Presenting this link with essentially no commentary other than to also point you towards Ace’s recent post on the Tea Party.
Looking for some freestyle commentary from the readership here.
I need some reeeeeh…..eeeehhhh…..est.
I’ve seen people say that they couldn’t make Blazing Saddles today and others argue and say it could.
That pretty much sidesteps the real issues.
First, nobody would make it, all the people who make offensive movies only offend Christians and conservatives, they don’t have any desire to upset any leftist apple carts.
And of course, the real issue.
You can’t even show it these days.
IFC shows it uncut, that’s it. Everybody else butchers it. What makes me laugh is that AMC used to edit out the fart/campfire scene, but now they’ve put it back in and take out all the “racist” stuff, that’s not racist but exactly the opposite.
So the only scenes that could be made are the fart scene and the above one.
Which ain’t all bad. Madelaine Kahn is all about teh awesome.
I’ve seen people linking that poll to show Hillary! is kicking sloe-Joe’s ass, but check this out.
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky gets 47 percent to Clinton’s 43 percent;
Clinton is at 44 percent with 43 percent for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas;
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin leads her 48 – 43 percent.
Cruz, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are always attacked by Minitrue as far-right idealogues who want to kill Teh Children, with establishment GOPers attacking the first two and yet, Paul and Ryan are beating Hillary! and Ted Cruz is well within the margin of error.
Not as often as years ago, but some days America makes me proud.
I ask this (1) as somebody who has a strong dislike for Mike Huckabee, and (2) rhetorically, as he committed no real offense.
The supposed transgression was so subtle that David Gregory could not express it with any precision when questioning Rand Paul on Meet the Press, choosing only to play the clip, and then ask, “Is this helpful?”
Not satisfied with Senator Paul’s response, Gregory followed up, “My question, about whether you think it’s appropriate for the party, key figures in the party, to be talking about women, women’s health, women’s bodies, and the role of the federal government related to those things?”
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! So Republicans are not even allowed to broach the subject of the federal role in matters of women’s heath?!? When did this rule go into effect?
So there’s this highly controversial –frankly, unconstitutional on many dimensions– federal mandate forcing all Americans into insurance policies that, in part, pay for abortifacient drugs regardless of their religious (or secular) objections, and Republicans are just not supposed to express any opinions on the absurdity of the matter.
Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world.
I defend Huckabee in this despite my strong dislike for him. He’s not particularly conservative from a fiscal perspective, and has no qualms about launching demagogic attacks on those darned greedy Wall Street folks who have the nerve to call him out on it. Perhaps more important to the issue at hand, he’s a complete hypocrite, having signed a sort of birth control coverage mandate as Governor.
But in the context of recent events, he has committed no crime except to use the word “libido” in a sentence that was more than six words long, and thus impossible for a journalist to parse. Ace and Allah have taken a stab at why his suggestions concerning women’s libidos, even though he was attributing the thought to the Democrats, betrayed a judgmental attitude about recreational sex. There is almost something to this, but Huck continued, “…because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government…” A more complete reading of the sentence diminishes this interpretation.
I think, having been caught with their pants down, the media has determined to find some fault with what was said. What you’re seeing here is a bunch of wagon-circling and butt covering.
[Related post: My send-up of the Sandra Fluke controversy from March of 2012.]
Little help here from the lawyery types…
In philosophy, there’s a moral principle that “ought implies can“. Put otherwise, it means that in order for some action to be obligatory, it must be possible for the agent to perform that act.
Is there a similar principle in law? If the Congress enacted a law requiring the executive to provide a free unicorn to each citizen (or some non-zero subset of citizens), could that law be considered Constitutional? Clearly it is impossible. Wouldn’t impossibility imply unconstitutionality?
Similarly, Obama’s defense of his endless improvisations that substantially alter the law seems to be that the law is impossible to implement.
I hope you can see where I’m going with this.
Any such principle, law nerds?
The dust-up over a certain reality TV personality’s recent comments about sexual mores reminded me of something that has irritated me for some time about the Celebrate Diversity crowd, and a minor revelation I once had while watching a Will and Grace re-run.
But first, a minor detour. Back in 2002, not too long after college, I was living in the DC area working in what I would consider my first “real” job — something that didn’t involve bussing restaurant tables or making inordinate amounts of photocopies. Rather suddenly, I found myself in need of a new place to live. I ended up finding an ad for a cheap, metro-accessible place. The ad said “gay friendly”. Hmmm, not my ideal choice. But I needed new digs pronto, and it was cheap! As it turns out, it was three gay dudes living in a house, and I was the odd straight guy. Little wonder that I ended up watching a re-run of Will and Grace.
A little dose of reality.
Some are talking about a generational rejection of the liberal agenda. Call me unconvinced.
Latest RCP average of the generic congressional vote.
If the manifest failure of the namesake project of the liberal god-king Obama is not enough to get Republicans better than parity with Democrats, doesn’t that mean we’re still screwed?
The latest White House weasel word in defense of Obama “misspeaking” about folks keeping their insurance plans is “substandard”. As in, “You shouldn’t want to keep your substandard plan anyway.”
This is a rather slick tautology. The plans are “sub-standard” in that they are below the legal standard — the Obamacare standard. So when people complain that they were kicked off their plan because it didn’t meet the Obamacare criteria, it is a semantically null defense to say that the plan was “substandard”.
Of course it is substandard. Obamacare defined the standard, and that is the very thing about which people are complaining.
“Substandard” is particularly weaselly because in addition to having the precise meaning of being below the standard, it has a looser connotation of being of poor quality. Not all substandard plans are of poor quality, but they’d like you to think so while repeating a technically accurate word.
And regarding idea that the POTUS “misspoke” (several dozen times), I think it’s time the GOP bring back a word that was used effectively against Bush: “misled”.
Last night I tweeted, “If you’re a Republican who is STILL yammering about how the Cruz strategy was bad, you’re doing it wrong.” I’m not sure what good it’s doing at this point. Let’s discuss.
It is a politics of perpetual intra-Republican denunciation. It focuses its fire on other conservatives as much as on liberals. It takes more satisfaction in a complete loss on supposed principle than in a partial victory, let alone in the mere avoidance of worse outcomes. It has only one tactic — raise the stakes, hope to lower the boom — and treats any prudential disagreement with that tactic as a betrayal. Adherents of this brand of conservative politics are investing considerable time, energy, and money in it, locking themselves in unending intra-party battle.
Actually, except for that third (objectionable) sentence, this applies as much –if not more so– to the “moderate”/establishment faction of the party. I mean, did I imagine John McCain’s and Lindsey Graham’s incessant bitching and name-calling?
I could go on at length about who was actually at fault here, but at this point it really doesn’t matter. Nevertheless, the “establishment” insists on playing the part of the nagging girlfriend – “I told you we should have turned left at Albuquerque!”
The key premise that has been guiding these conservatives, however, is mistaken. That premise is that the main reason conservatives have won so few elections and policy victories, especially recently, is a lack of ideological commitment and will among Republican politicians. A bigger problem than the insufficient conservatism of our leaders is the insufficient number of our followers. There aren’t enough conservative voters to elect enough officials to enact a conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. — or to sustain them in that project even if they were elected. The challenge, fundamentally, isn’t a redoubling of ideological commitment, but more success at persuasion and at winning elections.
This is an oft-repeated fallacy, or at least vast oversimplification, the narrative of the ideological purists (“priests” in Mike Murphy’s parlance) demanding more ideological commitment from the “mathematicians”. Say three Hail-Reagans and sin no more, my child. Yes, there are some “priests” –just as there are genuine RINO squishes– but this is a toddler’s crayon drawing of the problem.
The problem, as has been discussed recently on AoS, is that of not ever making the case for freedom/markets/enlightened self interest/etc. Scoring an inconsequential political vote might get you a five-second mention on the news and a good fundraising bit, but the summation of all this nothing is… nothing. The problem conservatives wish to address is exactly that – of conversion and education.
Are they always good at it. No? Is the establishment? Ask Presidents Dole, McCain, and Romney.
In their piece, Lowry and Ponnuru continue to play the nagging girlfriend for what seems like forever. They’re wrong on a whole host of points, but rather than give myself a migraine and carpal tunnel syndrome going back over it all, I’ll take my own advice and shut the hell up about the shutdown.
As Drewm says over at Ace’s, Hillary is unlikable as a candidate. She’s too obviously a huckster as she far too obviously postures differently for different audiences.
Shorter Hillary, “If only those racist, mysognist, terrorist, tea bagging, haters of the VWRC would be civil.”
Now back to our post!
She has no accomplishments of her own except hounding/sheparding Bill Clinton into becoming POTUS.
What did she accomplish at State? The Arab Spring that led to Benghazi. Yay!
So why is she even possibly viable as a candidate?
So we know the Dems would be all excited about voting for a woman, they’ve already checked off “Black Man”.
So who else with no accomplishments might be much more
palatable adored worshipped than Hillary? Someone who would get the media creaming all over their desks/giant i-Pads, on-air?
8 more years of the same crew.
I’m seeing stray reports that GOP House members are talking about shifting from the continuing resolution to the debt ceiling. While I appreciate the never-say-die sentiment, this makes zero sense.
The debt ceiling is a bigger bomb than the CR. If the Vichy Republicans are unwilling to have a little ol’ government shutdown over the CR, they will absolutely shit their pants at the prospect of hitting the debt ceiling.
It ain’t happening. The CR is the only way we’re going to get any significant concessions.