Who are you and what have you done with adaher?
5 Right-Wing Doozies This Week
Here we have a plethora of musings by the pundits.
Leading off is the “Rumble in Wasilla” that has already been mention. Next is Rush who is upset that he has to sit through a conversation about domestic abuse before a football game. Following this is Betsy McCaughey, who apparently coined the term “Death Panel” in reference to a section of the ACA. She is on the Daily Show and flees when pressed for clarification. Fox and Friends discusses the Ray Rice saga and concludes that women in this situation should take the stairs. Finally, Pat Buchanan holds forth one the real problem danger facing the US and it is not ISIS.
Oh shit, now they’ve gone full quantum.
So, what are the Joooos up to this time?
It’s a variation on an old lawyer joke: “Because of Obama’s overbearing regulations, my client never rented this car. Because of Obama’s anti-business policies, this car was already damaged when my client took possession of it. Thanks to the Republican leadership in the House, this car was in perfect condition when my client returned it.”
Yabbut that’s in the human breast. I’m not sure if Pubbies qualify.
Lindsey Graham over the weekend…
Lindsey Graham in a June interview with Fox News…
This is more hypocritical than stupid, but it didn’t seem to warrant it’s own post.
No, no, I do think we’re seeing a definite paradigm shift in the general theory of partisanship.
Up until now, Partisan Physics followed an ideal Newtonian model - every Presidential action generates an equal and opposite reaction, no matter how bugfuck 'tarded, insincere or hypocritical. This, however, is the dawn of a quantum opposition, one that presupposes that regardless of Presidential choices, he must be assumed to be both Wrong and Wrong for theoretical purposes (i.e. wrong to pursue ISIS, wrong not to pursue it) while the Republican position must perforce be considered both Right and Right.
At least until somebody checks on that poor cat and collapses the waveform, presumably on Election Day.
I was reminded of this by the thread about “Whities” claiming Native American heritage.
Fox News has been relentlessly hyping an exclusive interview with Ward Churchill, the professor who said something bad about 9/11 and lost his job. I guess you can call it “exclusive” when nobody else cares a damn thing about the guy anymore and have no interest in interviewing him. He got fired eight years ago.
Is Fox running out of fresh material so they have to recycle old scandals? What’s next? John Kerry windsurfing? John Edwards haircut?
Since you’re talking about the optics, and I found out about this from a New Republic article, the problem here, as TNR pointed out, is that it makes Obama sound like Bush. He probably should just have said, “We will remain flexible in our strategy and our strategy will reflect what’s actually happening on the ground.”
I’ve said before that losing isn’t an option, so troops will be committed if losing starts to look likely. That’s why it’s a dumb promise to make. With the huge exception of nuclear weapons use, a President must never define the tactics as opposed to the mission. Once the mission has been defined, and the PResident has actually done a very solid job of defining the mission, then you complete the mission using all resources we have at our disposal, should the use of those resources become necessary.
My issue with Hegseth is the same: he’s also defining the tactics to be used rather than the mission to be performed. It’s very likely that airpower plus the Iraqi and Kurdish forces will win the day. So far, that strategy has a near perfect record: worked in Kosovo, Afghanistan(yes, we had special forces, but the Northern Alliance did most of the fighting on the ground), and in Libya. So Hegseth has no reason to call for ground troops other than to be an asshole during a pretty tense time. But at the same time, the ground troops will be committed if it comes to that. I have many issues with President Obama, but he kills the enemy and he will not allow himself to go down in history as a Commander-in-Chief who lost a war that was eminently winnable. While I endorse valid criticism(again, promising no ground troops was stupid), otherwise let the man do his job.
There were a million voices criticisizing GWB. A lot of them made valid points, as the war was badly mismanaged and a bad idea from the start(that I supported at the time). But a lot of criticism as well was stupid, and some of it even immature. I’ve been watching old Daily Show episodes and some of the smarmy talking points were just so childish in hindsight. And almost universally the stupid criticisms came from Democrats.
I also loved the defensiveness: “Dissent is patriotic!” That’s assumed, dumbasses. It’s like “I’m not a racist!” That would depend on what you actually said, not on your protestations. At least Republicans are foregoing the whining part of their partisan nonsense.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck connects NFL domestic violence to Benghazi.
Connected:
FOX “News” Aired 1,098 Evening Segments on Benghazi In First 20 Months After Attacks
Not stupid in context. Especially since it’s our rather untransparent administration demanding transparency from another organization. That’s pretty rich.
The post you were responding to was all examples of Republican whining, or, in the case of Miller, a Democrat welcomed to the Republican fold to whine on their behalf.
Whining is a tone. Or if you prefer, defensiveness. Republicans are not protesting too much that they are actually patriots despite their dissent. It’s taken as a given. People only question your patriotism when you say things that are unpatriotic, like, “The war is lost”.
Ooh, I’ve got a good one:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/heartbreaking-work-staggering-cynicism
There’s a KERNEL of a valid criticism in there, but really, Republicans shouldn’t be trying to claim by inference that they are the one looking out for the Latino community. We’re law and order types and we shouldn’t back down from that. It would have been enough to say that the President cynically made a political move and threw them under the bus to save Democratic control of the Senate. We’d throw them under the bus on general principles.
BTW, I’m being hyperbolic there. I do not believe in throwing the Hispanic community under the bus, but Americans who favor legalization of 12 million undocumented immigrants without border security being done first are just wrong. And frankly, I think they think we’re stupid. With some justification, as this thread shows. They obviously think they can fool us by playing Lucy with the football.
Rush: “No means yes, if you know how to spot it”
Seriously though, why are Repubs SO obsessed with rape?
I’ve posted it before, I’ll post it again:
Interesting. So, when he wants to do things to improve conditions in America, “you” (“people”) fight him tooth and nail, but when it comes to killing lots of Arab-types, back off and let the man do his job. Because that is the credible part of his job, killing “those people”.
mama grizzly
Sarah Palin Goes Makeup-Free—and Kinda, Sorta Gives the Finger—After Family Is Involved in Drunken Fight