrong?

Say it isn’t so!

The dark side of greenGreat interview with John Berlau about his new book, Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health in the Washington Post this morning.

Is Silent Spring responsible for the death of millions every year in Africa? Is the banning of DDT connected to population control? Wow, that one almost sounds like a moonbat conspiracy theory.

I quote in my book the late scientist and author Dixy Lee Ray as saying that for many enviros, the problem with DDT was that it worked too well at saving lives. I refer to a passage by Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, where he said that DDT wiped out malaria in Guyana but “greatly added to the population problem.” There are many other statements like that in the book. Population-control guru Paul Ehrlich was and still is a big supporter of banning DDT.

Berlau even gives credit to Rush Limbaugh for spreading the word:

Q: Mr. Limbaugh famously dubbed environmentalists “tree-huggers” — do you wonder what he might say if he were to read the chapter of your book where you explain how tree-hugging leads to problems like forest fires, Lyme disease and even increased air pollution?

A: I imagine he would say some things that were very profound, just as he has all these years about the tragic effects of the DDT ban. He deserves credit for bringing the facts to millions of Americans. Now the New York Times editorial page and the World Health Organization have to some degree followed his lead and endorse DDT spraying to combat malaria in Africa. His constant stating of the facts is a significant factor in the millions of lives that hopefully will be saved from malaria.

How about this for a conspiracy theory – the floods in New Orleans were not Bush’s fault but the blame lies at the feet of an environmentalist group:

Louisiana group Save Our Wetlands persuaded a federal judge to halt the gates in 1977 because of the alleged damage they could do to fish, even though the project had already been granted a thumbs-up in a review from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Save our Wetlands indeed.

Comments (1)

Those babies came through for John Edwards

Take a lookie at this post by DPGI

And now for something from the Edwards 08 camp:

je.jpg

I love ya man

John Edwards is running for president because he wants to build an America that lives up to its promise — one where we all share in prosperity at home and one that shows real moral leadership around the world.

Leave a Comment

Do you think VP Cheney’s had enough of Wolf Blitzer?

The full written transcript is here – below is an expanded version of the YouTube video.

BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?
CHENEY: No, I don’t.
BLITZER: Why?
CHENEY: Because she’s a Democrat. I don’t agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.
BLITZER: Do you think she will be president?
CHENEY: I don’t.
BLITZER: Who do you think will be?
CHENEY: I’m not going to speculate.
BLITZER: Will it be John McCain?
CHENEY: I’m not going to speculate.
BLITZER: He’s been very critical of you, John McCain.
CHENEY: Well, John’s a good man. He and I have known each other a long time and we
agree on many things and disagree on others.
BLITZER: He said, the other day — he said, “The president listens too much to the vice
president. Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he’s been very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense.” That was John McCain.
CHENEY: So?
BLITZER: No reaction?
CHENEY: I just disagree with him.
BLITZER: He said, about the former Defense secretary, “Rumsfeld will go down in history,
along with NcNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of Defense –”
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree. You heard my speech, when Don retired. I think
he’s done a superb job.
BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your daughter, Mary. She’s pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to have another grandchild. Some of the — some critics are suggesting — for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, “Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean that it’s best for the child.” Do you want to respond to that?
CHENEY: No.
BLITZER: She’s, obviously, a good daughter —
CHENEY: I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate —
CHENEY: I think you’re out of line.
BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I’m very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I
like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.
BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
Let’s wind up with the soft stuff (ph)– Nancy Pelosi. What was it like sitting with her last
night as opposed to Dennis Hastert?
CHENEY: I prefer Dennis Hastert, obviously. I like having a fellow Republican in the
Speaker’s chair. Nancy’s now the speaker of the House. We had a very pleasant evening.
BLITZER: But it’s different to have a Democrat–
CHENEY: Sure, it’s different. They have — yeah, but it’s the way it’s been during most of my career in Congress. I didn’t find it all that surprising or startling.
BLITZER: How do you feel?
CHENEY: Good.
BLITZER: Mr. Vice President, thank you
END

Leave a Comment

Do you think VP Cheney’s had enough of Wolf Blitzer?

The full written transcript is here – below is an expanded version of the YouTube video.

BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?
CHENEY: No, I don’t.
BLITZER: Why?
CHENEY: Because she’s a Democrat. I don’t agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.
BLITZER: Do you think she will be president?
CHENEY: I don’t.
BLITZER: Who do you think will be?
CHENEY: I’m not going to speculate.
BLITZER: Will it be John McCain?
CHENEY: I’m not going to speculate.
BLITZER: He’s been very critical of you, John McCain.
CHENEY: Well, John’s a good man. He and I have known each other a long time and we
agree on many things and disagree on others.
BLITZER: He said, the other day — he said, “The president listens too much to the vice
president. Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he’s been very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense.” That was John McCain.
CHENEY: So?
BLITZER: No reaction?
CHENEY: I just disagree with him.
BLITZER: He said, about the former Defense secretary, “Rumsfeld will go down in history,
along with NcNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of Defense –”
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree. You heard my speech, when Don retired. I think
he’s done a superb job.
BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your daughter, Mary. She’s pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to have another grandchild. Some of the — some critics are suggesting — for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, “Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean that it’s best for the child.” Do you want to respond to that?
CHENEY: No.
BLITZER: She’s, obviously, a good daughter —
CHENEY: I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate —
CHENEY: I think you’re out of line.
BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I’m very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I
like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.
BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
Let’s wind up with the soft stuff (ph)– Nancy Pelosi. What was it like sitting with her last
night as opposed to Dennis Hastert?
CHENEY: I prefer Dennis Hastert, obviously. I like having a fellow Republican in the
Speaker’s chair. Nancy’s now the speaker of the House. We had a very pleasant evening.
BLITZER: But it’s different to have a Democrat–
CHENEY: Sure, it’s different. They have — yeah, but it’s the way it’s been during most of my career in Congress. I didn’t find it all that surprising or startling.
BLITZER: How do you feel?
CHENEY: Good.
BLITZER: Mr. Vice President, thank you
END

Comments (6)

Older Posts »