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
In a so-called Religion of Peace, I would not expect to see this: (Thanks Debbie)
or This: (thanks to “Silent Majority No More!“)
I say reluctantly, because quite frankly, I find all this quite stupid, if you want to know the truth about it. AllahPundit has the videos, if you care to watch it.
Originally, I had planned on coming on here and really laying it to the Democrats; But I just stopped and thought, “Why Bother?” I mean, this is what the American people wanted, when they elected Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress in 2006. So, why should I sit here and write a disparaging blog posting about it? I mean, Indentity Politics is what the Democrats do. They’ve done it for years, not like it is going to change anytime soon.
Anyhow, according to what I’ve seen, even they did go to court, they would win the right for Burris to keep his seat.
Adding to the Stupidity, Blago’s General Council is gone. I assume to help the feds.
So, stay tuned, it could get quite interesting here over the next few weeks. I’m sure ol’ Barry is just farking thrilled shitless over this one. I know I would be. Because really, Obama can basically do zero about it. Blago knows this too. He might be a crazy man on the take, but he ain’t stupid, that’s for sure. I mean, he had enough sense to do the black man political cover thing and knows what he do legally, he ain’t dumb. Ain’t no legally insane guy that damned brilliant. If that’s the case, Charles Manson belongs at farkin’ Harvard. 😀
Anyhow, there it is, my opinion on that. If you ain’t noticed; I have not been feeling my normal self. My body clock is seriously foobarbed at this point. Sleeping when I should be awake, Awake when I should be asleep. It’s just farking beautiful. So, yesterday was not a good day. I ended up not going with the old man shopping, I just did not feel like it. I did help him bring the stuff (Food) in the house though. So, I should avoid the abyss; this time. 😉
Hold on to your hats, because this one is huge.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.
Shortly after Obama’s Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich’s arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor’s support.
Though he is 71, Burris has said that Obama’s replacement should be able to win re-election and he has noted that despite a string of primary losses in races ranging from Chicago mayor to governor and U.S. senator, he’s never lost to a Republican.
Blagojevich, who has sole authority to name a replacement senator, scheduled a 2 p.m. news conference at his downtown Chicago office.
Of course, Harry Reid is having none of it, at all
The Senate will not seat Roland Burris if Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich attempts to appoint him, a Democratic leadership aide said.
Majority Leader Harry Reid views Burris as "unacceptable," the aide said.
Oy. I bet that presser is going to be, um, Interesting. Allah Pundit calls it a "Total Clusterfark." Indeed. 
However, one could argue that this election cycle was a "cluster fark" from the word go. Especially the stuff with Hillary. She was like the child that just would not take no for an answer, funny thing is, she going to be the Secretary of State. Retreads Change you can appoint?
The neat part about all this, that it puts Reid in a spot. If he does not accept the appointment it could be, but most likely won’t be; viewed as racist by some. Which I think was quite the slick move by the Governor.
However, I most likely will not be around to see the whole thing go down. My Dad and I are supposed to go shopping. So, my blogging for the remainder of the day will be scattered. Lovely. 🙄
Have I ever mentioned how much I despise shopping? Especially with my dad? Oy. I’d rather be water boarded. (Well, Sorta…)
Others: The Campaign Spot, Don Surber (Via Memeornadum)
For some reason or another, I just don’t believe it at all.
The full report is over at Politico, if you care to read such stuff. Patterico also has a good take on it as well.
Quotable Quotes:
“Parties become much more pragmatic when they’ve won,” says Joe Trippi, who heads the media firm Trippi Multimedia, and who managed Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign and advised John Edwards in 2008.
“At least in the initial stages, they’re going to try to work together [with Obama] to see what parts of their agenda they can get through,” he says. And they recognize, he adds, that they will get more of their agenda passed if they don’t start trouble when they don’t need to.
[….]
For his part, Pariser says he will do what his members want, no matter which way it takes the organization or what the implications are for its future. “I believe the fact that we hear something from all over the place at the same time means it probably is what we should do with the country,” he says. “I maybe drank the Kool Aid in civics class a little too much, but I think if you put your faith in that, you really don’t go wrong. People gravitate very quickly to the big things that are at the core of their problems.”
“It also makes our jobs easier,” he adds, “because we just do what we’re told.”
Okay, here’s why I don’t buy this line of bunk for one minute. Because I know how Liberals think. President-Elect Obama is not in office yet, nobody, not even me; knows how he is going to Govern. The so-called experts say he will run from the Middle; and based upon his cabinet picks, this might be true. To me, however, it looks more like a Clinton retread White House. So much for the “Hope & Change” mantra throughout the campaign.
Anyhow, however; you let Barack Obama let one of his big campaign promises slip, like Nationalized Health care. The very minute that Barack Obama begins to make noises like he is not going to be able to pass Nationalized Health Care, and MoveOn and DailyKos will turn on Obama on a fucking dime. I know how Liberals are, They lack something that is pretty much a norm in the Conservative circles; and that’s Loyalty. Loyalty to Party, Loyalty to principles; this past election being a perfect example of that, and loyalty to a leader. Oh, they’ll be loyal to him, as long as Obama performs for them, and carries out their agenda. But the very minute he strays; it’s over man. The far left will turn on a dime and it will be Bush Derangement on the other foot in full force. Sorry Trippi, I don’t buy the B.S. line of Liberals being Pragmatic. If 1968 was proof of anything, it was proof that the far left or the rank and file within the Democratic Party is nowhere near Pragmatic.
So, to sum it up; while this might sound nice and pretty and all. It is nothing more than some sort of a “Dog and Pony Show” to appease those within the Democratic Leadership that might worried that groups like this may try an turn popular opinion against Obama. While the mindless sheep might buy it, I do not; because I know the mindset, I know how they act. Loyal, until you slip up and then BAM! It’s over.
Nice try guys, but we’re just a bit more smarter than that.
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
It seems that Bambi made it to see the vets. How nice. Pretty funny, seeing he hasn’t served a damn day in the Military.
I also have an e-mail to share, that I got this morning, I was wondering what it was about. Now I know.
President-elect Obama stopped by the Marine Corps base in Hawaii Kaneche Bay where servicemen and -women were eating Christmas dinner in Kailua Thursday evening.
“Just wanted to say hi, hey guys,” Obama said as he walked into the Anderson dining hall which was decked out in Christmas decorations.
The diners represented seven military units — Marine and Navy — some of whom were joined by their families for Christmas dinner.
As Obama entered the room, it was absent of the regular fanfare of cheering and clapping. The diners were polite, staying seated at their respective tables and waited for the president-elect to come to them to stand up.
Obama, dressed casually in a blue polo shirt and dark khaki trousers, worked his way around the room — table by table — and took pictures with the service members. He slapped them on the back at times, shook hands, and signed some autographs.
“Hey guys, Merry Christmas,” The president-elect said as he walked from table to table.
The servicemen and -women were already seated at their holiday dinner when the president-elect made his impromptu visit. They were dining on salad, candied sweet potato with marshmallow topping, cream of mushroom soup, mashed potatoes, beef, ham, turkey, broccoli and corn.
The president-elect spent about an hour with the troops. Obama transition aides say that Obama did not eat with the uniformed men and women — he ate at his beach home with his family and friends Christmas night.
I think it goes without saying, that Obama was not among friends.
Others: Atlas Shrugs, Sister Toldjah, RedState, BLACKFIVE, Gateway Pundit, Hugh Hewitt, Power Line
