The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Next Time You Hear a Liberal Lecturing About the Need for ‘Civility’ …

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 63 Comments

. . . your answer is three simple words — Sheila Jackson-Lee:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, suggested during a House floor speech Friday that raising the debt ceiling was being held up by members of Congress because President Obama is black.
“Only this president — only this one — only this one has received the kind of attacks and disagreements and inability to work,” she said. “Only this one. Read between the lines.”
“What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills?” she added. . . .
“In the minority community that is the question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully?”

To the sin of racial demagoguery, Jackson-Lee adds also blatant hypocrisy because (as Don Surber reminds us) she voted against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was president. And y’know who else voted against raising the debt ceiling during the Bush administration?

Yeah. Senator Barack Hussein Obama, who said increased federal debt was the result of “reckless fiscal policies” and “failed leadership.” And he certainly is a world-class expert on those subjects.

I hope and pray that when the Texas legislature re-draws their congressional district lines, they find some way to force Jackson-Lee into a primary battle against another Democrat. Then liberals will get a taste of what kind of “civility” she practices.

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Barack Obama, Budget, Democrats, Racism

Turnabout Is Fair Play?

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 6 Comments

Woman Gropes TSA Agent’s
Breast at Security Checkpoint

About doggone time, too! Let’s hope there’s video.

Category: humor

Nap-Time News

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 7 Comments

OK, this afternoon I had a 45-minute phone interview with Andrew Breitbart, for a long article I’m writing for an upcoming print edition of The American Spectator. This means it’s time to . . . procrastinate.

And I just ate a foot-long turkey sub sandwich for lunch and now the tryptophan is kicking in, so I’m thinking my procrastination will take the form of a nap.

Fortunately for you, Reaganite Republican has an excellent headline round-up that ought to keep you amused while I’m snoring on the sofa.

Don’t blame me. Blame that turkey sandwich. I’m a victim.

UPDATE: My nap got interrupted because one of my 18-year-old twin sons has bought a five-month old “puppy.” I put that word in quotes, because it’s a boxer, an ugly gigantic bulldog-looking thing and, although the people who sold my son the dog swore it was housebroken, it keeps peeing in my office.

So there was a lot of yelling between my sons over who was going to clean up the mess, and it woke me up. Then I decided to rattle off a few paragraphs of this American Spectator profile of Breitbart while I was awake, and next thing I knew I was 800 words into what will surely be a 3,000-word story before it’s finished.

When I got to what seemed like a good stopping place, I sent a Tweet to Breitbart to update him on the progress — I’ll need to call him back tomorrow or Monday to double-check some facts — and then guess who pops up asking questions? Sissy Willis:

Will that forcoming Breitbart article be print ONLY? I don’t DO print.

See what I put up with, dear readers? Do you see why I sometimes get depressed? A dog pisses on my floor and then my “friend” Sissy Willis tells me she can’t be bothered to pay $5.95 for a copy of The American Spectator even when she knows in advance it’s going to include my brilliant profile of Andrew Breitbart.

It’s at moments like this that I’m tempted to Mapquest directions to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, get in my car and go jump off. But summoning forth my instinct for survival, I instead went to my Amazon Associates account and found that you can get a full year’s subscription to The American Spectator for just $49 — and, if you want, you can get a year’s subscription to both the Spectator and the Weekly Standard for a mere $109. Either way, I get a 4% commission via Amazon Associates, which will help compensate me for my interrupted nap, if not for the dog pissing in my office. So now I’m going back to sleep, depressed by the humiliation of realizing that I’ve been reduced to hustling magazine subscriptions to make a few extra bucks.

Woodward and Bernstein never had to do this, you know.

Oh, the shame of it all . . .

Category: Blogging

Religiosity In POTUS Candidates

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 18 Comments

by Smitty

In the midst of the political scrum, one behavior pattern exhibited on the left and the right is the exhuming of religious for use in finger pointing.
For example, even the dead Robert Byrd will always be Senator KKK to conservatives. Also famously, Ronald Reagan was a lefty, and FDR admirer, before uncluttering his head. But nobody would remember him as being a huge Christian. More recently, Ann Althouse posts about Michelle Bachmann’s former church being anti-papist. Bachmann’s case is clearly a variation on the theme of Jeremiah Wright.
A few questions:

  • Is the Bachmann religiosity angle (church, husband’s ministry) merely ‘an eye for an eye’ over Jeremiah Wright in 2008?
  • What are the criteria for figuring out the acceptability of her church involvement? How do we have a standard whereby Wright is unacceptable, but other spiritual forms are OK?
  • If the consensus is that Bachmann is a closet theocrat or something, what guarantees would work to make her an acceptable candidate? Or is it the case that you cannot hold any strong religious views if you’re going to run for POTUS?
Category: Uncategorized

Panic at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 10 Comments

Steve Bartin at Newsalert tipped me to this Reuters story by economic analyst James Pethokoukis:

Last night in a new report, Democrat-friendly Goldman Sachs dropped an economic bomb on President Obama’s chances for reelection . . .

“Unexpectedly,” I’m sure. Read the whole thing. And it is time once more to remind you that all this was predicted:

Obama’s biggest mistake? He’s been reading the wrong blogs.

UPDATE: The president ought to be reading The Lonely Conservative. She links me and is therefore right, right, right!


Category: Barack Obama, Economics, Election 2012

Biggest Celebrity Upskirt Photo Ever!

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 5 Comments

Don Surber tipped me to this one. Guess it was probably too risqué for his newspaper readers in West Virginia.

Anyway, it’s not that the photo is so big, but the celebrity is very big.

And her skirt? It’s huge.

Category: Celebrities, Don Surber, humor, Rule 5

Doesn’t Mercede Johnston Reminds You of That Line From ‘Gone With the Wind’?

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 20 Comments

The one where Scarlett O’Hara says of India Wilkes, “Why, if she thought anybody would take after her, she’d walk down the street naked.”

Mercede Johnston is following in her brother’s footsteps and taking it all off for the cameras.
Two years after Levi Johnston bared his bum for Playgirl, his 18-year-old sister will be featured in a four-page nude pictorial in Playboy’s September issue, a magazine spokesperson confirms to Us Weekly. . . .

Mercede has a blog, which might as well be called “I Really, Really Hate Bristol Palin and You Should, Too.” That’s all she ever writes about.

If Sarah Palin decides to run for president, the biggest downside is that Mercede might get a 16th minute of . . . well, it’s not quite “fame,” is it?

Unless you’re reminded that her brother Levi was Bristol Palin’s ex-boyfriend, your reaction to her name is, “Mercede Johnston? Who’s that? And why didn’t her mama know how to spell ‘Mercedes’?”

Kinda sucks when your name looks like a typo.

Guess we’ll see what the rest of her looks like soon enough.

Category: Alaska, Bristol Palin, Celebrities, Sarah Palin

Those Meddling Neo-Cons Again!

Posted on | July 16, 2011 | 17 Comments

Because I voted for Libertarian Bob Barr in 2008, I can’t use Instapundit’s signature “They told me if I voted for John McCain” riff, but would someone please tell me how the U.S. stance toward the Libyan rebels is less meddlesome than the Bush-Cheney regime-change policy in Iraq?

ISTANBUL — The United States formally recognized the rebel leadership in Libya as the country’s legitimate government on Friday, allowing the rebel government access to $30 billion in Libyan assets held in the United States. It is not yet clear how and when the money would be released.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at an international gathering held to discuss the Libyan conflict that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government no longer had any legitimacy, and that the United States would join more than 30 countries in extending diplomatic recognition to the main opposition group, known as the Transitional National Council.
“We will help the T.N.C. sustain its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Libya,” Mrs. Clinton said, “and we will look to it to remain steadfast in its commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Whatever happened to the “No Blood for Oil” crowd? Where’s Code Pink, Michael Moore and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition?

Is it now the settled policy of the United States that we are arbiters of the “legitimacy” of governments in other nations? If so, how are such things decided?

Of the multitudinous autocratic governments in the world, which autocracies are on America’s Secret List of Soon-to-Be-Illegitimate Regimes? Because I’m noticing a distinct lack of State Department interest in whether the governments of Cuba, Venezuela or Iran are “legitimate.”

Nobody’s shedding any tears for Moammar Qaddafi, but we just can’t go around the world willy-nilly declaring foreign governments “illegitimate.” Well, actually I guess we can do that — we have done it before and are in fact doing it now — but it doesn’t seem an altogether wise policy, if there is no rhyme or reason why we intervened militarily on behalf of the Libyan rebels, but wouldn’t lift a finger to aid the anti-Ahmadinejad protesters in Iran.

And let me express a fond hope that Republican presidential candidates will speak out about the seemingly random, illogical, unprincipled, opportunistic and thoroughly hypocritical interventionism of the Obama administration. Because otherwise I might have to consider voting Libertarian again in 2008.

Category: Libya
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin