August 22, 2005
Dems Imploding
The head of the DMC (Democratic Moonbat Council), Markos "Screw 'em" Zuniga (no relation to Daphne Zuniga of Spaceballs fame), has had a long running feud with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) for control of the Party. The DLC is made up of the relatively normal Democrats (which propelled Bill Clinton to the Presidency), pitted against the Kosbat/Dean/Boxer/Kennedy/Pelosi et al style Dems. Now, according to Kosbat, something big is going to go down in two weeks:
My draft version of this post included a whole refutation of Marshall's aargument, but really, it's all irrelevant. Ultimately, this is the modern DLC -- an aider and abettor of Right-wing smear attacks against Democrats. They make the same arguments, use the same language, and revel in their attacks on those elements of the Democratic Party that seem to cause them no small embarrassment.
Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.
No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).
We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.
This long running feud isn't as innocuous as some of the boneheads, like Chuck Hagel, or wishy washy folks like John McCain, who mess up the GOP. This is a feud that could tear the Democratic Party assunder. The nuttier ones in the Dem Party are the ones who are more often seen, rather then the more moderate (and sane) ones. Gonna be a good show! Stay tuned.
Read more at Ankle Biting Pundits. I saw the Kosbat post this am, but bulldogpundit beat me too it.
Cross posted at the Pirate's Cove.
Posted by William Teach at 08:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Radio Dhimmitude
So much for freedom of speech.
You may remember the story of radio talk show host Michael Graham, who was suspended from WMAL / ABC for what CAIR deemed "hate radio." This would be the same CAIR that even Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer--no right-wingers by any stretch of the imagination--have said that they have ties to terrorism, folks. CAIR isn't "moderate" or "peaceful" at all.
Michael Graham said nothing different from what countless Islamic clerics and scholars have said in DEFENSE of their own religion, in saying that Islam compels its believers to violence. Period. CAIR doesn't want you to know this though; it's OK for Muslims to say such things, but when "infidels" are the intended audience it's suddenly a problem. (They don't want to look like the head-choppers who will TELL you infidels the same thing, after all.)
Here's what he said, which is merely acknowledgement of what radical Islamists already know:
“Because of the mix of Islamic theology that—rightly or wrongly—is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn’t have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don’t support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion.”
Well, now WMAL has ended Graham's suspension--because they've FIRED him.
This must be a very proud moment for CAIR and terror sympathizers everywhere; they got one guy who's telling the truth, now they must surely feel empowered in silencing others.
What's the matter, Randall Bloomquist, Ernie Fears, and Chris Berry? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
YOU, Chris Berry--you said in email that "the buck stops" with you. chris.j.berry@abc.com
You, WMAL, you succumbed to the pressure of those with known ties to terror. You have that right, but we also have the right to not support you, and we have the right to appeal to your advertisers just as CAIR threatened.
Reader Paul has been emailing Berry, Bloomquist, and Fears, and has forwarded me their lame responses:
From: Bloomquist, Randall [mailto:Randall.Bloomquist@abc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 9:54
To: [xxxxxx] Paul
Subject: RE: Change of heart?Well, as of right now he is still part of the station. So, we continue to promote him as a team member. Still hoping to hear good news in the near future.
Note in this one from Berry, he says going to their advertisers would be a bad idea, while at the same time mentioning how successful CAIR's campaign has been doing just that:
From: Berry, Chris J [mailto:Chris.J.Berry@abc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 9:58
To: [xxxxxx] Paul R
Subject: RE: Lack of honesty at WMAL?
Dear Mr. [xxxxxx],Thank you for your email, comments and heartfelt support for Michael Graham.
As a United States Marine you have no doubt been faced with many difficult challenges - and perhaps difficult decisions. I suspect that you may have even been questioned about your decisions by those who might not have all of the facts.
I know that Michael appreciates your support, however I must tell you that boycotting his advertisers may have exactly the opposite effect that you have intended.
Many of the advertisers with whom I have spoken have criticized the actions of those who have tried to pressure them into changing their long standing relationship with WMAL. Most realize that their association with the station is bigger than any one broadcaster or program. By threatening boycotts, etc some advertisers have actually responded that while they will continue to advertise on WMAL they no longer want to advertise on "The Michael Graham Show". Clearly I am concerned about the economic impact that will have on Michael's assigned timeslot.
Rest assured that your message has been heard loud and clear, however in my opinion the contacting his advertisers will do more to harm Michael's reputation than you might realize.
I am truly sorry that you don't believe that I have the testicular fortitude to deal with organizations like CAIR. Although they may have claimed some sort of victory associated with Michael's suspension, that is not the case. I can assure you that I am taking this internal personal matter very seriously.
Sincerely,
Chris Berry
President, General Manager
News Talk 630 WMAL
What???
Here's a LAME email response (with emphasis mine) from radio show host Chris Core:
From: Cccore@aol.com [mailto:Cccore@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:20
To: [xxxxxx] Paul R
Subject: Re: Cowards and Appeasers at WMAL/ABCpaul...i would be happy to discuss this on air...but its the bosses call, not mine. i do not own the radio station. chris
------------
Chris
soldier on.....carrying on the status quo you mean.
Perhaps you should MARINE on! Fight the good fight, engage in a little personal risk and discomfort.
Are you willing to talk about this?
Or are you wanting me to bend to "other topics" that are safer?Paul [xxxxxx]
-----Original Message-----
From: Cccore@aol.com [mailto:Cccore@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:41
To: [xxxxxx] Paul R
Subject: Re: Cowards and Appeasers at WMAL/ABCi have written this message to all the e-mails about michael. i honestly do not know much more about the situation than you. i have not been in to work yet to find out details. michael and i share an office and have been friends. i have worked at wmal for nearly 31 years. its a huge part of my life. i don't enjoy anything that causes hard feelings against my radio station. all i can do is soldier on on air as i have for three decades. hope to talk to you at six. chris core
OK, so the bosses make the call about what's discussed? Am I to then infer that "the bosses" made the call for Michael Graham to discuss the problems with Islam? I seriously doubt it, if they're firing him for it.
Here are some advertisers you can contact, just culled from the WMAL website:
Cabinet Discounters: info@cabinetdiscounters.com
Moore Hummer: Contact form, phone 1-800-552-0915
Safford Lincoln Mercury: rick@saffordLM.com
And a contact courtesy of CAIR:
Mr. Dan Testa
President TCI - Telcept Holdings, LCC
5554 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22151
TEL (703) 321-3030, 1-800-824-1001
Fax: (703) 321-5046
E-Mail: testad@tcicomm.com, routhierd@tcicomm.com, tcimail@tcicomm.com
And finally, thanks to Free Republic, a big list:
E-MAIL: testad@tcicomm.com, routhierd@tcicomm.com, tcimail@tcicomm.com, sales@pohankalexus.dealerspace.com, mandelle@pepperlaw.com, bbroullire@comcastsportsnet.com, jcreech@melwood.com, fedgov@1igsi.com, info@fairoakschurch.org, admissions@regent.edu, emba.coordinator@business.wm.edu, combsa@fmmc.army.mil, redelman@ricedelman.com, rmalone@fbw.com, cbraudis@mutualfundstore.com, trock@erols.com, crricchi@aol.com, chef47@msn.com, fodebbie@aol.com, midatlantic@basements.com, Roofdog@aol.com, sales@solatubeskylight.com, sales@sjroof.com, info@heartcheck.com, tony1winkler@yahoo.com, pumphrey@pumphreyfh.com, sfrazier@bgf.org, bill@1031.us, StewartTeam@PointingYouHome.com, info@annhand.com, cuttingedgekiosks@yahoo.com, pottenritter@jordankitts.com, jmack@gutterhelmetsystems.com, vabeach@procraftcoatings.com, info@thompsoncreek.com, smiles@bethesdasedationdentistry.com, info@theeyecenter.com, jay@rosenbergmedia.com, customerservice@tni.com, info@tonyandjoes.com, pr@1800gotjunk.com, gloriag@manorworks.com, fodebbie@aol.com, suggestions@merrifieldgardencenter.com, schapman@offenbachers.com, info@regionalpestmanagement.com, info@cabinetdiscounters.com, info@getstyle.com, etessel@croppmetcalfe.com, out2dry@nomorewater.com, jwingert@alexandriabuickpontiacgmc.com, mcarroll@brownscar.com, ernie@smithgifford.com, ehill@cherner.com, gsm@cowlesford.com, jeffdoughty@moorecadillac.com, elliot@roiadvertising.com, wanda@radialtire.com
Michael Graham's statement on the firing appears below.
WELL, THEY GOT ME...The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, DC.
On July 25th, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that I be “punished” for my on-air statements regarding Islam and its tragic connections to terrorism. Three days later, 630 WMAL and ABC Radio suspended me without pay for comments deemed “hate radio” by CAIR.
CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired. ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed “offensive,” and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as “additional outreach efforts” to those people or groups who felt offended.
I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired.
It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn’t specifically condemn Al Qaeda for three months after 9/11.
As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure is a disaster.
I for one cannnot apologize for the truth and I cannot agree to some community-service style “outreach effort” to appease the opponents of free speech.
If I had made a racist or bigoted comment -- which my regular listeners know goes against everything I believe in -- I would apologize immediately, and without coercion. When I have made inadvertent fact errors in the past, I apologized promptly and without hesitation.
But we have now gone far beyond that, with demands that I apologize for the ideas my listeners and I believe in. It is not a coincidence that, after my suspension on July 28th, WMAL received more than 15,000 phone calls and emails protesting my removal from the airwaves.
Why such a huge response? It wasn't about me; The listeners I spoke to said they felt betrayed by my suspension because the vast majority of them agree with me on the subject of Islam. By labeling my statements as unacceptable, these listeners felt that WMAL management was insulting them, too.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I care about the listeners of 630 WMAL. I respect them and I appreciate the amazing support they have given me.
I could not dishonor their principled support for free speech by giving into these demands. I cannot join ABC Radio in bowing to CAIR’s wishes. And I will not apologize for my opinions or retract the truth.
The whole point of the Michael Graham Show is what my listeners and I call the “natural truth,” those obvious facts about modern life that the p.c. police and mainstream media believe should never be discussed. That includes the tragic, but undeniable relationship between terrorism and Islam as it is constituted today.
The conversations my listeners and I had on this subject were not offensive or bigoted in the least. In fact, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR (who has appeared on my show several times) credited “criticism from talk radio” in part for the recent fatwa against terrorism issued by a group of US Muslim scholars. Ironically, it was issued the day before I was suspended.
That’s the real tragedy here. The people who most need free speech and open dialogue on the issues facing Islam today are America's moderate Muslims. These are people of good will who have the difficult job ahead of reforming and rescuing their religion. They need all the help they can get.
The decision to give CAIR what it wants—a group with well-publicized ties to terrorists and terror-related organizations--will make it harder for the reformers to successfully face Islam's challenges. Still worse, silencing people like me will make it easier for Islamist extremists to dismiss all sincere calls for reform as mere "bigotry."
When CAIR is able to quell dissent and label every critic a "bigot," the chilling effect is felt far beyond ABC Radio and 630 WMAL. If anyone is owed an apology, it is the moderate, Muslim community who have been failed once again by the mainstream media.
A VERY SPECIAL NOTE TO EVERYONE WHO EMAILED AND CALLED ON MY BEHALF: Again and again through this ordeal, as people pressured me to just give in, say what CAIR wanted to hear and get my job back, I thought of you. I cannot express how much your support meant to me. I don't know that I'm doing the right thing by fighting this fight. I only know that I believe it's the right thing, and I believe it with all my heart.
Your support, your words of encouragement, your anger that the forces of p.c. fear have this much power--these all helped me do what I needed to do. Thank you.
In the coming days, I hope I'll have some good news for you about how we can continue our conversation. So please stay tuned, please stop by here each day and check it.
Trust me, this isn't the last you've heard from me.
MICHAEL, ARE YOU *SURE* YOU'VE BEEN FIRED? I've had several people tell me that ABC Radio says I'm not really fired, that I have "chosen" not to go back to work. I don't know what to say to that except that I received a hand-delivered letter very late Friday announcing that I was "terminated immediately." If there is some other definition of that other than "you're fired," I am not familiar with it.
Posted by Beth at 07:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 15, 2005
What's the Exit Strategy, Part Duex
The other day I was wondering about exit strategies, and mentioned Kosovo. You remember Kosovo, that little war that Clinton got the US involved in for humanitarian reasons. A confilct that had absolutely zero effect on the security of the United States. We heard about all the human rights atrocities and genocide (which were well overblown), but, really had nothing to do with the US, so Bill handed our troops over to the UN for a "peacekeeping" mission. Weren't we only supposed to be there one year?
Meanwhile, Kosovo is still having issues, and, yup, you guessed it, they involve Muslims
International intervention to halt the persecution of Christians in Kosovo is a "complete failure," according to past and present diplomats who briefed Capitol Hill staff late last week. They pointed to the destruction of 150 churches and the simultaneous construction of 200 mosques.Cybercast News Service obtained video of the burning and desecrating of the churches by ethnic Albanians, most of them Muslim.
The new mosques are funded by "Wahhabist nations," the diplomats said, raising the specter of radical Islam incubating on the doorstep of Europe in a province rife with illegal arms and narcotics trafficking.
The religious persecution also is part of a political strategy of violence, which -- if rewarded by granting independence to Kosovo -- could trigger similar violent secessionist movements throughout neighboring states and countries, they warned.
Unfolding events in Kosovo already have sent shock waves to as far away as China, which has now expressed concern to the U.S. over the possible copycat secession in its predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Province.
Obviously, we are involved in a quagmire in Kosovo. Why aren't we pulling our troops out of the UN run mission? We obviously cannot win. Kofi Annon has questions to answer. What's his exit strategy? Why has he allowed these religious desecrations to continue? When will we see Kosovo settle down? We have been there for 7 years, with little progress. The UN's presense is destabilizing the region, and even causing problems in China. It is time to rethink our presense in the UN led mission.
Just for reference, I supported the Kosovo mission, albeit without the UN running the show. The intelligence at the time, which was seriously flawed, reported mass genocide.
Furthermore, just to be clear, the paragraph beginning with "obviously" was pure sarcasm.
Posted by William Teach at 09:20 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 13, 2005
Favorite People on the Right
In case you've missed it...
John Hawkins has a list of "Favorite People On the Right," as determined by 52 bloggers. (Note that one of the requirements was that the people picked must still be alive--hence no Ronald Reagan.) Here were my picks, in no particular order (except for #1 and #2):
1. GEORGE W. BUSH
2. Senator George Allen
3. Condoleezza Rice
4. J.C. Watts
5. Ann Coulter (she was on the "least favorite" list, and I'm still annoyed about it)
6. Bill Kristol
7. Neil Cavuto (favorite news guy, by FAR, even though I knew he wouldn't make the final list)
8. Donald Rumsfeld
9. George H.W. Bush
10. Charles Krauthammer
11. Ret. General Tommy Franks (not sure if he really counts, but I don't care)
12. Karl Rove (yes, I'm die-hard and unapologetic)
And I'm such an idiot, I forgot CHENEY, duh! hahahahahaha
Seriously, I had a really hard time narrowing it down to only 12 (I could have just listed the whole Bush family, for that matter)...and I can't believe I spaced the freakin' Vice President. It was a very late-night email, though; that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. Bloggers were an option, too, but I didn't pick any because I hate playing favorites with blogs. I know who I would have picked, though. Hint: they're in my blogroll. :wink: I also didn't even list the one who hit #1, because I knew she'd be up there, anyway. Well-deserved, I might add.
By the way, and unsurprisingly, John McCain didn't make the list.
How ya like them apples, Lefty?
Who are your favorites?
[Cross posted from My VRWC]
Posted by Beth at 09:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Jody For President
Just to make sure Jody doesn't miss out on her chance
Get your position here
Via Super Beth and Wordpark
Posted by William Teach at 05:56 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What's the Exit Strategy?
Hmmm, some of the inmates at the Democratic Underground (why do I picture Morlock's from The Time Machine) are bringing up the old "what is our exit strategy" again. Sorry, no link, saw it last night, and I am not donating to get search ability.
What I want to know is, what is our exit strategy for Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all wars started under or by Demoratic Admins.
Also, how about that War on Poverty, started by LBJ? That one is working well, eh? Has anyone see that IBM commercial, there are a bunch of folks in midevil costumes, they are talking about building a catapult, and they were going to throw money at the enemy? Yup, Dems in a nutshell. They have thrown money at the "poverty problem" endlessly. You know, giving it away to people who have tv's, microwaves, $150 sneakers, homes, etc. When is their war going to end? I want to know what the plan is.
You want to win the "war on poverty?" Lower the taxes, put the Fair Tax Plan in place, do away with all the regulatory idiocy. That way, more business could start, and existing ones could pay their employees more, rather then spend the money on lawyers, tax pro's, and regulatory compliance. Also, teach people actual knowledge and skills, rather then leave them dependent on government handouts.
Of course, that would eliminate half the Dem base.
Posted by William Teach at 09:09 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
A Progressive Republican?
That is what Jeanine Pirro described herself as on Fox News this morning. I wondered what she was talking about. Now I know:
The challenger, who faces three conservative rivals for the Republican nomination to face Mrs. Clinton next year, also noted in her speech that she disagreed with Mr. Bush on abortion rights, which she favors. She called the president's limits on stem-cell research "wrong," and applauded the Republican majority leader in the Senate, Bill Frist of Tennessee, for breaking with Mr. Bush over the restrictions.She also said she favored renewing the assault weapons ban, promoting more immigration and working with a bipartisan group of senators to allow votes on some of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees - three positions with which some Republicans disagree.
"I'm Republican red on fiscal policy with conservative beliefs on making tax cuts permanent, but I've got broad blue stripes on the social issues that don't change based on the office I am running for," Ms. Pirro said.
Interesting. But, overall, still better for New York, and the country, then Hillary. A loss in the 2006 Senate race would put a serious crimp in Hillary's 2008 Presidential campaign. I am predicting a Pirro win by 2 percentage points.
But, the New York Times goes down a standard Leftist road, entitling the article "A Fierry But Rocky Start" on their homepage. They have subsequantly changed the article title on the article page within the last 1/2 hour, from when I first saw it. The first paragraph goes
Decrying Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's "empty promises," Jeanine F. Pirro got her 2006 Senate campaign off to a fiery but rocky start today, broadly attacking Mrs. Clinton in a speech but struggling with questions about abortion, taxes, Iraq and her husband.
First, they say this about her
Ms. Pirro appeared poised during her first interaction with reporters today, even during a 32-second pause, mid-speech, as she searched for a page of text. "Could I have Page 10?" she asked an aide, Michael McKeon, who provided the text and said later that she had been writing until the last minute and left that page in another room.
Gee, foul ups never happen, eh, Times? Jayson Blair. But the Grey Lady, who will certainly back Cankles, then takes shots at Ms. Pirro
But while Ms. Pirro kept her cool before reporters, she also seemed unprepared for some questions.There was nary a word from Ms. Pirro, at least voluntarily, about her husband, who looms like a specter over the campaign, and she sidestepped some questions about his role in her political future.(that's a question?)
At the news conference this morning, Ms. Pirro ignored a question about whether she would take money from her husband, who is also a prominent Republican donor, or allow him to raise money for her. Some political candidates rebuff donors with criminal records. Instead, she repeated earlier comments that only her name, and not Mr. Pirro's, would be on the ballot, and that she only had to make the case for herself, and not him, to voters. (and politicians never ignore questions, eh? Ask John Kerry, who ignored many regarding what his actual plans were)
Mr. McKeon also shrugged off the news media's interest in the lack of photos of Mr. Pirro among the 103 pictures on Ms. Pirro's Web site or mention of him in her campaign biography. He said Ms. Pirro had nothing to do with the Web site.(boy, that's a deep issue, huh?)
On policy issues, Ms. Pirro could not respond with specifics when a reporter asked how much money eliminating the estate tax and continuing the tax cuts would add to the federal budget deficit. (could the reporters?)
On Iraq, Ms. Pirro would not answer a question about troop withdrawal, saying that she would "leave that up to the experts" and that she lacked the information to say whether she would support sending more troops to Iraq if American generals requested them. She also hailed the "new democracies" in Iraq and Lebanon and emerging in Afghanistan; still, Lebanon has had open elections for decades. (doesn't seem like she had issues with that)
And so on, etc. Expect this to get even nastier towards Pirro from the Times and other left leaning parts of teh Excempt Media. Though I may not fully agree with some of Pirro's political stances, you have to love her spunk, and willingness to attack.
Pam at Atlas Shrugs has a great article regarding Pirro from yesterday.
Posted by William Teach at 06:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 07, 2005
A Question
Is this really "racist?"
"I just cannot watch this brand of baseball any longer," Krueger said. "A truly awful, pathetic, old team that only promises to be worse two years from now. It's just awful. It really is bad to watch. Brain-dead Caribbean hitters hacking at slop nightly."
Larry Krueger is a talk show host for KNBR, a flagship radio station for the San Fran evilGiants. Considering how few "Caribbean" born players the Giants have, my opinion is that Krueger is an idiot, but not a racist or bigot. The man was speaking his mind in the absurd and crazy mode that radio hosts tend to.
What do y'all think?
Posted by William Teach at 10:10 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 06, 2005
Air Deadbeat Saga Continues, Lefties Go "Huh?"
It is now 10 days since since the Air Deadbeat story broke (via Bore America), and it continues to not only get worse for them, but it continues to be covered by the right of center blogs.
Michelle Malkin links to a story in today's New York Post, which shows that Air Deadbeat has started putting money in an escrow account, but only $50K. The NYC investigators recommended putting the whole $850K in the account.
I wonder which Liberal big wig (who hasn't rebuffed Bush's tax cuts (snicker)) will give AD the money to put into the account? AD can barely afford to pay their employees.
Finally, the NY State Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, has become involved, but it seems like he is going to investigate only Gloria Wise at this time. Don't forget to focus on AD, Elliot!
So far, the NY Post and NY Sun seems to be about the only news sites carrying the story. Weirdly enough, the stories by US News and World Report and the Investor's Business Daily were either buried or not on Yahoo News the day they were published. They are now.
The MSM's may not be covering this (where are you, Grey Lady?), but it isn't dying in the right-o-sphere. Unlike the left-o-sphere, we do not have a flavor of the day, move on quickly. Whatever happened to Ohio 2004, Abu Ghraid, G'itmo, the DSM, Gannon, Rovegate? All those issues which were going to "take Bush down." In some cases, the lefties whined for a month or so, then moved on, but it was either hysterical or transient posts. Even Roberts seems to have cooled in the left-o-sphere. The blogburst to get Kerry to sign his 180's is still going strong. The Stop the ACLU blogburst is going on, what, week 19? And look at all the Carnivals which are right-o-sphere dominated. The only story that the lefties stick with is how much they hate our troops, and they post with glee any negative story, especially body counts.
From Fox and Corkum
Cross posted at the Pirate's Cove
Posted by William Teach at 08:34 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
July 29, 2005
Appearance or Qualifications?
I just read this article by Cheri Pierson Yecke about the ridicule high profile women receive from other women and men regarding their looks. Her examples include Katherine Harris, Linda Tripp and Condoleeza Rice.
Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state whose crime was correctly interpreting Florida law in the 2000 election, was described by Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson as Cruella De Vil. An article about Harris in the New York Times was subtitled "Mascaragate 2000," and the Washington Post suggested that she "applied her makeup with a trowel."
On Condoleezza Rice, who she calls "one of the most powerful women in the world" she suggests:
Nonetheless, she has been mocked and ridiculed -- not for her intellect or knowledge of international diplomacy, but for her hair. It has been likened to that of June Cleaver, but her critics are not content to stereotype her as a dowdy relic from the supposedly subservient '50s. She has also been criticized as a "dominatrix" who oozes "sex and power" for wearing fashionable boots and a fitted black coat.
She compares the behavoir of the critics to a 7th grade bully she once taught and says that some people grow up while others refuse to grow up. Given the author's Republican leanings, she does make mention of the left seeming to be more apt to make remarks regarding appearance of women on the right. I say both sides are guilty of this.
Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton received more than their fair share of "appearance bashing" during the Clinton years. If Hillary received a hair cut, it became a national news story and we heard from "both sides" of the hairgate. "Too short and manly" "Sophisticated and sexy"...
Our society has grown increasingly more appearance focused. Shows like "The Swan" would not have even been dreamt of ten years ago. Don't like your appearance? Go in for a full overhaul. Nothing a second mortgage and a few maxed out credit cards can't solve. Your self-worth can be increased with a nose job and a few strategically placed nips and tucks and implants of course.
Unfortunately this skewed sense of worth has bled over to every facet of society. Women and men feel more pressure to achieve a certain "look".
Who do you want as your physician? The one who looks like a model or the one who is experienced and professional? Who do you want as your child's teacher? The pageant winner or the college graduate? Who do you want as your next president? The beauty queen or the person with the best qualifications for the job?
While not always exclusive of each other, the answers are obvious. But if we as society allow our media to continue to judge people on their "June Cleaver" hair cuts and their make-up application techniques, we'll be the ones to lose out as a result. Turn off the station that mentions the candidates hair and clothing. Refuse to buy the paper that insults the "fashion sense" of the educator. Stop reading the blog with the continued references to appearance when arguing against a person's position.
Cheap shots about someone's appearance is easier and usually better read than well calculated arguments against their position. With the possibility of one or two candidates for 2008's presidential election being women, I think it might get very ugly. I say, we take a stand now in the blogosphere to refuse to degrade a woman or man on appearance and degrade them the right way. On their qualifications.
Anyone with me?
(HT: The Anchoress and Michelle Malkin.)
Posted by Jody at 10:03 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
July 28, 2005
Amazing the things one finds
I was looking at the Congressional Record, which, for the Dems, is the official record of Congressional business. Move On and the DU are not. Some of the tidbits for July 27 are:
- S.RES.215 : A resolution designating December 2005 as "National Pear Month".
- S.RES.217 : A resolution designating August 13, 2005, as "National Marina Day".
- S.1372 : A bill to provide for the accuracy of television ratings services, and for other purposes.
- S.1520 : A bill to prohibit human cloning.
- S.RES.158 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should designate the week beginning September 11, 2005, as "National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week".
Plus the renaming of several post offices. The last 2 are interesting. S.1520 was proposed by Dianne Feinstein. Sorry, Dianne, cloning is the way of the future. Just accept it.
And, S.Res.158, while nice, seems to be a. racist, and b. the wrong week. I personally do not have anything against having a "National Historic Black Colleges and Universities Week." Hey, if it makes people feel good, great! But what if they tried to pass that, replacing Black with White? Apoplexy would ensue. But the week of September 11th is very much the wrong week. No explanation needed, except to Lindey Graham, who proposed it.
One thing I noticed was the absence of John Kerry's name. Does he ever propose anything? 11 pieces of legislation passed in a 20+ year Senate career. Yeah, this guy needs to be President (sarcasm alert.)
Posted by William Teach at 09:04 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
July 27, 2005
Democrats Going Cannibal
Hey, y'all, this is Jebediah Murphy. Teach gave me the keys to Miss Jody's blog for White Trash Wednesday. I'm wondering if that purty Beulah Mae lady will show up? Welp, even so, yesterday Teach brought up Hillary Clinton, who shouldn't be discussed in polite company. But, since he started it, I reckon I can continue on with an update to it.
It looks like Cankle's comments are fixin to cause some issues in the Democratic Party. Today's Washington Post has a pithy story entitled "Clinton Angers Left With Call For Unity." ROTFLOL! (h/t Ankle Biting Pundits)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party.Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.
Like Teach said, cannot have the Dems coming up with positive policies now, can we? The WP even mentions the same Daily Kosbat quote Teach did, and highlights the problems faced within the Party, namely, the loony left vs centrists and moderates. You know, those folks that you rarely hear from. As long as the centrists and moderate Dems are quiet, the GOP will continue winning elections.
I'd thank the Moonbats if they weren't destroying our country at the same time.
Posted by William Teach at 07:54 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
July 26, 2005
Clinton Calls for Party Truce
Ever the "centrist," Senator Clinton (who pisses of Chuck Schumer by over-shadowing him at all turns) has called for a cease fire within the Party factions:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) called Monday for a cease-fire among warring factions of the Democratic Party, arguing that a united front is needed to reverse the party's recent electoral defeats and halt the advance of conservative Republican ideology.Clinton was the marquee attraction among a procession of prospective 2008 Democratic presidential candidates who spoke at the annual summer meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) -- a group that was a springboard for Bill Clinton's first White House bid 13 years ago. She announced that she had taken a new position with the group aimed at winning back heartland voters.
Isn't that special? But, you know, on one hand she is right. She has said what right-of-center bloggers and pundits have been saying for quite some time, namely, that Bush Hatred will not win elections. You need plans and agendas other then hatred.
"We Democrats have not yet succeeded in isolating and defeating the far right, in part because we have allowed ourselves to be split between left, right and center," she said.
But it is the Far Left which has control of the Demoratic Party, which Hillary herself has been a part of. We have all seen her rhetoric, her condemnations, and she did it during the speech, as well. Those who are the center and right sides of the Demoratic Party are rarely heard from. And, as long as people like Dean, Kennedy, Durbin, Boxer, Pelosi, and yes, Clinton, aren't muzzled, the Demoratic Party will continue to be defined by the wacky Left.
Nor will the wacky Left listen to her. The Daily Kosbat has already taken shots at Hillary over this speech, especially since it was at the DLC conference.
Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period.
Wouldn't want to actually have messages other the "I Hate Bush" now, would we, Kos? BTW, here's a clue for the Leftazoids: Bush is not running in 2008. Anti Bush rhetoric won't cut it. Will the loony Left abandon Hillary if she continues on this path?
Posted by William Teach at 09:57 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
July 23, 2005
Oooh, This is Interesting
I'll admit, I do not usually peruse Newsmax, but, every once in a while they come up with a diamond that the Left leaning MSM's completely ignore:
The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into whether Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden leaked details about a secret "black ops" CIA satellite program last December in a move that may have seriously compromised national security, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said on Saturday."The CIA made a request to the Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring criminal charges against these three [senators]," Babbin told WABC Radio host Monica Crowley. "My information is that investigation is ongoing."
You have to like the fact that there are no anonymous sources, which seem to be all that the Lefty media rely's on. Will the Left wing care, or will they just blow it off as "not about Rove?"
Posted by William Teach at 05:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 19, 2005
John Roberts nominated for SCOTUS
[Cross posted from MY VRWC]
By now everyone knows, of course. Here's an article from February about Roberts from law.com:
Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.But this take on Roberts puts some of his biggest boosters in a quandary. They praise Roberts as a brilliant, fair-minded lawyer with a perfect judicial temperament. But can that image as an open-minded jurist co-exist with also being viewed as a predictable conservative?
Florida personal injury lawyer Dean Colson of Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, who has known Roberts since they clerked for Rehnquist together in 1980, side-steps the question.
Colson calls Roberts "the smartest lawyer in America," someone who will "approach the cases with an intellectual viewpoint. I don't view him as having an agenda to promote."
But does that mean conservatives can't count on Roberts? "I don't know the answer as to how he would vote on specific issues," says Colson. "I would never ask him, and I hope he never tells anybody what he would do."
Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."
E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., a longtime Roberts fan and lifelong Democrat who worked with him for years at Hogan, says that if anyone can be both judicious and predictable, Roberts can.
"He respects the Court greatly, and would not ignore precedent," says Prettyman. "But if there's a loophole or a distinguishing factor, he'd find it."
An article from (his alma mater) Harvard University's Harvard Crimson:
Many in Washington speculate that Roberts may be a good choice if Bush wants to avoid a confirmation fight. The New York Times reported last week that members of both parties raised Roberts’ name in a favorable light.
More:
A roundup of some of his previous decisions at Free Congress Foundation’s Judicial Selection Monitoring Project
From the Committee for Justice, a press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 19, 2005
CONTACT:
Sean RushtonCFJ Congratulates President on Roberts Nomination
WASHINGTON, DC - The Committee for Justice, which promotes constitutionalist judicial nominees, today congratulated President Bush on nominating Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court and called on the Senate to confirm him without delay.
“John Roberts has had one of the most distinguished legal careers in modern times,” CFJ Chairman C. Boyden Gray said. “His outstanding education and career, high character, and faithfulness to the Constitution make him an excellent fit for the court at this moment. His nomination is a solid first step towards returning the federal judiciary to its proper role in our system.”
Before becoming a judge on the powerful Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Roberts was possibly the finest appellate lawyer in the nation, arguing 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. After graduating with honors from Harvard undergraduate and law school, Roberts clerked for Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly and Associate Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as Associate White House Counsel, and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. Roberts is 50, married with two children, and a Roman Catholic.
“While we know liberal senators will resort to hyperbole against Judge Roberts, we call on moderate and red state Democratic senators such as Ben Nelson (Neb.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.), and Mark Pryor (Ark.) to ensure a fair and respectful confirmation process,” Gray added. “It seems to us that a justice who will not use his power to redefine traditional marriage, strike under God from the Pledge of Allegiance, and undermine private property rights is well within the mainstream of American public opinion and legal thought.”
C. Boyden Gray was White House Counsel to the first President Bush.
To see more from the blogosphere about the Roberts nomination, N.Z. Bear has an aggregator.
See also: Bench Memos at NRO
The SCOTUS Nomination blog has "Selected Opinions by Judge Roberts" and "Elsewhere on the Information Superhighway."
Posted by Beth at 10:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack