Normally, I don’t blog on stuff like this; because if it happens to be wrong, I, like everyone else, looks like an idiot. But, anyhow, it’s news and I need new content.
The Moonbat of the year is leaving?!?!?! Horrors!
Back in April, the Shark Tank floated the likelihood that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman (DNC) Debbie Wasserman Schultz was perhaps on her way out as DNC Chairwoman. We now have learned that Wasserman Schultz will not be back as DNC Chairwoman after the November elections.
According to our source within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz, the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC regardless if President Obama wins re-election or not.
This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage an press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career.
Some on the right are saying, “No! Don’t get rid of her, we like her stupidity!” Which is quite humorous, I think. Truth is, the Democratic Party does have a image problem at the moment; arrogant, overreaching and well, in some cases — blatantly stupid. Schultz personifies that idiot image. No word on whether her Jewish ethnicity plays any role in that image or not. Although, I tend to believe that are many WASP’s, like me, who could answer that one in the affirmative. I best be careful though, the Semite-baiting Neoconservatives will come after me again. 🙄
(and for those of you, who are too stupid to see it — Yes, that is a good dose of snark and sarcasm…)
Either way, it will be interesting to see who replaces her, perhaps Sheila Jackson Lee?
Just in case you are not inclined to watch the video, here’s what she said:
“Americans of course responded in very typically American ways to [terrorism], something that many people in the rest of the world had already experienced. We began with a kind of nationalist fervor that was justified as reasonable patriotism.”
“I’d like to point out that we clearly must have been having post-traumatic stress disorder because for about a year after September 11th, there were African-American men walking around the city of New York with N.Y.P.D hats on– that can only be explained as a P.T.S.D. response.”
“The other thing that happens in that moment, I don’t want to miss this, is that a new version of what America typically needs emerge, and that is a racial enemy. Americans in part identify who we are, and who deserves what, through our notions of whiteness and of the racial enemies that are the non-whites.“
“And in this moment, the new racial enemy became not so much Reagan‘s ’welfare queen,’ who was imaginary, but instead this imagined other that is somehow Muslim, or Arab, or Sikh, or something else.”
“We became willing to stomach a kind of horrific racial violence in the name of national security. It is something that we have been willing to stomach as a people over and over again in our history.”
“The Patriot Act was not an act of a Republican president acting alone. The Patriot Act was a bipartisan decision by both parties. It was not bought and paid for by corporations; it was bought and paid for by our fear.”
You see folks, this is why I do not vote for Democrats any longer. I was one of the many who were traumatized by the images of 9/11, which ran continuously; which almost drove me to suicide. For this BITCH to insinuate that I am some how a racist, because I still hold some very deep convictions about 9/11 and those who were responsible for it — is a grievous insult to those who died on that terrible day. This woman should be fucking fired from her job. She just shit on the graves of those who perished that day and just spit in the faces of those who lived through that horrible event.
Unbelievable — just damn unbelievable.
UPDATE: I came back to this posting, because I knew I could do better. I figured some serial complainer would bring up the fact that I even mentioned that this woman was black. Okay, so I removed that — but how is it that this sort of disgusting sort of racism towards whites is even remotely tolerated in public discourse? I mean, if a white man had gotten up and said something similar about blacks or Latinos — or yes, even Jews — this person would be derided as a racist or antisemitic. But, yet, this woman, who happens to be black, can spout this sort of idiotic nonsense and it is just perfectly okay. My friends, something is wrong with this damned Country and I mean in a big way. I predict that 30 years from now, if the socialists continue the way they are going — people will be saying that America actually deserved the 9/11 attacks and that White Christians were the true cause of those attacks. Oh wait, they already do. 😡 I’m sorry, but this one gets me fighting mad. 😡 😡 😡
To which one can only reply, “Why the hell didn’t you do it?
Talk is cheap. If Pelosi’s Congress had actually pursued charges against the very real criminality in the Bush White House and had Rove’s pudgy ass frogmarched down Capitol Hill, it might have made the thieves and scoundrels think twice before embarking on their next caper. And even if it didn’t stop the GOPers, it would have at least made clear Democrats were as willing to fight as hard against the GOP agenda as the left did to put them into a majority.
That they didn’t is at least partly why they’re struggling right now to recapture the enthusiasm of the base.
I have to give the woman credit, when she is right — she is right. The no-nothing Democrats, during Bush’s term is why there was a good deal of lackluster support of the Democrats, during the era of Bush. This is why Obama shot forward, because the Democrats knew that if they did not pick someone like Obama, that they would lose to the Republican again in another election. This is sort of the problem that they have right now; just like during the Clinton era — their President is in trouble and the bench is empty. Except, back then they did have Gore, and Edwards and Hillary and Kerry. Now…. they have nobody at all.
It should be a lesson to them, overreach, when it suits your own political interests is never, ever a good idea. Yes, I know the Republicans have done it too and they paid for it in elections too. Now, it is the Democrats turn. I predict that this election coming in 2012 is going to be a wake up call for the Progressive community and to the Democratic Party. They are going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of that party. Because America is not happy with them, neither is their base. The old way of doing things in that Party is not going to work anymore. They need new ideas. The Democratic Party needs to come back to center and start over. This far-leftist way of doing things as failed and failed badly.
It is time for that party to change, and quickly, before that party is relegated to the dustbin of history.
I was going to try avoid writing about this, but I am seeing some rather silly stuff being written about this win; So, I thought I would offer my thoughts as a former Democratic Party voter. Update:Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post hits the post a bit, but fails, as most progressives do; to see the full picture.
Putting it plain and simple, The Democrats in Wisconsin picked a fight that they could not win. — They were outspent, out-organized, and out-boxed; the Democrats had zero chance of winning this recall election at all. But yet, they still decided to fight for a recall election. They should have taken their cues from Michigan and left well enough alone. The Democrats in Michigan tried unsuccessfully to get Governor Snyder recalled here twice and both times they failed horribly. This is because residents of Michigan knew that the former Governor of Michigan was a incompetent moron who could not Govern worth a damn and they did not want a Democrat back in office again. Thus, the Democrats wisely dropped the issue and decided to try and win the 2012 election. Wisconsin should have followed their lead, but they did not and decided to try and force their hand and failed.
Walker crushed his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in the political money wars. The governor raised $30.5 million while Barrett pulled in $3.9 million—a nearly 8-to-1 advantage in candidate fundraising. Walker banked on in- and out-of-state donors, including heavyweight GOP contributors such as Houston homebuilder Bob Perry and Amway heir Dick Devos. Walker was able to raise so much money because of a quirk in state law that lets candidates potentially facing a recall raise unlimited funds for their defense. (The normal limit for individual donors in $10,000.) Barrett did not get to raise unlimited funds in his recall campaign—which placed him at a great disadvantage.
All that money helped Walker pound Barrett in the ad wars. An analysis by Hotline On Call found that Walker and his GOP allies outspent Barrett and his backers 3-to-1 on TV ad buys in the three months before Tuesday’s recall. The dark-money-peddling Republican Governors Association itself spent $9.4 million to keep Walker in office.
Just as the political money advantage proved crucial to labor’s win last year in repealing Ohio’s anti-union SB 5 law, campaign cash appears to have played a pivotal role in the GOP’s Wisconsin wins .
2) The Candidate
Filing nearly one million signatures to trigger a recall election, Democrats and union leaders and members had their sights trained on the governor. The recall election’s Democratic primary forced them to take their eyes off the prize. A primary fight between Barrett and former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk splintered the labor movement. The major unions endorsed Falk early on, sometimes over the opposition of their own rank-and-file. Several other unions held out until late March, when Barrett entered the race, and then endorsed the mayor. This primary drama knocked the anti-Walker effort off course for weeks, if not a month, in a race where every single day counts. It divided a unified movement into Barrett supporters and Falk supporters.
3) No New Ground
Democrats and labor unions touted their massive get-out-the-vote operation, which was supposed to tip the scales in their favor. Turn-out was way up in the elections, at 2.4 million, but the left failed to win over the types of people who elected Walker in 2010. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnotes, Walker’s Tuesday win is a mirror image of his 2010 victory—just with more voters. He won men and lost women; won independents and lost moderates; and won suburban and rural voters but not urban voters.
More notably, Walker won 38 percent of votes from union households—an increase of 1 percent from 2010. Remember, union members or their spouses didn’t know in 2012 that Walker planned to target them after the election with his anti-union “budget repair” bill curbing collective bargaining rights. Yet 16 months after Walker launched his attack on unions, just as many people in union households voted for him. The unions failed to rally their own ranks.
My thoughts on the Unions — One of the main reasons why the unions failed; not because of a lack of members or money. The unions failed because for the following:
They over played their hand, by storming the capital building and occupying it. This made them look like total buffoons in the eyes of the people, not mention the heavy handed tactics that were on par with communist gulags.
The second reason is a rather simple one; not all union members are on board with the progressive movement, just because someone has a union card, does not necessarily make him a Democrat. Some union members are free thinkers and some of them resent being culled in together with the socialist crowd.
The last reason is this; some union members are just not happy with the Democratic Party and with Obama. I believe Obama fatigue played a big part in the loss in Wisconsin. I believe it will also play out in November as well.
Needless to say, Scott Walker won big and the Unions and Democrats lost big. The results of this will be far-reaching and the Democrats in Wisconsin would be wise to lay low and try to hang on in 2012. But if they do not, they should learn the lessons of the massive over-reach that took place in Wisconsin and with the Democratic Party as a whole. However, knowing Democrats like I do; they will not learn a thing from this.
If I ever had the chance to meet this young man, I would thank him for his bravery. This man gets it, and he sees that the Democratic Party is totally broken. I saw it in 2007 and decided that I just could not support them any longer. This was way before the huge economic melt down of 2008. After that, the deal was sealed for me. Never again would I vote for that party.
So, my hats off to this man for seeing that too:
And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.
But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.
I have to agree with the man; he is right. The Democratic Party used Barack Obama to get elected, because they had no one else. They threw off Clinton, because they chose identity politics over experience. You see, I remember 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Democratic Party used a elitist out of touch buffoon, who could not get elected Mayor of a City; much less a President. Al Gore might have been from the south, but he lacked Bill Clinton’s likeability. In 2004, The Democratic Party ran a out of touch, elitist, limousine Liberal who, again, was seen by most as stiff and not of the people. Which he really is not, John Kerry is an incredibly wealthy man.
So, in 2008, the Democratic Party basically had Clinton, Edwards, Biden and yes, Obama. There were people in the Democratic Party, who did not want the Clintons back in the White House at all. So, the party rallied behind Obama for a number of reasons. Yes, race was one of the bigger reasons. Also too, I tend to believe that there were people, who Clinton “did dirty” back during his term in office and they wanted revenge; and revenge they got.
It was with the election of President Barack Obama that the Democratic Party went from being a party of the “New Left” to being a party of the “Neo-Left.” That was the whole changing of the guard within the Party. Saul Alinsky’s dream was finally realized. This is the change that Artur Davis is referring to and it is one that is only going to drive more and more people away from the Democratic Party and I do not mean just white people. Minorities, including blacks, are going to wake up and see that they being played like fiddles in that party. The quicker the better, if you ask me.
All what I wrote above, Reagan knew, long ago — he saw the changes that were happening behind the scenes and promptly changed his political stance. Mainly because he saw what was coming down the pike. Reagan saw that the Communists were changing tactics and embracing “social justice” as opposed to party loyalty. So, he left and embraced his Midwestern upbringing. The truth is Reagan did not change; The Democratic Party changed and they have since gotten totally worse.
Again, Kudos to Mr. Davis and I hope he comes to embrace what he knows to be right.
Remember this idiot? Well, now that the heat is on him, he is apologizing for saying what he really feels.
On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word “hero” to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don’t think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I’ve set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.
As many have rightly pointed out, it’s very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation’s citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday’s show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.
But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don’t, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.
That is not an apology, sorry; that is a explanation and self-justification for what he said with a “Oh, by the way, I’m sorry if you didn’t like it.” Which is typical of the elitist limo liberals of his ilk. Screw them, screw them hard. 😡
This is unreal and it is the same person. Via Patterico:
This dude is obviously off his rocker. Accusing Michelle Malkin’s cousin of “offing herself” and Malkin of covering it up? How sick! 😡
Patrick Asks:
Two questions come to mind as you review these supremely creepy audio clips:
First: why did the caller make that call now? What does he have to gain?
And second: why did Erick Erickson get swatted last night?
Good questions. Although I will say one thing. Glenn Beck warned us; for that, he was called crazy by the left and by some on the establishment right. Andrew Breitbart warned us too. That this sort of stuff was coming and some dismissed it as fear-mongering. It is not. This is what happens when the left begins to lose the war of ideas; this is what happens when leftist fascists see that they have lost control of the conversation. This is what happens, when Liberals see their President weakened and losing the election. They stoop to this sort of a level.
My advice is simple. Girt your loins, arm yourselves. Prepare for the worst. Keep your faith; if you are truly saved and washed in the Blood of Christ Jesus the Lord. The Devil and his minions on the left cannot destroy you, unless God gives them permission. Let me assure you, that if the Lord continues to tarry, this will only get worse. The left knows no honor any longer and they will stop at nothing to destroy those who disagree with them. As the Christians who were fed to the lions and destroyed; we are standing for that which we know is right. The blessings will come in the life to come.
It is scary, I will admit that, but we must not fear them; that is what they want. They want to silence the right, they want to see the Conservative/libertarian opinions silenced; they want control — just like Al-Qaeda did in 2001. We must not allow that to happen. We are Americans, we have looked in the face of tyranny before and said, “This shall not stand!” We did this in 1941, we did this in 2001 and we can and will do it again. We have the truth, we have the facts and we are right; and they are wrong. We will not submit to their fear.
Back before I ran my old blog, which was called “Political Byline”; I used to run a blog called “The Populist.” Well, that blog was hacked, either by some people, who call themselves Conservatives or by foreign entities. I suspect the former, but I tend to think it was the latter. Either way, by the time all that happened; I had become totally disillusioned with the Democratic Party. To be fair to myself; I never much did care for the Democratic Party establishment, this especially after the idiotic Clinton Administration’s nonsense. especially during his second term. Plus, as a Christian; I had not forgotten about the Waco incident.
Anyhow, one of reasons for this disillusionment was the Democrat Party’s treatment of our Military. It has been tepid at best. Proof of this, can be seen right here: (H/T NewsBusters)
Quoting this tool:
CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that’ll be happening tomorrow. Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible]. Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word “hero”? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
I don’t write this to trash Chris Hayes, but to pose a question to the Conservative Democrats that actually read this blog and yes, I happen to know that a few of you that do, in fact, read here. Could you imagine a Democrat President giving a speech like this here?:
Not only can I not see a Democratic Party President giving a speech like this; but I would tend to believe that FDR would be chased out of the Democratic Party as a warmonger today! This is my issue with the modern-day Democratic Party; it is as if they are “Brothers-in-arms” with those who crashed those planes into the trade center buildings in 2001. The Liberal Democrats in this country have the attitude that the United States of America is the “great capitalist Satan” of the world and somehow or another deserved the attacks on 9/11. Who else has this attitude about America? oh yes! It is the Islāmic terrorists!
This is the reason Chris Hayes cannot call our Military dead Heroic men and women. Because it goes against his entire leftist DNA. Because the left hates our Military, hates the values that our Military stands for and quite frankly hates this Country for what it truly is.
That is the Democratic Party of the 21 century and I want zero to do with it, at all. 😡
The really sad thing is; is that Ron Paul and most, if not all, of the Paleo-Conservative right agree with this guy and his furry Progressive friends. Which is why Ron Paul never, ever be President of the United States. Ron Paul and the Paleoconservatives want to take us back to prior to World War 2 and leave the Jews to Hitler and put the WASP’s back in charge. Sorry guys, we lost that battle. We have to come to the 21 century. The quicker the better, I say.
Update:This liberal blogger comes right out and says it. Hey, at least he is honest about it. Although, I tend to suspect that the irony of what he wrote is lost on him. It is because of the deaths of soldiers past; on battlefields domestic and abroad, he is free to even write that sort of tripe. Again, just another perfect example of why I told the Democratic Party to piss off and voted my principles — and no, I do not mean Republican either. Hell, the Republican Party has not been a true, small Government Conservative Party since Reagan left office and the Neoconservatives took power. Even Reagan was not truly a small Government Conservative either. He believed in small Government; when it was convenient.
First off, let me say this; I do not believe that the Tea Party movement itself was racist at all. In fact, it never was a centralized movement. In most movements, like the Tea Party movement; there will be people who do things that do not represent the movement as a whole.
A quick search of Google Images brings up quite a few racist signs and images:
and this is not racist Michelle? (even though it is misspelled...)And this is not racist?
Here is the one that really bothered me, and this dude ended up in jail for this too:
A "Death to Obama" sign... But, that's not racist, so says Michelle Malkin
Nope, No racism here! Only thing missing here is the N-word and that makes okay, according to Michelle Malkin
This image was used on signs and passed around in e-mails, by Tea Party supporters. (I know, I used to see it on facebook and in e-mails I would get from other Tea Party supporters. That until I told the idiots to quit sending me racist crap like that….)
But this is not racist according to Michelle Malkin (Willful blindness much Michelle?)
Again, let me be clear; I am not calling the entire Tea Party movement racist as a whole, that is collectivism and this blogger is not a collectivist. In other words, I do not dismiss the movement in it’s entirety, as racist; but I will say that there were people who were carrying racist signs, not to mention doing stuff like this:
This is Chris Broughton, and yes, he is black, and he is a Ron Paul fan and yes, he was carry an assault rifle at a Obama event. My question is why? I think I know the reason and I think you do too. But, the Tea Party is just peaceful people... Most of them anyhow...
My point to this posting is this; The OWS crowd are a violent group and yes it does include anarchists, who do try and blow up bridges. However, the Tea Party is not without its own individual nuts and looney tunes, who did bring a tarnish to the good name of the Party. Not to mention all of the infighting that went on with various groups.
However, my more intellectual point is this; to what end was all of this even done? I mean, the Republican Party did not change one wit. Oh sure, there were a few Senators who were elected as result of the grassroots surge. However, the Republican Party’s coronation of a Mormon George W. Bush is telling; and let me tell you something, if you think for one second that Mitt Romney is going to rip out Obamacare, you are crazy. Oh sure, he will remove the mandate and anything else that seems to infringe on basic American rights. However, I do not believe that he will remove the entire package.
Which makes me have to really wonder aloud, what exactly did the Tea Party accomplish; outside of the rhetorical flourishes? Absolutely nothing. Government is still there and it is still imposing upon our basic human rights. All of those borderline racist signs, all of the verbal clashes, all of the excitement were for naught.
This was not to hurt Michelle Malkin herself; but it was to point out the Republican/Conservative/Fox News/Sean Hannity right’s willful blindness to the racism of the Tea Party — which was, and is still there very much so, to this very day.
Egypt’s National Council for Women is campaigning against the changes, saying that ‘marginalising and undermining the status of women would negatively affect the country’s human development’.
Dr Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, wrote to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker Dr Saad al-Katatni addressing her concerns.
Egyptian journalist Amro Abdul Samea reported in the al-Ahram newspaper that Talawi complained about the legislations which are being introduced under ‘alleged religious interpretations’.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
