Archive for the ‘Op/Sped’ Category

Republicans should really focus on the IRS tea party targeting scandal and put Benghazi on the back burner. Look, Benghazi should have been a major scandal. But it wasn’t. And to borrow a phrase, what difference – at this point – does it make?

They fucked up and people died. Then they crassly lied about it so they could win an election. Then they lied about lying about it. And not a lot of people really cared. While it is true that they were lying about what precipitated the deaths of several Americans, it’s not like they wanted that to happen. They were just lying after the fact of the colossal, deadly fuck-up.

I don’t mean to dismiss the malfeasance here. Putting on my best Samuel Jackson voice, I hope they burn in hell. News Flash: The Obama administration lies about shit and doesn’t care if people die.

Film at eleven.

Benghazi was mostly incompetence, covered up by lies. The IRS … now there’s something you can sink your teeth into. That is flat out corruption. That is the willful use of the power of the state to stifle the opposition. That’s pretty plainly totalitarian. Lois Lerner could be frog-marched to prison. AWESOME. And this Elijah Cummings angle is pretty promising too.

What are we expecting in the Benghazi investigation? To find out that Susan Rice lied? OF COURSE SHE FUCKING LIED! And water is wet, and bears shit in the woods.

On the other hand, folks going to fucking jail? Sign me up for that.

Riddle me this, morons…

How is it that repealing Obamacare could add to the deficit?

The original CBO score was a joke, and they had to lie, scrimp, and steal from other programs (like the student loan program) to make the bill as a whole score in their favor.

Since then, they’ve gone back on any number of cost saving and/or tax-raising measures, not the least of which are Tsar Obama’s royal proclamations of waivers and delays.

It was a lie to start, and they compounded the lie.

Fact Check: TRUE!

Huh?

Presenting this link with essentially no commentary other than to also point you towards Ace’s recent post on the Tea Party.

Arthur Brooks of AEI on “a conservative social justice agenda“.  (And the aforementioned Ace post.)

Looking for some freestyle commentary from the readership here.

I’m Not A Rabbit!

Posted: February 7, 2014 by veeshir in Op/Sped, Random Crap

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.

Unrelated link.

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?

Icky

Posted: December 21, 2013 by socklessjoe in Ewww - taste this!, Liberal Fascism, News, Op/Sped, Queerblogging

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.

(more…)

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.

RCP_generic_2013_11_17

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?

[Reference reading: Hot Air, Mediaite, Douthat @ NYT]

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.

Ponnuru & Lowry at NRO:

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.