When Ann Coulter’s right, she’s right: PATTY MURRAY is “a remarkably unimpressive woman [that] has tried to turn being a flat-footed dork into an advantage by selling herself as a tribune of regular folks.” It’s good to see the Coulter guns turned on a maggot from my neck of the woods:
“Murray, whose college major was ‘recreation,’ got her start in politics fighting to save her own useless government job.
The laughably apocryphal story she tells is that she was told by some crusty old male politician — still unnamed decades later: ‘You’re just a mom in tennis shoes — you can’t make a difference!’ (You know how politicians love gratuitously insulting their constituents.)
This stuck in Murray’s craw and so, filled with righteous anger, she ran for state office and won as a ‘mom in tennis shoes.’
The real story is that Murray was teaching a ‘parenting’ class at a community college, which no one was taking, so the state decided to cut it. Murray’s reaction was, ‘Wait — I’m a public employee! You have no right to fire me!’
She wasn’t a parent upset that her child’s school was dropping an art history class. She was a deadbeat public employee who didn’t want her job cut. No one was taking her course, but she thought taxpayers should be required to pay her salary anyway.'”
Obama needs a “good” war. Electability in fin de siècle America hinges on projecting strength around the world—an American leader has to aspire to protect borders and people not his own. In other words, Obama needs a war he can call his own. In Afghanistan, Obama has found such a war.
By promising to broaden the scope of operations in Afghanistan, Obama has found a “good” war to make him look the part. By staking out Afghanistan as his preferred theater of war—and pledging an uptick in operations against the Taliban—Obama achieves two things: He can cleave to the Iraq policy that excited his base. While winding down one war, he can ratchet up another, thereby demonstrating his commander-in-chief credentials.
Okay, so Woodward has framed as dovish “the president’sdecision to order a surge of 30,000 additional troops late last year — 10,000 fewer than what top military leaders had been strongly pushing — with a withdrawal date of July 2011.”
The bottom line is that the president pushed for enough of a commitment, in blood and treasure in Afghanistan, to make him the presidential pick of a blood-lusting public.
Talk about triangulation—BHO was able to shed just enough blood to give the left a foot in the door, while pacifying the murderous neoconservatives (Repbulicans in all permutations).
Calibration: that was the genius of the cunning Obama.
Obama needs a “good” war. Electability in fin de siècle America hinges on projecting strength around the world—an American leader has to aspire to protect borders and people not his own. In other words, Obama needs a war he can call his own. In Afghanistan, Obama has found such a war.
By promising to broaden the scope of operations in Afghanistan, Obama has found a “good” war to make him look the part. By staking out Afghanistan as his preferred theater of war—and pledging an uptick in operations against the Taliban—Obama achieves two things: He can cleave to the Iraq policy that excited his base. While winding down one war, he can ratchet up another, thereby demonstrating his commander-in-chief credentials.
Okay, so Woodward has framed as dovish “the president’sdecision to order a surge of 30,000 additional troops late last year — 10,000 fewer than what top military leaders had been strongly pushing — with a withdrawal date of July 2011.”
The bottom line is that the president pushed for enough of a commitment, in blood and treasure in Afghanistan, to make him the presidential pick of a blood-lusting public.
Talk about triangulation—BHO was able to shed just enough blood to give the left a foot in the door, while pacifying the murderous neoconservatives (Repbulicans in all permutations).
Calibration: that was the genius of the cunning Obama.
It was interesting to hear Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, two oft-closeted establishment Republicans, use the pronoun “we” in discussing the Republicans and their “Pledge to America.” The Repbulicans are the team to which the two belong. Team Republican has issued a paltry pledge that did not displease La Coulter or Hannity.
The Preamble to The Pledge is quite nice, except that it seems sacrilegious for dirty dogs such as the Republicans to suddenly speak up about first principles they’ve seldom respected—original intent, the Tenth Amendment, etc.
“America is more than a country” states the pledge. Indeed. But it is also a community of souls once linked by a common history, heroes and traditions—a community rapidly being dissolved by central planners.
While the Republicans pay homage to the propositional nation (America as an idea), a cursory read tells me that their commitment to the flesh-and-blood American community remains pretty pitiful.
UPDATE I (Sept. 24): Have the Pledge makers promised to repeal “the new Paycheck Fairness Act passed by the House 256 to 162”? “The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society,” writes Pat Buchanan in a brilliant column, “Equality or Freedom,” on pay parity being pursued by the Obama administration.
If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. The fact that the wily entrepreneur doesn’t ditch men in favor of women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.
UPDATE II: The Pledge is festooned with huge, “patriotic” images. To me that’s very reassuring—as reassuring as the promise by these power-hungry creeps to “roll back government spending to prestimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone.” Wow, $100 billion in a debt of $110 trillion! Now that’s bold. Basically the Republicans, who still don’t get it, are promising to return to 2008-level spending.
Notice all the legally safe, adjectival ejaculate used by these cobra heads to qualify their promises: “common-sense limits on the growth of government.” You know that to the Coulter and Hannity Republican, limiting any accretion in the military-media-congressional-industrial complex is tantamount to treason. “National security” (minus borders) is a big stick with which they like to beat their Democratic opponents. It’s the only stick they have, given their statist record.
Indeed, the Republikeynesians will “impose a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees and ensure that the public sector no longer grows at the expense of the private sector.”
Republicans are tinkering on the margins, as Ron Paul has suggested, with no commitment to say which departments will be eliminated; or to tackle the philosophy of government, etc.
UPDATE III: “Republicans are the drag queens of politics. Peel away the pules for family, faith and fetuses and one discovers either ‘neoconservative welfare-warfare statists or global social democrats,’ or national socialists of sorts, who fuse economic protectionism, populism and a support for the very welfare infrastructure that is at the root of the social rot they decry.”—ILANA MERCER
Except for one republican (for he is not a Republican). Run Ron, run.
