Category Archives: Politics

UPDATED: Propaganda Central

Elections, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Politics, Propaganda

This time the CNN gig went not to Soledad O’Brien, the Agony Aunt of the “Black In America,” “Latino In the Same Place,” and plain “Boring in America” propaganda series, but to a like-minded brother (talk about lack of intellectual diversity!)

The gig: conveying to CNN’s dwindling audience how dangerous the tea party truly is.

The end product: “Boiling Point: Inside the Tea Party,” an amateurish production featuring a badly written script, a sinister sound track, and a lot of edgy adjectives in the service of a not-so-subliminal message: RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.

From comedian Jon Stewart to the MSNBC desperadoes, to CNN’s race hucksters—the liberal media is adamant to do all they can to ward off the inevitable Republican victory (however futile that may be, as “there is no returning America to a place of financial safety”).

UPDATE (Nov. 1): I missed the left-liberal’s slur hereunder, in the Comments Section. I thought his spelling was remiss. But I had to cut out all the sexual insults he levied at my appearance to come to the gist of the one valid argument he came up with. Shows you how committed I am to argument here on BAB. Of course, humanity’s detritus considers it their right to post their bile on private property, which is what BAB is. Indeed, BAB Posting Policy does demand a valid email address. honestperson@aol.com: Is this not a valid addressed? As I said, I’m so committed to argument, that this kind of dreck can get the better of me.

The American Electorate As Seen By The Left

Celebrity, Democrats, Elections, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Politics, Pseudo-intellectualism, Sarah Palin, The Zeitgeist

“How D.C. Became Hollywood for Semi-Attractive People” is the title of an Esquire blog post by Tom Junod. It is not particularly well-written, or especially thoughtful—this guy is not Christopher Hitchens—but the post got its author on cable today. “Hardball” I think it was. Here is what Junod thinks of you yobbos and your politics:

“The Democrats didn’t think they had to worry about any of this. They weren’t looking for stars because they had the biggest star in the world as their president. He didn’t have a populist bone in his body, but he was a deeply thoughtful man and a galvanic speaker both, and he promised to transcend the bone-grind of American politics. With his promise of one-man racial reconciliation, he was transfixing, but the independents who were transfixed by him needed to keep being transfixed, and on this, he couldn’t deliver. The American public turned against Obama not when it found out he was radical, or wish-washy, or power-mad, or timid, or what have you; it turned against him when he stopped being entertaining. It turned against him when it found out his real secret — that under his professorial mien he was, well, a professor. Outside the enforced electricity of a national electoral referendum, he was dutiful, and he was dull.”

“It is something of an unfair fight now: a party led by a man who clearly thinks too much before he speaks against a party led by a semi-sexy woman who will say anything — hell, whose idea of a debating strategy in 2008 was a table dance. And the Democrats don’t have an answer, because they’ve so deeply misjudged what the American electorate wants and is capable of. They thought that after the trauma of the Bush years, we would want a no-drama president; a regal First Lady; endless pages of necessary legislation, achieved at a political cost that proves the party’s commitment and courage; and a few more women on the Supreme Court who prove the party’s emphasis on excellence and ethnicity over eros. They didn’t realize that what we want is drama and nothing but, and so the Democrats became the CNN to the Repubican [sic] Fox, clueless in their competence, bewildered by their own best intentions.”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/female-candidates-2010#ixzz12Do5TbPi

PATTY MURRAY: Abject Moron

Ann Coulter, Democrats, Elections, Politics

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.'”

MORE.

“A War He Can Call His Own” Revisited By Woodward

Barack Obama, Military, Neoconservatism, Politics, Republicans, Terrorism, War

Distilled, the Big Idea behind Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars,” was outlined over these pixelated pages on July 18, 2008, in “A War He Can Call His Own”:

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’s decision 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.

That commitment was slightly less than the one the military had in mind—“to keep the troop commitment more open-ended.”

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.