Case Study Example of living in absolute denial

Via The Swamp:

President Bush has fessed up some of his mistakes, several in fact, in his final press conference.

But Vice President Dick Cheney is sticking to his story: The only mistake he can think of, in an interview airing on PBS this evening, was his “underestimating” the difficulty of standing up a new government in Iraq.

Bush, in his confessional presser, joked that the press corps had sometimes “mis-underestimated” him.

But Cheney isn’t one for confessionals. Cheney, asked by anchor Jim Lehrer of the Newshour if the Iraq war has been worth the 4,500 Americans lost in the effort, says:

“I think so.”

That’s one of those lines he might have preferred rehearsing – a mistake perhaps. He explains his answer, however: “Given the track record of Saddam Hussein, I think we did exactly the right thing. I think the country is better off for it today.”

When Lehrer asks Cheney about being the most powerful vice president in one of the most failing presidencies ever, Cheney says, “I don’t buy that.”

What doesn’t he buy? The failed presidency.  – Read the rest

It is that blind arrogance that I and many other Independent Conservatives have a serious problem with.  It’s that whole Nixonian attitude of “I am right and screw you”; is what will be a black mark on the history of America. I, for one, am extremely happy that this Administration’s tenure is over.

I was not very thrilled about Barack Obama being elected President, but anything is better, than that type of blind arrogance. It will be a welcome relief to have a President that will admit when he makes a serious mistake. The problem is that the realization that Bush’s style of leadership was not the right way to go, may have come too late for the Republican Party. Obama’s election was not a endorsement of Liberalism, it was a denunciation of the Neo-Conservative arrogance and Bush Doctrine style of rule.

The real question people should be asking is……

Why are Conservatives even wanting to dine with Obama?

Jonathan Chait opines as to why Liberals aren’t flipping out about the dinner date last night:

I actually don’t find it terribly surprising that liberals haven’t shown any outrage over Barack Obama’s dinner party with George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks. I’ll get to my hypothesis why liberals aren’t upset in a moment. But first imagine this counterfactual: George W. Bush (or maybe a victorious John McCain) sat down before his first inauguration with Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne, and Frank Foer. Would conservatives have reacted with the same equanimity? No, I think they’d have gone nuts. And the reason is that they wouldn’t have confidence in Bush or McCain to be surrounded by liberal ideas without being deeply influenced by them. I don’t think they’d have reacted this way if, say, a President Mitt Romney did the same thing.

And that’s why liberals aren’t having a cow. They know that Obama understands far more about policy than any of his right-wing dinner companions, is used to being exposed to opposing ideas, and won’t come out of that dinner telling his staff, “Hey, did you know we cut half the capital gains tax and raise more revenue?”

A separate issue is why Obama didn’t pick some conservatives with a bit more intellectual integrity than, say, Kristol and Krauthammer. The problem, of course, is conservatives like that tend not to rise to positions of high influence.

As for his question, except for the idiot line at the end about high influence, I pretty much agree.

However, I feel, as a Paleo-Conservative, that the difference between a Democrat and a Neo-Conservative is about hair’s breadth. This is the reason for the Neo-Con’s relationship with Hillary. I mean, they all but sucked up to her.

Perhaps the Neo-Conservatives are trying to suck up, in order to save face in 2010 and 2012.

You notice though that on that guest list, Pat Buchanan or anyone from “The American Conservative” or “Reason” magazine was not there? Just Neo-Conservative talking heads.

It’s going to be a long four to eight years.

Update – Related Video: (H/T to AP)

Exit Comment/Question: I wonder if the Liberal watchdogs will make a big deal about the basketball playing comment? She was being funny, but it was a bit mean. I was shocked she said it. 😮

Others: The Daily Dish, Kevin Drum and Washington Monthly (Via Memeorandum)

BlogAds is an Anti-Conservative Owned Business

I haven’t had a good fight in a while, so, I decided to bring something up on this Blog.

Many of you know, that I use BlogAds on this Blog for Advertising. You’ll also notice that not many people have used the service for their advertising needs. I think I might have an idea why.

I was nosing around over on the official BlogsAds Blog and quite frankly, I was quite horrified to what is on that “Company Blog“. There is a great deal of Anti-Conservative, Pro-Obama screed over their Blog.

You can see examples of what I am referring to by going Here, Here, Here and Here.

What I find utterly amazing is the fact that Conservatives even use this service at all. I mean, I am part of the Conservative Hive on BlogAds.

My question is this, how is it, that Conservatives are using a Blog Advertising service who’s owner, (I presume that is who wrote those entries) partakes in the bashing the Republican Party and Conservative values in General?

Quite frankly, I’m sickened by what I read over on that Blog, the owner of BlogAds ought to ashamed of himself and should either remove the postings of Political Nature or close the business down, or at best only accept Liberal Advertising, because quite frankly, taking the money of Conservatives and bashing them on a Company website or Blog is totally hypocritical in this writers opinion.

I am almost sure that the owner of Blogads will most likely delete my account, as a result of bringing this to light. I am sure I will see an e-mail shortly tell me to get lost. But I will not pull this entry. Business owners who partake in this sort of Anti-Conservative rhetoric ought to be exposed and ran out of business.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Guest Voice: An Unreflective Man By Patrick J. Buchanan

An Unreflective Man
By Patrick J. Buchanan
January 13, 2009

With his public approval where Harry Truman’s stood when he left office, George W. Bush gave his last press conference yesterday.

And like that predecessor he often identifies with, Bush showed a Trumanesque defiance of his critics — and a Trumanesque failure to understand what ruined his presidency.

He denounced protectionism, as he has with dismissive contempt since he went to New Hampshire a decade ago. But nowhere in his defense of free trade was there any explanation for how Middle America lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in his first term and a million more in the last year.

Nowhere does there seem an awareness that the ideas he absorbed at his father’s knee and the Harvard Business School had resulted in the de-industrialization of his country, an enormous and growing dependency on Japan, China and Asia for the essentials of our national life, and, now, for the borrowed money to pay for them.

Someone once defined tragedy as what happens when a beautiful theory collides with a fact. And this is what has happened every time a great empire — be it the Spanish, British or American — embraced free trade as its salvation.

President Bush says it was freedom that prevailed when he rejected the pleas of weak-sister Republicans and backed the surge. But what spared us a debacle in Iraq was an infusion of 30,000 combat troops, an uprising against the murderers of al-Qaida and a U.S. decision to buy off the Sunni tribes, a strategy besieged empires have pursued for centuries.

Nor does there appear in Bush’s self-assurance any awareness of the cost of his Freedom Agenda. In Iraq, it is 4,000 U.S. dead, 30,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, millions of refugees, a pogrom against an ancient Christian community, and a strategic victory for Iran and its Shia allies across the Middle East. When last heard from, the Ayatollah Sistani — the chief Shia cleric in  Iraq, who has welcomed Iranian but not American visitors — was calling for Muslims to stand up against Israeli criminality in Gaza.

Like Woodrow Wilson before him, Bush appears to believe that the nobility of his goals — expanding freedom and bringing an end to tyranny in our world — validates and will sanctify his decisions.

Like Wilson, he is a utopian. He fails to understand that idealism has its delusions and disasters.

The war Wilson led us into “to make the world safe for democracy” gave us Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and 70 years of the most barbaric empire in all history. The peace Wilson brought home led straight to Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich and a second world war far worse than the first.

The West’s road to hell has been paved with good intentions.

President Bush rightly denounces Europeans who see Israel as always wrong. Yet he behaves as though Israel can do no wrong. Sixteen days into the Gaza war, with the Palestinian dead and wounded near 5,000, and a humanitarian catastrophe at hand, has our “compassionate conservative” president uttered one word of compassion for those whose losses outnumber the Israelis’ 100 to one?

In defending his rejected immigration reform, President Bush clearly sees himself as in the vanguard of decency, and admonishes his party against being perceived as anti-immigrant.

But is this president oblivious to what is happening in his country  because of his and his father’s failure to secure the border? Even in rich, liberal Montgomery County, Md., one reads over the weekend that there is a hardening of attitudes toward illegal immigration after a spate of crimes and killings. Working-class Americans pay the price of the idealism around the dinner table at the Crawford ranch.

In his first five years, Bush himself has admitted, 6 million aliens were arrested at the border, breaking into this country. One in 12 — 500,000 — had criminal records. Is it anti-immigrant to demand a halt to this invasion, even if it means troops on the border? Is it truly compassionate, or an act of cravenness, to insist that the answer is amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegals and absolution for the businesses that hired them?

Choleric and cocky Harry Truman may be Bush’s role model. But it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who had to clean up the mess Harry left behind.

Six months into office, Ike had ended the Korean War. He had the courage no president has since shown to tell the Israelis they must get off occupied land. They did.

While surely repelled by Nikita Khrushchev, especially for the Hungarian bloodbath of 1956, Ike had him up to Camp David in 1959 because, wicked as the Bolsheviks were, they had nuclear weapons, and one must talk to them.

Prudence is the mark of the true conservative. Ike and RonaldReagan had it. Neither Bush nor Truman did. And that is why the former left the country so much better off than did the latter.

Goodbye, Mr. President, and God bless.

Original Article here

Pat Buchanan’s Website

Obama to close Gitmo?

Will someone please tell Barry to make up his flippin’ mind already?

Via the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

That executive order is expected during Obama’s first week on the job — and possibly on his first day, according to two transition team advisers. Both spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Obama’s order will direct his administration to figure out what to do with the estimated 250 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects and potential witnesses who are being held at Guantanamo.

It’s still unlikely the prison would be closed any time soon. Obama last weekend said it would be “a challenge” to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration.

I guess this might have been due to the pushback he got from the statement on the weekend. Either way, it’s a stupid idea. But then again, we are dealing with Liberals here. 🙄

Others: Riehl World View, Macsmind, Macsmind (Via Memeorandum)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck goes to the White House

This is kind of a cool story.

Video #1 (via Breit Bart)

…and here is Hasselbeck on “The View” talking about her experience: (Via ABC News’s Political Radar)

Exit Question: Will people like her be Welcomed like this in a Obama White House?

One Tough Lady!

Bravo to the fine lady here!

The Video via Breit Bart:

Back story via WBST-TV:

SOUTH BEND — A 70-year-old woman remained hospitalized Monday evening following a harrowing sequence of events that included her holding at gunpoint a man who crashed through her living room window.

“I’m feeling better than I did yesterday,” Sandra, who asked that her last name not be used, said from her room at Memorial Hospital, where doctors were treating her for chest pains. “My heart didn’t react too well to this.”

Sandra, who lives on Portage Road just south of Auten Road in northern St. Joseph County, said she was fetching wood from her garage about 9 p.m. Sunday when she heard what sounded like several people fighting in the street.

“I had put wood for the fireplace in the wheelbarrow and was coming in when I heard a lot of shouting and loud voices,” she said. “I looked over into the road to see what was going on, and about that time a guy comes running around the house.”

Sandra said she ran inside and locked the door behind her. She then grabbed her gun and dialed 911, she said.

All the while, the man circled the house, she said, pounding on all of the windows. When he reached the living room window, he crashed through, taking out the television and landing on the floor.

In the 911 tape released by St. Joseph County police, Sandra screams and then yells at the man, “You stay right where you’re at.”

After telling the dispatcher what had happened, Sandra said she dropped the phone and confronted the man. She trained the gun on him, she said, and told him not to move. He took a step forward, she said, and she issued a final warning: “If you come any closer, you’re going to be dead.”

She then told him to lie on the floor and he complied.

“He was begging for his life,” she said. “He just collapsed on the floor and went into the fetal position.

I have to hand it to this lady here, she showed no fear and used her Consitutional right to defend herself. Good on her! Wish there were more like her! 😀

Of course the far lefty liberals would call her a hater and would want to take her guns. Obama will see to that.  😡

The Painfully Obligatory, Cat in the Hen House sounding, Ann Coulter does The View video posting (Whew!)

I’m posting this, because it will most likely get me hits here. (I’m such a Blog hit whore)

I haven’t watched this, except for the excerpt on Keith’s show earlier. I couldn’t bear it, nothing annoys me more than listening to a bunch of harpy broads arguing. (Don’t look at me like that, you know I am damned right. (About the broads, not my politics…) )

Anyhow, Here you are:

Here is my offical Political Byline political opinion on Coulter doing “The View”:

Ann Coulter going on The View to pimp her book, makes about as much sense as a cat going into a pen of Pitbulls and expecting an audience. I mean, the pitbull’s don’t give a crap about what that cat is going to say, they just want to eat him for lunch! Likewise, Coulter going on “The View” is about as dumb; those women do not give a crap about what Ann Coulter thinks, they just wanted to jump her butt because she’s a lightening rod Conservative harpy.

I can understand the desire to sell her book, but cripes does she have to run in front of a damned amtrack to do so?

….and in a blatant attempt at bastardy Capitalism, here’s Ann’s book via Amazon:

(H/T HotAir)