Category Archives: Republicans

UPDATED: Dumb Distaff (Dastardly Too)

Ethics, Feminism, General, Human Accomplishment, Intelligence, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Morality, Republicans

Show me a Democratic commentator that is as studiously dumb as the Republican Lolita, SE Cupp. Cupp generally limits herself to gesturing wildly, grimacing, or portentously parroting the same mind-numbing banalities previously disgorged by Newt, Dick, Karl, et. al.

Now Cupp is getting bolder and venturing into political economy. On Dylan Ratigan’s confused, MSNBC show, Cupp insisted that when you give corporations bailout money, and they then blow the cash abroad, this is an example of the free market at work. Live with it!

I don’t want to do an injustice to the smug Republican sweetheart, so I will try to post the clip if it comes online. Please send it along if you find it before me.

If you have heard of anything resembling the caliber of Cupp’s cretinism, please post it together with a hyperlink to the story. Proof is paramount.

I want your most outrageous and hilarious clips of what rolls off the tongues of TV’s female talkers.

I’ll kick off the competition with two other examples of cerebral pruning:

Exhibit B: “How do you know there is going to be an economic recovery,” Greta Van Susteren asked GOP dummy, Dana Perino. “There always is; these things go in cycles,” squeaked the Heidi Klum of the commentariat.

Exhibit C: Together with another member of the silly sex, usually blond, Margaret Hoover forms Bill O’Reilly’s “Culture Warriors.” Some time ago she joined her host to damn the Obama administration’s decision to cease “criminalizing cancer and AIDS patients for using a substance that is (a) prescribed by their doctors and (b) legal under the laws of their state.”

According to Hoover’s calculus, once you decriminalize a drug, criminal enterprise corners the market.

Toots, it’s exactly the opposite. It’s a hard concept, but the section “THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL MARKETS,” in “Addicted To The Drug War,” may help. On the other hand, don’t hold your breath.

In order for your snippet to be posted in BAB’s Comments Section, your Brilliant Babe must be a member of the punditocracy, Democrat or Republican; She cannot be a politician. Those are the rules. Hyperlinks to your story are a must.

UPDATED (Oct. 5): Huggs hereunder feels real sorry for idiots who are rewarded for their misleading stupidity and avarice. Some of these dames have sent even sillier boys to their deaths with their warring words. Huggins commits the sin of the ages. “Job: Jewish Individualist” speaks to those. The righteous suffer; the wicked reap the spoils of their cunning and cupidity. And this you want to reward with love?

What a perversion is that?

If you wish to love the wicked, at least make sure that the righteous are rewarded equally for their good works.

Contemporary parallels to Job’s individualism are hard to come by, not least because the State has replaced God as the ultimate authority. Other than principled libertarians, nobody challenges the god of government in any meaningful way. Our Delphic oracles are the pundits and assorted self-styled presstitutes. Their Delphi is the TV on which they primp, preen and parrot party falsehoods.

O’Keefe Antics, Again

Journalism, Media, Republicans

Among the many dumb things Republicans have given us (read “GOP and Man at Yale”) is a brand of tease “journalism” headed by Hannah Giles, a well-connected, monosyllabic, Town-Hall tartlet, who partook in an ACORN-exposing (tush-wagging) operation. Her partner (he played the pimp) was James O’Keefe, who, it transpires, is even dumber than Hannah.

O’Keefe’s latest antics include a “plot”

to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating “palace of pleasure” and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.
James O’Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.
The plan apparently was thwarted after Boudreau was warned minutes before it was supposed to happen.

MORE TO MAKE YOU YAWN HERE.

“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.

"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.