As a rule, I don’t send no traffic to the Neo-Con owned “weakly standard”.
But Mary
Yes, I am fan and quite distant admirer. 😀
Others: Fausta’s Blog, The Sundries Shack, Sister Toldjah, The Other McCain and Ed Driscoll.com
The Dems say they will keep Burris from the floor, so says CNN:
Senate Democratic leaders think Roland Burris, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s pick to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, will likely show up on Capitol Hill Tuesday for the opening day of Congress, according to a Democratic aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders’ plans.
They have prepared a contingency plan in case he does, the aide added.
Burris will not be allowed on the Senate floor, according to this aide and a Senate Democratic leadership aide.
The aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders’ plans said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber, the Senate doorkeeper will stop Burris. If Burris were to persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol Police would stop him, said the aide.
“They (police) probably won’t arrest him” but they would call the sergeant-at-arms,” the aide said.
When asked about what would happen if he shows up and tries to be seated, Burris told the Chicago Tribune that he’s, “not going to create a scene in Washington.” He added, “We hope it’s negotiated out prior to my going to Washington.”
Burris told CNN that, “We’re certainly going to make contacts with the leadership to let them know that the governor of Illinois has made a legal appointment. And that I am currently the junior senator for the State of Illinois. And we’re hoping and praying that, you know, they will see the reason in appointing me as a very qualified, capable, able and ready-to-serve individual.”
Yeah, Right. They don’t want to make a scene. You believe that and I got land to sell you in Texas, cheap! That’s what race-baiting Democrats do, make a scene. Because we all know, it’s all about “struggle” for them. (whatever that is….)
Way I see it, the so-called “struggle” ended when America elected that…. THING for President. So, Al Sharpton and his ilk should be out of a job.
So, this should be quite interesting to watch.
Update: Video (via Breit Bart)
Update 2: Even Pat Buchanan is thinking along the same lines: (H/T WND)
Here we have an African-American elder statesman of the Democratic Party, an honorable and distinguished man, appointed by the governor according to law and the Constitution, to fill a Senate seat. There has been no hint of illegal consideration asked or given by either the governor or Burris.
Yet Harry Reid, who presides over a Democratic caucus of some 60 senators, with not a single black member, is going to refuse this black man a seat to which the law entitles him?
One hopes Burris will stay firm and march up to that Senate, and, if nothing else, expose the hypocrisy.
Our president-elect is from a party that champions busing to integrate public schools but bypasses D.C. public schools to send his girls to exclusive private schools in far northwest Washington.
We have a Democratic Senate that champions affirmative action. Yet not one white Democratic senator, in a caucus that has not a single black member, has ever volunteered to step down and let the governor of their state replace him or her with an African-American.
Not one. That would be liberals leading by example, not exhortation.
If Democrats believe our institutions of power should look like America, why don’t they make their Senate caucus look like America? Why do not a dozen Democrat senators resign, to be replaced by 12 appointed black Democrats, giving one-fifth of all Democratic Senate seats to a minority that gave Barack 97 percent of its vote and Barack and Joe Biden one-fourth of all the votes they received?
Why does not Gov. Paterson follow Gov. Blagojevich’s lead and name an African-American of Burris’ stature to the U.S. Senate?
Fellas, let’s start practicing what we preach here.
There are times when I totally disagree with Pat, but he’s dead right here. If the Democrats have any sense, they will approve this guy. Pat says in this article that this Governor has not been convicted, and yet the Democrats are acting like the Governor is in Prison! Something stinks, and it’s not my body. 😀
Update 3: To expand this even further; what you are seeing here is two wings of the Democratic Party clashing. The Honorable Part of the Party that seeks to be above any sort of scandal, bumping up against the Identity Politics wing of the Democratic Party. It’s more than just “Racism” or whites vs blacks, it’s two independent Political ideologies under the same tent. It’s quite the thing to watch.
Others: Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, Chicago Boyz, Althouse, PoliPundit.com and Viking Pundit (Via Memeornadum)
Seems either a fascist lefty or a hate mongering old right type left a nice note in Malkin’s Mailbox:
from Texx Smith texx@texxsmith.com
reply-to texx@texxsmith.com
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:26 AM
subject I couldn’t not write you…Someone told me about your blog today (michellemalkin.com). I find it hard to believe that someone other than a rich white dude or an old gullible white dude would write the crap that you are. What’s wrong with you?
It’s an old guy who told me about your site. He said ” There’s this stupid niXXXr biXXh going around saying we treat niXXers and women the way we used to, like niXXers and women!” He got a huge kick out of it! He thinks your man is making you serve him by writing this. He wonders aloud about the other things he may make you do. He also wonders aloud about the things he would make his “half-nigger half-chink whore” do.
Do you really think racism and sexism is ok? Look at you!
It’s like watching that skit that David Chappel did about the blind man in the KKK who didn’t realize he was black.
You know the audience you are pandering to wants to take away womens rights and non-whites right, just like it was “in the good old days” right? It’s called conservative, look up the definition, it means resistant to change or wanting to rollback change, like women being allowed to vote or wear pants. Do you really want things rolled back? Are you really a conservative? Do you really want to be “owned” by a white man?
You may actually be a” . . . a Philly-born, South Jersey-raised alumna of Holy Spirit HS and Oberlin College. . . . “ But to your audience you’re a stupid niXXer biXXh. Are you ok with that?
If not I can help you escape whomever is enslaving you. America is cool like that still. We’ve almost lost everything and slavery is making a comeback here, thanks to the people making you write this crap. But we can still easily rescue a slave on American soil. We have courts here, they can even punish your Masters.
Texx Smith
YIM: texxsmith
http://blog.texxsmith.com
All I can truly say Michelle is, welcome to being in the minority. We are going to have to deal with crap like this for the next 4 years. While I have my own reservations about the Neo-Conservatives and their foreign policy; there is no place for this sort of nonsense.
The wild and quite stupid thing is, this idiot had the brass balls to put his real name and e-mail and website address in the e-mail. How stupid. 🙄
Although, I will say, and I am sure that Michelle will agree, there are hatemongers on both sides of the aisle. The best thing to do is ignore them or expose them on the blogs.
I also get that sort of stuff, every once and a while, I will get an angry e-mail accusing me of being a racist, because I didn’t vote for Obama or accusing me of being traitor for basically giving up on the Democratic Party. It is usually because I say that the Democratic Party became, basically, the Socialist Party. Which is, by default; Communism Lite. That usually get ’em all worked up.
Anyhow Michelle, welcome to the world of the oppressed minority.
Others: The Sundries Shack
Wonderful. As if the gray lady did not have enough trouble. Some Ann Coulter wanna-be is filing a lawsuit for getting smeared by the New York Times:
Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman has filed a $27 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for a February article about Iseman and her relationship with Sen. John McCain.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond on Tuesday, alleges the article falsely communicated that Iseman and McCain had an illicit “romantic” relationship in 1999 when he was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and she was a lobbyist representing clients before Congress.
The suit also names the executive editor of the Times, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters who wrote the story as defendants.
William Keller, the paper’s executive editor, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment on the suit.
The New York Times has responded:
“We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.”
Roger L. Simon says this could spell trouble:
I have no direct knowledge of the case or of Iseman, but if I were the Times, I would be afraid. I would be very afraid. They have a lot more to lose than the 27 million bucks in the suit. Their reputation is already tarnished and their bottom line diminishing. If Iseman can prove her case to the public’s satisfaction, it will constitute yet more bruising and a serious humiliation for the sometime “newspaper of record”. Those who have been accusing them of being nothing more than a scandal sheet – and a biased one at that, unlike the National Enquirer – will be vindicated. Indeed, if Ms. Iseman wins her case, the Times’ editors and publisher will be revealed to have been simultaneously boneheaded and despicable – an ugly combination indeed.
I just wonder, if she happens to win and takes over ownership of the paper, whom will she make the Editor? Ann Coulter? 🙄
Way I see it, if she wasn’t bobbing the knob. Then honestly, what is the problem?
Can you say, cashing in? I knew you could! 😀
(Via Memeornadum)
The Gang of Idiots
The Clueless Leader
The Executive turned behinds the scenes power broker
The insolent and grossly incompetent old man
The token negro
The Resident Tool
Vanity Fair gives these group of idiots the proper send off that they deserve. Unlike some of the morons of the Neo-Conservative Right, I will not sit here and act like the last 8 years did not happen. If this past President did anything at all. It was the fact that because his, and his administration’s gross incompetence, that I am writing today. 8 years ago, I could have given two flips about Politics and the Washington D.C. crowd. The only time that I even remotely cared about politics was either on or near election day.
Bush and his idiotic nonsense cured that, I’m more political aware and active than anyone even remotely near me. I follow it like a rabid dog. I will continue to do so, until I feel that I can safely leave it to the experts. I am hoping that somehow, by some sort of magical fate, that I am able to work myself into a syndicated column or something to that effect.
Admittedly, at first, I made some serious missteps, thinking I was a hardcore liberal; Which I am not, nor could I ever be, considering my background. I did finally figure out my place in the political world, and it sure as hell is not in the same realm as the Neo-Conservative idiots like Bush and Co.
Thankfully, I am comfortable with the title of Paleo-Conservative or the old right. Which suits me fine. I am not an Ron Paul bot. I did read his latest book. I am a agreement with much that is within that Book. I think some of his ideas could be implemented in moderation. However, for America to implement it too fast would cause other problems, like rapid deflation, which could make things only worse.
I think I can speak for those who have suffered, and believe me, I’ve done my share of suffering; through the last eight years of gross incompetence… that George W. Bush and his group of Neo-Conservative thug goons cannot leave the damned White House fast enough.
Thank God it is just about over!
Others: danieldrezner.com, No More Mister Nice Blog
When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, “this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,” referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, “by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith “Rick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.”
In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such “coming together” rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of “diversity” has one again proven to be a farce. For a true “coming together” of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warren’s stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasn’t budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired “coming together” means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.
The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans – issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if it’s practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they aren’t important – but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand states’ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.
Rick Warren’s invocation at Obama’s inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars – but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naïve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.
When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, “this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,” referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, “by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.” Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith “Rick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.”
In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such “coming together” rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of “diversity” has one again proven to be a farce. For a true “coming together” of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warren’s stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasn’t budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired “coming together” means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.
The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans – issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if it’s practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they aren’t important – but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand states’ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.
Rick Warren’s invocation at Obama’s inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars – but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warren’s mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naïve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.
Jack Hunter Blogs at The Southern Avenger and Taki’s Magazine
A stunning admission from the far left, but not a huge surprise.
Via The L.A. Times:
I don’t love America. That’s what conservatives are always telling liberals like me. Their love, they insist, is truer, deeper and more complete. Then liberals, like all people who are accused of not loving something, stammer, get defensive and try to have sex with America even though America will then accuse us of wanting it for its body and not its soul. When America gets like that, there’s no winning.
But I’ve come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws. But calling your wife fat isn’t love. True love is the blind belief that your child is the smartest, cutest, most charming person in the world, one you would gladly die for. I’m more in “like” with my country.
A rather mind-numbing statement and a rather frank admission. That is the whole problem with Liberals, they would rather focus on America’s flaws, than focus on it’s greatness. He goes on to blather on about Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
But this is what bothered me:
Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy. If it had been Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Israel or one of those Scandinavian countries with more relaxed attitudes toward sex, that would have been fine with me too.
Hell, why stop there? Why not just move to somewhere more inline with your beliefs, like say, Iran, Russia or maybe North Korea?
The Communist Blathers on:
I wish I felt such certainty. Sure, it makes life less interesting and nuanced, and absolute conviction can lead to dangerous extremism, but I suspect it makes people happier. I’ll never experience the joy of Hannity-level patriotism. I’m the type who always wonders if some other idea or place or system is better and I’m missing out. And, as I figured out shortly after meeting my wife, that is no way to love.
Stop The ACLU agrees with my assessment:
And yeah, I understand the point of the column. It’s a criticism. We’re “blinded” by love to the point where we don’t even see America’s flaws. But that’s not quite true. I see them, as do many conservatives. But unlike liberals, that’s not all I see. I look at America and love her for everything she is, both the good and the bad. I look at my country, and despite the mistakes we have made and inevitably will continue to make, still know that this is the freest, best country on the face of the Earth, know that anyone from anywhere in the world can come here and build a good life for themselves if they’re only willing to work hard and play by the rules, that America will always stand for freedom and justice and democracy.
Liberals look at America, and have a hard time feeling the love and patriotism that conservatives feel because they can’t get get past the flaws. They can’t love America unless she is perfect. Conservatives, however, don’t require perfection to know that America is, indeed, a special, blessed place. It doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is a terrible, terrible place. It doesn’t mean that no one can possibly have a great life anywhere else. However, despite what many Little League coaches and PC teachers may believe, not every runner can finish the race in first, and while the rest of the world may be great, it’s just not the USA.
I could not have put it better myself. However, I’ll take it a step further, if the Communist is dissatisfied with America and all of it’s supposed “Flaws”, he can always leave, there is not a law forcing him to live here.
Indeed, Toyota claims losses for the first time in 70 years—though how Toyota’s management was able to keep sales up in 1945, when Gen. Curtis LeMay’s B-29s were conducting their nightly visits, escapes me.
Bush may believe he has sinned against free-market principles, but he is following the path of his great free-market predecessor. Ronald Reagan, too, was not prepared to see Japan take down the U.S. auto industry, or steel industry, or computer chip industry, or Harley-Davidson.
Believing Japan was dumping to destroy U.S. companies, Reagan put patriotism before ideology and imposed quotas on Japanese imports. He, too, was castigated by the same commentariat that is berating Bush.
Vice President Cheney, too, has endorsed the bailout of Detroit. Of the senators who voted to pull the plug on General Motors, Cheney is said to have remarked, “It’s Herbert Hoover time” up there in the GOP caucus.
[….]
Like Prohibition in Hoover’s phrase, globalism is “an experiment, noble in purpose, that has failed.”
Some good news from Iraq.
Via FOXNews.com:
Iraq’s Christians, a small minority in the overwhelmingly Muslim country, quietly celebrated Christmas on Thursday with a present from the government, which declared it an official holiday for the first time.
But security worries overshadowed the day for many, particularly in the north where thousands of Christians have fled to escape religious attacks.
Overall security in Iraq has improved markedly in the past year, but a fatal car bombing in Baghdad on Christmas morning was a gruesome reminder that serious problems remain.
The bombing outside a restaurant frequented by police killed four people and wounded 25 others in the Shiite neighborhood of Shula, said a police officer speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give information to news media.
Also Thursday, an oil official said attackers blew up a pipeline in the city of Kirkuk. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the attack occurred Wednesday and pumping was expected to resume within three days.
In his homily on Thursday, Chaldean Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly praised the establishment of Christmas as an official holiday as a step toward easing tensions.
“I thank it too for making this day an official holiday where we pray to God to make us trust each other as brothers,” he said at the Christmas Mass before several dozen worshippers in the small chapel of a Baghdad monastery.
A senior Shiite cleric, Ammar al-Hakim attended the event, flanked by bodyguards, in a gesture of cooperation with Christians.
“I thank the visitors here and ask them to share happiness and love with their brothers on Christmas. By this they will build a glorious Iraq,” the cardinal said.
Unlike some liberals, who only want to look on the bad side of everything, (No wonder Sean threw you off of his show, idiot.) I think that this is proof that the surge is working. There is no doubt, that there is much work to do in Iraq. But this is a sign that there is some progress in Iraq.
What pisses me off, about the Liberals is this; they refused to admit that we won the overall war on terror in Iraq. Granted, we went there on bad information, I do admit that, as do many Conservatives; but the Liberals continue to repeat that dead fucking tired line of, “We cannot win, we have to leave and let these people fight their own battles.” Further more, they are the most irresponsible people ever. If we just pack up and leave, without fixing what we broke, without making DAMN sure that the Iraqi’s can defend themselves from attack from another Nation, we would be responsible for the worst case of genocide ever.
The Liberals refuse to see that Muqtada al-Sadr is all but irrelevant and hiding in Iran. The insurgency over, other than the spurious car bomb, things are back to normal. It sad that the Communist Liberals won’t give our Military the credit it deserves for accomplishing that enormous feat.
I just wonder how long it will be, before the Magic One will just remove all of our troops from Afghanistan and say, “Oh well, we deserved 9/11 anyhow, so, we’re not going to fight no more!” It would not surprise me at all.
The Moderate Voice, Scared Monkeys, TigerHawk, Gateway Pundit, and Don Surber
This was sent to me by the smartest Democrat I know………………My Mom. 😀
