I guess George W. Bush isn’t the only misspeaker / misunderestimator…
Clinton Misspoke About Bosnia Trip, Campaign Says
Clinton Misspoke About Bosnia Trip, Campaign Says - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog
I’d Say She Mis-Overestimated
Don Surber Discovers a Truism
Don Surber’s “Just Ask Me” feature is a gold mine of truth and humor. Part of the answer to question 3 includes this core fact of modern life:
Sociology traces its roots to phrenology and alchemy.
Condemned if controversial
Mickey Kause writes at Slate about Obama’s recent repudiation (where applicable) of Minister Wright’s sermons:
This seems to be the General Rule of Obama–if it’s going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements–his campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print ‘void where prohibited’ waivers. “Condemned if controversial.
Seems awfully “conditional” - The listener can apply his condemnation for him where they feel will make them feel better about him.
Personally, I don’t care what kind of sermon Wright gives, nor how his congregation deals with it. What it does tell me is that Obama is very comfortable with the 60’s style vilification of the federal government.
It makes you wonder what Obama thinks he’s going to do if he wins - put people like Wright, or Ayers, or Rezko, or Power in charge of the engines of government? Or maybe he’s so good, he’ll come in and cast out all the money changers and make a clean sweep of government.
Or would the picture be more acceptable if we said he’ll come to Washington to clean out the augean stables of corruption?
Obama’s Rules: “Void if controversial” - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine
Don Surber Makes Me Laugh
From his most recent post:
Yea, that’s a Republican: Trolling for blue light specials in the red light district.
He’s a Real Spitzer…
Roger Kimball points the reader to a proposal by Arnold Kling another word for the political glossary - not just for Campaign ‘08, but for all politicians. (from Kling’s post):
“The term ‘Spitzer’ belongs in the dictionary,” Mr. Kling observes, “and its definition should be ‘any politician.’ We ought to think of all politicians as Spitzers. No, they don’t all have lurid involvements with prostitutes. But they all have an inflated view of their superiority over the rest of us.”
Kling goes on to add a particularly sharp definition:
Suppose that we define “Spitzer” as someone who believes in the aggressive use of political power. A Spitzer believes it is his mission to tell us what to do for own good.
Kimball believes that nearly all politicians, and most petty bureaucrats fall into that definition of a ’spitzer.’
Kling comes up with a strong condemnation of future political appointees or politicians filled with hubris:
Yes, he’s a real Spitzer all right.
Kimball’s post is about so much more than the moral turpitude of Elliott Spitzer.
Quoth James Carville in 2002: “You in New York are so blessed to have an attorney general who just showed what it was like to be a Democrat.” I don’t often agree with James Carville, but this time he hit the nail on the head. I only wish that the disease were confined to Democrats. It isn’t.
Kimball’s post is well worth the read.
“Black liberation theology”
Michelle Malkin posts on the dust up over Jeremiah Wright’s theology and its influence on Barak Obama.
I saw this phrase in her post and recalled how I felt when I heard Wright’s diatribes the first time - it’s the Black Panther polemic all over again.
Then I thought about the other friend Obama has - William Ayres, Weather Underground leader.
I see a pattern here. Obama wants to appeal to the extreme left of the liberal spectrum of both black and white America. It’s where identity politics really took root in the Democrat party.
He appeals to all the aging Boomer hippies who yearn nostalgically for that time of freedom and license. He also appeals to all the victim mongers who want to continue to ride identity politics into power.
The Milking Schedule
It should be obvious to all that the whole effort by the Democrat leadership of the House to recraft the FISA law has to do not with national security, but with the schedule for the next election cycle.
The ACLU issued a statement expressing delight over the House Democrats’ new bill and was also pleased that the Democrats would let the authorization to track terrorists expire in only two years as if there is any realistic chance that the global war on terror could be behind us by then. (emphasis added)
Because this has already been demonstrated to be a very productive cow:
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that trial lawyers contributed some $85 million to Democratic candidates in the 2006 election cycle. (emphasis added)
Disgusting!
Don Surber Doesn’t Mince Words
You’ll have to read the rest of the post to learn who he’s talking about.
Add them up and the NYT thinks he’s a horny madman who has the cooties.
Oh, okay, you can probably guess who it is, too.
Don Surber » Blog Archive » Just ask me
(I’m cross-posting at http://response39.blogspot.com as I try out their platform)
Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here
