Archive for May, 2009

A Better Explanation?

Sunday, May 31st, 2009

My friend “Gina” is committed to Obama the candidate’s vision, world view, pledges, etc. On occasion Gina uses Facebook to blog about her disappointment in certain decisions made by Obama the President. Most recently, she posted two links to liberal sites that decry the recent White House response to concerns over an ad hoc statement made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Gina, and those who have commented on her Facebook post, think the White House has been too accommodating in the face of Republican “bullying”. It seems to me as though the bullys, if there is such a thing, are the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, and they don’t have votes in the Senate. I thought the left was happy having these two be the face of the Republican party! This morning I saw Republican Jeff Sessions and Democrat Patrick Leahy together on a news program answering questions concerning the nomination. Sessions seemed more than reasonable and even Leahy made some sense, which is newsworthy in its own right.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

I think I know what Sotomayor was trying to say, but I think she said it in a poor way. I’m sure I am not the only one that feels this way. I wonder how Gina and her like-minded friends would feel if a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court expressed similar sentiments using the same construction. To see how construction matters, take “wise Latina woman” and “white male”, and substitute anything else you like.

  • Wise White – Black
  • Wise Jew – Catholic
  • Wise Man – Woman
  • Wise Ivy League Educated – State University Educated
  • Wise Midwest Raised – Left Coast Indoctrinated
  • Wise Gay – Straight

It’s identify politics to the nth degree. I have read many stories in which supporters of this nomination stress that Sotomayor will have no difficulty in defending, or at least explaining, her controversial statements. I’ve no doubt that she will prepare a good explanation. I look forward to hearing it.

Lollapelosipaloser

Monday, May 18th, 2009

As I write this, the Washington DC area is set to test record low temperatures later on this evening. And, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party is set to test new yearly lows in honesty, ethics, and integrity. Why is it that Democratic leaders such as John Kerry (D-Bag, MA), John Murtha (D-Bag, PA), and Pelosi (D-Bag, CA) seem to be genetically predisposed to challenging institutions such as the US Armed Forces and the CIA?

It’s good to know that people like President Obama, Tim Kaine, and Silvestre Reyes fully support Pelosi. It will make her downfall all the more sweeter. Leon Panetta has done a good job of warning against using the CIA for political purposes, although this warning really only needs to reach one dumb Californian.

I don’t really care if the CIA told Pelosi that waterboarding had been used or that it could be used. She was silent on the subject. Period. In either case, if she had a concern, she could have come forward. She did not. This is the end of the story. Well, almost the end.

I’d like to see the release of the briefing summary. If the briefing summary is at odds with Pelosi’s stories, then she should be ridden out of town on a rail.

Oh Shut Up!

Sunday, May 10th, 2009

I was flipping through the channel guide last night a little after 10 p.m. I happened to see the White House Correspondents Dinner on MSNBC. I tuned to that and was treated to the last nine and a half minutes of Wanda Sykes. All I can say is

I would say that whoever scheduled Wanda Sykes to speak at the Correspondents dinner should be shown the door. Her vitriol was counter to the notion of Obama as a uniter. Wishing for Limbaugh’s kidneys to fail. Combining “pulled out at the last minutes”, abstinence, and Sarah Palin. Suggesting that small children would be better off in a stranger’s car than in Dick Cheney’s.

In the MSNBC coverage, the camera was tight on Sykes. This is clearly torture as opposed, say, waterboarding. It was an affront to at least two of the five senses.

She kept looking to her right. I assume that this is where Obama was sitting. From her reactions, I have to assume that Obama was none too pleased with the over-the-top routine.

Oh shut up, you all are going to be telling that one tomorrow. Shut up.

Um, no. I doubt that very many people will be “telling that one tomorrow”.

She said that she was so happy that “you’re doing something about education”, as if Bush did nothing for education. But then she tells us exactly what “doing something for education” means to liberals. It means nothing more and nothing less than “paying our teachers more”. Liberals do not care about actual education of our children.

Sykes hit rock bottom when she suggested that some previous first ladies should be wearing “ponchos” because of their appearance. News flash, Wanda. You aren’t exactly eye candy yourself.

Likening Limbaugh to Bin Laden, suggesting that he was the 20th hi-jacker. She looked back over to Obama.

Come on…too much? … OK

But you’re laughing inside. I know…

Sykes suggests that an attempt to defend torture by cataloging the valuable information obtained is akin to her robbing a bank and then defending it by saying

Yes your honor, I robbed a bank…but look at all the bills I paid.

Seems like perfectly good analogy, if you are an imbecile.

Specter Wastes No Time Getting Down

Monday, May 4th, 2009

Anyone that has listened to Arlen Specter (D-bag, Pennsylvania) over the past couple of years knows that he has sounded more and more detached from reality. And I’m not talking about his recent switch to the Democratic party. Over the weekend, Specter plumbed new lows, using the death of former colleague Jack Kemp for partisan purposes.

In Specter Claims Kemp Would Be Alive if Congress Better Funded Medical Research, Specter claims

If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.

Yes, and if we had just funded more AIDS research…and if we had just funded more fetal stem cell research…and if we had just navigate to these guys

What Specter really ought to be interested in is more funding for mental health issues.

I’d certainly like to see a debate on how we fund disease research. Some diseases receive disproportionate funding compared to the number of those stricken. One such disease is AIDS. And, unlike most cancers, AIDS is nearly always the direct result of choices made by its victims. These choices – for example, the sharing of needles, unprotected (and even protected) sex of various sorts – have been well known to lead to HIV and AIDS since the national brochure was sent to US households in 1988 from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Would Specter have us divert AIDS funding to the NCI?

I Don’t Get It

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

No doubt about it, the Democrats are up and the Republicans are down. There is no shortage of pundits and politicians that wag their finger in the direction of Republicans and kindly suggest that the GOP will continue to contract if it continues to be “the party of no”.

But I don’t get it. I understand that demographics (e.g., Hispanics and younger adults) are not in the republican’s favor. But I don’t know what the critics would have the republicans become. It seems like the major complaint is that Republicans are not Democrats.

The Republican party nominated John McCain for president last year. Not a southern Christian, not a neo-con. But one of the few politicians that has actually worked with those across the aisle to accomplish legislation. It is true that recent budgets and stimulus packages received little or no Republican support. But why would there be such an expectation. As Nancy Pelosi said, the Democrats won, so they get to write the bill. A vote against $750 billion of stimulus, with its 1000+ pages, and with less than 24 hours to read, sounds like good judgement to me. Such a vote would not mean “no stimulus package”. It would just mean “not that stimulus package”. Meanwhile, President Obama has stressed on a few occasions since taking office that bi-partisanship is not about attracting votes of both parties. It is about “talking”. Umm hmm.

And, since the smack down in November, the Republicans have selected Michael Steele to head the RNC. Mr. Steele, a moderate Republican, was elected Lt. Governor of the People’s Republic of Maryland.

My favorite Republican last year, Mitt Romney, is an early front-runner for 2012. Romney, a moderate Republican, was elected Governor of Massachusetts. And he was the only candidate in either party that has actually spearheaded something like universal health coverage at the state level.

Thinking back to 2000 – and I know this may engender a lot of bad memories – I recall that W ran as a “compassionate conservative”. But what exactly did that mean? At the beginning of his administration, before 9/11, his main focus was on education. Later, he would turn his attention to Medicare prescription drug benefits and to an international AIDS program. I also recall the diversity of W’s cabinets. There were women, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans. Some were held over from Clinton’s administration. Some were Bush’s people from Texas. Others were those that had served the elder Bush with distinction. I realize that some of these folks did not work out well. But the Bush cabinet was not, for example, a bunch of old white men.

I was amused by an article today in the Washington Post Outlook section. Who Won Feminism?*, by Naomi Wolf, begins

Look at Michelle Obama: She has segued seamlessly from an active professional life as a highly paid hospital executive to her current incarnation as fashion plate, doting mom and demure sex object, posing for Vogue in a hot fuchsia frock that shows plenty of skin. What’s most surprising about this metamorphosis? How few people are objecting to it.

I mention this passage by way of showing the degree of infatuation with the Obamas.  Sure, Ms. Obama was a highly paid hospital executive. I guess she brought unique skills to her job, because when she left the position to come to Washington, her position was not back filled. Sounds more like she was given her position as a way to buy influence. This was similar to Hilary Clinton, who was a full partner in the Rose Law Firm.

Yes indeed, the Democrats are up. The Republicans are down. But I still don’t get it.