Yesterday, Barry showed the strength of his spine, when he whiningly apologized to Afghanistan for the burning of some otherwise trashed Q'urans.
My scoring: Two ping pong balls.
Today, Sarah Palin called for an apology from Afghanistan for the idiotic, sub-civilized murders, assaults and other behavior unbecoming a human being, resulting from that burning.
My scoring: Two medicine balls.
Why is it that the woman in this comparison has bigger balls than the male?
And she even looks good in MomJeans.
Of course, I cannot determine whether being in the office of the Vice President would have changed what she had to say, but I like to believe it would not. . .
ReplyDeleteYou do know, I'm sure, that prisoners were using the q'urans to pass messages back and forth. They were not burned because they were q'urans, they were burned because they were facilitating terorsit activity.
ReplyDeleteAnd I trust you have also heard about the muslim judge in Pennsylvania who flat out said that sharia law outweighs the US Constitution and that the First Amendment does not give one the right to criticize islam.
Actually, Matt, I'd seen the headlines about a muslim attacking an atheist and just passed over them, in sort of a 'nothing new here' mood.
DeleteBut I had not seen the rest of the story. Disgusting and outrageous. The judge must be removed.
Of course I agree with Sarah that the apologizing should be done by Karzai.
ReplyDeleteBut to be honest, she's been getting on my last nerve lately with her coyness regarding the candidates (and Newt, who she obviously backs) and her constant yakking about how we need a "healthy and extended vetting period" for them. Maybe it's the timbre of her voice but I find I'm tuning her out lately. Don't get me wrong, I've defended her many, many times. I'm just saying that I'm with Ann Coulter when it comes to the candidates. I also think The Donald was right when he said that Santorum would be the biggest gift the democrats could ask for.
flo - agreed, agreed, and agreed.
DeleteSarah is awesome. And in this instance, just plain wrong. (No contradiction there. I'm often wrong. And always awesome! :D )
Romney has lots of issues which Coulter elides - that health care formulation she has is very clever - too clever by half I'd say. Plus I wonder how much he's truly "liberty minded" as opposed to "free market" as opposed to merely "business friendly" (there are some subtle and not so subtle differences here).
That said, Romney is acceptable. Gingrich is past his sell-by date and Santorum... how to put this... he's easily trolled. In other words he loves to talk about stuff which distracts everyone. And he'll get played on this.
Sorry to go OT, Dances.
ReplyDeleteRant over. :-)
No problem, Florrie.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Coulter about this, however. Romney is acceptable to me in the end, and I will vote for him against Obama.
But I would vote for the roadkill skunk I passed yesterday, over Obama.
But Ann glosses over too many things, biggest among them being the fact, outright and utter, that his Massachusetts health insurance plan is almost exactly the same as Obama's plan, and any attempt to defend it by way of a 'federalism' argument just sounds facile.
She also mentions nowhere that Romney campaigned as a liberal Republican to get into the Governor's office, and the Only reason he was never in Washington was that Ted Kennedy beat him like a drum.
Also I don't see how a long primary campaign hurts. It certainly did not harm the Current Occupant last election. I understand the claim that 'we' are giving ammunition to the Dems, but do you really think that they would not have dug up (or made up) anything along the same lines?
We certainly do not need our own 'annointed one' to go against theirs.
If anything, what this does is to point out the absurdity of a 2 year campaign for a four year job, and to bring out the importance of big and/or repeat donors.
I don't know that a long primary campaign hurts, as such, except that it give the MSM plenty of time to beat up on Republicans so that nobody likes any of them. Also, the concept of the long campaign was started by Jimmy Carter who started running for President in December, 1974. So we had Carter and Obama run horrendously long campaigns: not exactly a ringing endorsement of the concept.
ReplyDeleteI did read a few weeks ago -- I don't remember where -- that long campaigns can help the Republicans. They get so beat-up in the process that anything the eventual candidate gets from the Democrat candidate will seem like kid gloves compared to what came before.
However, unless the Republican candidate is anointed, does the eventual candidate ever turn out to be the early front-runner? This year they are talking about a brokered convention -- meaning that the Republican nominee may not be anyone currently in the race.
I'm also weary of Sarah's coyness. Like florrie, it's getting on my very last nerve. Actually, this whole primary season is getting on my very last nerve.
ReplyDeleteSantorum can't beat Obama. I like him, but he's too "big gov't" and exercises poor judgment by trotting out so many religious tenets. Newt can't beat Obama. He's a dinosaur, he can't keep focused, he bumbles, and his platinum-blond trophy wife puts up the hackles of every married woman on the planet.
Romney can, because he can pull Indies, but is he Obama-Lite? I don't see him as a conservative; I see him as one more RINO...McCain's bro. However, like DWT, I'd vote for a dead skunk over JEM.
Really, Sarah can only be called 'coy' if you think she is still planning to run.
DeleteI do not think so.
Not this time, at least.
IMO, she was being coy in touting the other 3 candidates while conspicuously omitting Romney. So much for analyzing the field.
DeleteJust a difference of opinion, DWT :-)
Maybe disingenuous would be a better description.
Delete"Just a difference of opinion, DWT :-)"
DeleteOh, yeah!?!?!?!? Well (searching for suitable scathing internet insult) well you like plants!!!!!
;)
Why do we insist on saying whatever Republican candidate can't beat Obama? Because the MSM tells us so? Who goes out of their way to make Republicans look bad? The MSM. Who wants Obama re-elected? The MSM.
ReplyDeleteIf too many people do not vote for the Republican because the MSM says he is unelectable, than that Republican is not elected -- because people didn't vote for him because the MSM said he was unelectable. Do not listen to the MSM.
Matt, I think the MSM would love to have either Santorum or Gingrich be the R candidate. My comment above is my personal opinion, not that of the MSM (or anyone else). We cannot lose this election, and we must realize that our candidate must appeal to a wide base. While conservatives like myself will grit their teeth and pull the lever for Romney, many independents WILL NOT vote for Santorum or Gingrich over JEM, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but it's the way I see it, from a practical "we absolutely must not lose" standpoint.
Like everyone else, I would vote for anyone over Obama. Even Paul. But unlike everyone else, I like Romney, I think he's a good man. If he's elected I hope he will keep the majority of his campaign promises - those he is able to keep with a divided Congress. If we win the Senate, there will be no excuse to walk away from those promises.
ReplyDeleteNo, Romney is not perfect, none of them are. He flip-flopped on abortion but I also changed my mind on that topic. I know he did it to get elected in a bluer than blue state. I hope that the newer crop of politicians have the courage of their convictions, time will tell. I thought your analysis on our slate of hopefuls was right on the money, lady red. There are other candidates I would have preferred but they did not get in the race. I personally hope that Romney gets the nomination. An extended primary is fine and dandy but in this current political climate I'd prefer to see a candidate emerge now so we can all get behind him.
I appreciate reading all the comments on this topic. I get too worked up about the whole process because I see our country going down the toilet economically (and culturally, but that's another story). The political angst is getting to me. For instance, Alan Colmes is talking right now and I'd like to blow his head off with a bazooka. And if I see that smirking Jemoocow Greene I think I will scream.
;-)
Lady Red, I know that is your personal opinion -- but it is based, at least partly, on information gathered where?
ReplyDeleteWe want our candidates to speak their minds -- but when they do we say they are unelectable.
Matt, please see lewy's post below. It's a good one, and captures my views on this primary.
DeleteI gather my information from the candidates themselves. I listen to the debates. I look at their track records, and use them a predictor of their future stances on issues. If they've changed their mind on an issue, that's fair, just tell me why.
I talk to people, here in on my home turf and as I travel. I listen to what's important to them. I listen to their fears, and their hopes for their children.
I listen my family here on TCKT, because I hold you all in very high regard. I may not agree, but I ALWAYS respectfully listen, and ponder new ways of looking at things.
I watch VERY little television news, other than my local news in the evenings. Too many talking heads, yak yak yak. I have an internet news crawl that I zip through in mornings...30 minutes max...while I'm slurping my first cuppa coffee at 4am.
Where else should I gather my information? I'm always open to new sources.
Well, I think that trends and polls have a great deal of validity. If we at TCKT are representative of many average folks, we aren't going to blindly accept what the reporters, commentators and political pundits have to say about our candidates.
ReplyDeleteI try to get info from different sources. For instance, it was on Michael Medved's radio program that I heard Arlen Specter uncategorically denied Santorum's claim during the debate that he supported Specter over the much more conservative Toomey in order to ensure that GWB's judicial nominees would be supported (which at the time I thought was pretty far-fetched). I haven't heard this widely reported, here's a link. Then today I hear Santorum himself calling Romney a liar, etc., etc. He's getting desperate.
Time for him to pack his gawd-awful sweater vests up and go home.
Florrie, yesterday Santorum's wife said his presidential run is "God's will". WTH? Yikes. Shut up already!
DeleteAs for Santorum being electable, I've never believed he could win and an average of the polls say this is so (I realize the most recent polls that reflect his current front-runner status naturally say otherwise). He lost his own state by 18 points, I can't see him winning a majority of electors against Obama.
ReplyDeleteLMFAO!!! My link went to an eye-wash graphic!!!
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll try again.
Spector speaks.
OK. Let's just all give up.
ReplyDeleteNo one is giving up Matt. There is more than one way to skin a cat (or to topple a disastrous prez). :)
DeleteHuh? What do you mean, Matt?
ReplyDeleteI'm just giving my opinion as well. After all, I thought Newt was done 2 months ago and he's still around.
I know I get worked up about politics, I guess I'll just avoid that topic for a while.
No, don't give up the topic. But does Sarah Palin really sound any different than she ever did, or are you just tired of hearing her sound the way she has always sounded? Do you have a favorite musician? Don't they have a certain "sound?" People sound the way they sound. They really don't change. There are certain things I say that I KNOW I say and I can't help but say them. Someone is willing to let someone else charge ahead, but doesn't exactly rule him or herself out in the event that that person's favorite crashes and burns should be ruled out for being too "coy?"
ReplyDeleteRomney is too liberal. Santorum is too conservative. Gingrich has too much baggage. Cain molested women. Palin is too coy. Give me the name of any Republican and five minutes and I can probably come up with a reason that person is unelectable. We need to concentrate on why Obama should NOT be re-elected.
We need to concentrate on why Obama should NOT be re-elected.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree Matt, but I do find this depressing. I'd like to be enthusiastic about a candidate. I'm not.
I can find positive aspects about Romney; not real gung ho. The other three - omg.
In fact I'd pretty much say no, I won't vote for Ron Paul. IMHO he's an anti-semite, a crank, conspiracist and carney operator. I don't think he's a serious person in the least.
Gingrich is somewhat more serious, but chiefly about himself. He had me going for about a week. At most.
Santorum is next. I'd grant him status as a serious person. He claims he's not running for pastor. Not sure I believe him. I think being a political leader is different from being a cultural or spiritual leader - at least in the American tradition. Santorum has passion. That's fine - it's not my passion, and I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but whatever. If it was just a question of opinion, well, OK. But I'm looking for someone who's going to get out of bed every day and crack heads and chew on policy - and someone with real clear commitment to the idea of limited government. This is what's wrong with the country, crap policy and government overreach, and I'm not convinced Santorum is really passionate about this.
Romney has been reluctant to embrace the Tea Party. That said, I think he'll get up in the morning every day and crank on policy, crack heads, get things done - and not dwell on moral/social/spirtual issues, or his own fabulousness, or the invidious role of AIPAC, or any of the other pet obsessions of the Republican elite.
And I say all this not in specific condemnations of the candidates but of the Republican party. They've failed, they're damage, and we need to do better.
Presidential politics in my state is a non-starter. It's deeply blue, it's got all of 3 electoral votes. I'm spending my social capital on creating skepticism about Democrats, not defending Republicans. I'm disinclined to openly support Gingrich or Santorum - I'll succeed with nobody and simply take myself off the table as someone my peers will listen to. Attacking Obama and the Democrats as hypocritical, oligarch-friendly, anti-entrepreneur, deck-stacking rent seekers and gangsters - that I have a better shot at. Plenty of hipsters I know are into pushing new businesses and new ideas - and making a buck doing it. The choices that I can actually weigh in on are at the city and the Congressional race level.
I guess my point is that while I'd not "give up" on the Presidential race, the job will be far from over if a Romney (or a Santorum) win. And even if they don't, there is _plenty_ of work politically to be done - if Obama wins a second term I'm sure as hell not "giving up" then! Lots of ways his "fundamental transformation of America" can have sand thrown in the gears.
Politics is the art of the possible and I acquire political capital to spend it - not accumulate it for my own fabulous reputation. I'll risk condemnation among my peers for certain things and certain people. I'll defend Romney against facile and toxic bigotry against his religion. Gingrich, Santorum - not inclined to make a fool of myself in my deep blue state. Would rather try to tip people's opinions towards liberal-but-not-stupid small biz owners running for office against liberal-rent-seeking-gangster-career-bureaucrats - because that's the choice I have.
Allan West ain't runnin' where I live.
But does Sarah Palin really sound any different than she ever did ...
ReplyDeleteYes.
First, she finally grew up and stopped making stuff up wholesale (think that laughable "Sarah's Alaska" cable movie for a classic example ... nearly 100% tundra droppings). So yes, she's retreated to things she believes in and sticks to them sans grandstand. That is a change.
I never had a problem with most of Sarah's nationally expressed political things. I did/do have an issue with her unexpressed values that are testified to by her record in Alaska. The moment she tries to say she never, or seldom, catered to special interests, the BS meter pegs.
She was vilified and torn up in part because she made herself a foolish easy target and the sanctimony was part of it. At first she was well received, my better half volunteered for her specifically in 2008, but she eroded that support with the baloney and just silly imaginary stuff.
I'd vote for her if she was nominated, but with a lot less comfort than I would if the nominee was Herman Cain ... who I found refreshing, baggage and all, and still do. He had some naiveté, but also the executive skills to work through it. I'm not sure Sarah has Executive skills that would work outside of political Alaska.
All that said, if Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him. Even with his baggage I'm more comfortable with him than Gingrich or Santorum, both merely ideologues of dubious conservatism based upon records.
That said, I will write in the name of a garden slug if necessary against Obama. He stands for virtually nothing I've ever valued and against much of what I value.
I should add, here, that at this point in time Romney is my choice for nominee. Even with liberal views on some issues, I believe he is a decent man with management skills ... and the only candidate running who has a prayer in hell of beating Obama.
DeleteNow if the Republicans self immolate in to opposing camps like in 1964, no one wins and Obama continues his administration of the absurd.
Lewy, thank you for so eloquently giving voice to what I'm feeling about this primary. You have such a wonderful way of explaining complex thoughts! Matt, my answer to what you've asked is: what lewy said. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Sarah DOES sound different, at least to me. I'm accustomed to her shooting from the hip. I value what she thinks, and I'd like her opinion on these R candidates. I don't know why she's dancing around endorsing someone. I guess she must have her reasons.
Matt, I'm not dissing all republicans. I adore Allen West. I'd actively campaign for Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio. We have an excellent crop maturing for future presidential races. But for this one...BLEH! We made a huge mistake last election by "settling" for McCain; I'd rather not do that again. The results are predictable.
Lewy has a good point about political capital. I too am very cognizant about where I spend mine. For now, I'm enthusiastically and carefully (with friends, family, classmates, etc.) concentrating on why Obama should NOT, under ANY circumstances, be reelected.
It's a good strategy. For now.
Aridog, I too think that Romney is a good and decent man, with excellent management skills. I also think he's tough enough to withstand the general election, has a well oiled (if vicious) political machine behind him, and will fight till his last breath for the presidency.
ReplyDeleteI just don't think he will make presidential decisions that are, but gut instinct, conservative. Someone MUST tackle the runaway social programs, the rampant gov't corruption, the spending, and the utter dysfunction at every gov't level. If the next president doesn't crack heads and wield a BIG broom, we'll continue to struggle along in this awful morass. Does Romney have the stones to do that? Does he have the charisma to sell congress, and the American people, on his vision? These are questions I ask myself as I look at Romney and the other candidates.
Allan West comes across as divisive. He was also drummed out of the Army for terrorizing a prisoner. He is a cowboy waiting to start a religious war as demonstrated by his hatred toward islam.
ReplyDeleteNow let me make it clear, I would be absolutely thrilled if West were to run. I also agree that he would be better than anyone we have now. But, as I said, give me any Republican name and five minutes and I can give you reasons why he or she would be unelectable. And you know there would be a steady drumbeat of what I just said about West were he to run. Also, he is a conservative black man so there will be the requisite accusations of sexual harassment.
I just find it distressing is that conservatives all seem to be saying that we have already lost, all our candidates suck, there is nothing we can do, Obama will get another four years. You want a better Republican candidate? Why should anyone better even think of running when they know they will be butchered by both sides? You like West (as do I), then find -- or start -- a "Draft West" movement.
But don't go waving the white flag and still expect anyone to step up. Why would anyone want to come lead a lost cause?