Friday, August 27, 2010

Mehlman and Individual Freedom

Everybody's got something to say about Ken Mehlman, George W. Bush's 2004 campaign manager and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who this week told The Atlantic that he is gay. I was surprised to find out that he had not already announced the fact, which everybody has known forever, I thought.

It seems to me that a lot of people are sympathetic. Poor guy, surrounded by Republicans, he had to pretend he was someone he was not, they wouldn't have accepted him. He was leading a party that actively attacked homosexuality in many ways. From the Atlantic article:
Mehlman's leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities -- such as the distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism, or the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party's platform ("Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country..."). Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus. He was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief strategic adviser, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans.

This is a big sentence:
Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus.

I would say the first thing that turns me off about Republicans is their inability to go against the party consensus. It's a nonsense concept, one of those things like "jumbo shrimp" that negates itself. If people within the party disagree with it, it is not a "party consensus." It could be that one or two bullies in the party make the decisions and the rest of them are sheep who go along with it out of fear of being criticized, or worse, ostracized. (But if it's not the party chairman, who are the bullies?) You know it's not really a consensus but because they are afraid to speak out you never know how many people oppose "the consensus." Who knows, maybe a majority of Republicans privately disagree with everything the party stands for! You can't say they don't, because they all only say what they think they're supposed to say.

Another interesting fact; Karl Rove's father was gay. He was also one of the pioneers of the body-piercing craze. Karl Rove was said to have been close to his father, even in adulthood. So for these two guys to engineer an anti-gay campaign ... you just can't talk about this without using the word "hypocrisy."

This paragraph in the Atlantic article also jumped out at me. Now that he is uncloseted Mehlman is promoting marriage equality.
"What I will try to do is to persuade people, when I have conversations with them, that it is consistent with our party's philosophy, whether it's the principle of individual freedom, or limited government, or encouraging adults who love each other and who want to make a lifelong committment to each other to get married."

I looked at that paragraph as a slight twist on the standard Republican cliches, but my eye kept going back to it. What is wrong with this picture?

It's this:
... our party's philosophy, whether it's the principle of individual freedom ...

They form a "consensus" that includes people who disagree with the "consensus" but are intimidated into keeping their mouths shut. They wave the flag of "individual freedom" but adamantly deny citizens the right to start a home and family with the one they love. The Party fought -- and fights to this day -- to insult and limit the rights of gay and lesbian people, in the name of "individual freedom."

Republicans don't have ownership of the concept of individual freedom. In fact, the case of Ken Mehlman tells you that in practice they believe just the opposite, individuals should sacrifice everything to promote harmony within the herd. Mehlman stepped down as chairman of the RNC the day after Bill Maher referred to him on CNN as a closeted gay man -- the party did not afford him the individual liberty to be what he is, to love the way he loves.

No American political party or group owns the concept of "individual freedom." All Americans inherit an institutionalized appreciation for freedom as a cornerstone concept for an entire society. It is hard to think of any way in which the Republican Party actually supports individual freedom, besides the individual freedom of rich people and big companies.

I hope that rank-and-file Republicans will read this Atlantic story and give it some thought. He was their man. He led the party. He put together the strategy machine that got George Bush into office the second time -- and remember, by then Americans knew what Bush was, that was the hard one, Mehlman and Rove organized a campaign that put one of the stupidest people you have ever seen into the White House for the second time. And yet this man was gay and afraid of letting his colleagues know, promoting and nurturing a program of bigotry against himself and others like him because the "consensus" demanded it. His individual freedom was stolen from him by a group that demands sheepish submission to a false consensus.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, Glenn Beck throws in the white flag on gay marriage, as Politics Daily reported (see "Glenn Beck Says Gay Marriage 'No Threat' To America") earlier this month, and now Ann Coulter has gone AWOL on what just a short time ago was considered a battle flag issue for conservative culture warriors.

The latest controversy on the right began late last week when it was revealed that Coulter, the brutally straight-talking author and pundit, was going to headline next month's HomoCon 2010, an annual event organized by GOProud, a group of gay Republicans.

Coulter has been called "notoriously homophobic" by some critics, but she has also described herself as a gay-friendly "right-wing Judy Garland."

It was the HomoCon appearance, however, set for a Sept. 25 gala in New York, that put her beyond the pale for some of her fellow conservative Christians.

Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative news site WorldNetDaily, dumped Coulter from the upcoming Taking Back America event in Miami, saying the decision was "gut-wrenching" because the group loves Coulter, but that it was also necessary.

"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about 'taking America back' when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud," said Farah. "The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."

Coulter told Farah to chill. "They hired me to give a speech, so I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."

But over the weekend the conflict started to go nuclear, which seems inevitable given the personalities involved.

On the early morning Fox News talk show, "The Red Eye," Coulter called out Farah and his allies for their objections to her HomoCon appearance.

"These are fake Christians trying to get publicity," she declared.

She also told The Daily Caller that Farah was a "publicity whore" and a "swine" who could "give less than two s---- about the conservative movement."

Game on.

"Coulter called me a 'publicity whore' for my decision. But look who is on television talking about this -- throwing mud, name-calling, smearing not only me but my entire staff," Farah responded in a statement.

"I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment. Every day, since we made this decision at WND, I thank God for giving me the clarity of mind and discernment to make the right choice."

"No enemies on the right" is an old bit of conservative wisdom. But now it's getting hard to figure out just where the right is.

August 27, 2010 6:49 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

"I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment."

Where, I wonder, was Mr. Farah when Ms. Coulter was attacking people who Mr. Farah also liked to attack? This sudden umbrage at Ms. Coulter's pollution of the public discourse is quite extraordinary.

August 28, 2010 12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some self-ordained professor's tongue

too serious to fool

spouted out that liberty

is just equality in school


I spoke the word

as if a wedding vow

but, then, I was so much older then

I'm younger than that now

the Book of Leviticus (19:15) declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness shall you judge your fellow."

August 28, 2010 1:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

August 28, 2010 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why is that the "key to understanding this issue"?

marriage was instituted in the Garden of Eden long before Abraham, Moses, Joseph or David

while the OT law may not be "binding", isn't "how to obey and please God" a concern for Christians?

isn't the truth that Christians have moved beyond following rules to living with a personal commitment to God?

it's pretty obvious God instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman

August 28, 2010 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it's pretty obvious God instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman"

Marriage"? In the Garden of Eden? What were the marriage rites? Creating Eve from one of Adam's ribs? do you explain and justify the creation of the human race when it was derived from the sins of Adam and Eve's children? After all, who else created their progeny? Did their children inter-marry with one another (who else did they have to choose from)in order to propagate the races? Don't we classify that as Incest?

August 28, 2010 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For too long, this country has wandered in darkness," said Beck today.

But he's not racist.

On the edges of the Mall, activists distributed fliers urging voters "dump Obama." The pamphlet included a picture of the president with a Hitler-style mustache.

But the rally isn't political or anti-Obama.

Apparently, Americans can only have "individual rights" that tea baggers want you to have, not those that are enumerated in the US Constitution that tea baggers disagree with. That unalienable right to pursue happiness, that right to citizenship for all who are born here, that right to have laws equally apply to each and every citizen, and that right to have American citizens vote to select their state's Senators are Constitutional guarantees the tea baggers seek to abolish.

Tea baggers think the only people who are entitled to "individual rights" are those who march lockstep with them. Members of the GOTBP think citizens with different views than their own can sit in the back of the bus and be grateful they got on the bus at all.

August 28, 2010 12:35 PM  
Anonymous throw it in the harbor said...

"Apparently, Americans can only have "individual rights" that tea baggers want you to have, not those that are enumerated in the US Constitution that tea baggers disagree with. That unalienable right to pursue happiness, that right to citizenship for all who are born here, that right to have laws equally apply to each and every citizen, and that right to have American citizens vote to select their state's Senators are Constitutional guarantees the tea baggers seek to abolish."

if this gibberish is the best liberals can come up to counter the Tea Party, we don't have much to worry about


stopped by at the rally and the place was swarmed

scared yet?

it's not unfeasible to competely trun control of Congress

August 28, 2010 7:09 PM  
Anonymous i left my tea in boston harbor said...

President Obama's highest job approval ratings among religious groups are from Muslims according to a Gallup poll.

Seventy-eight percent of Muslims approved of Obama's performance.

Sixty-three percent of atheists, agnostics or those unaffiliated with any religion approved of Obama's performance.

Approval among Protestant and other Christian religions was 41 percent.

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

Doctors who described themselves as "extremely" or "very nonreligious" were nearly twice as likely to report having made decisions like providing continuous deep sedation, which accelerate a patient's death.

To ensure doctors are acting in accordance with their patients' wishes, "nonreligious doctors should confess their predilections to their patients."

On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, at the spot Martin Luther King Jr. spoke 47 years ago, political analyst Glenn Beck told a vast "Restoring Honor" rally Saturday that the United States has "wandered in the darkness" for too long.

Beck is a widely watched news personality and consistently accurate critic of President Obama. On Saturday, he drew a line from Moses to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to King who gave his "I have a dream" speech in 1963, a seminal spark of the modern civil rights movement. His decision to schedule his rally on the King anniversary was attributed to "divine providence."

Beck said on Saturday that of all the leaders he admires, "I can relate to Martin Luther King the most."

New York civil rights leader Al Sharpton held a lightly attended "Reclaim the Dream" march and rally at the Tidal Basin, a few blocks from the huge Beck event.

On a comfortable, sunny day in the nation's capital, the crowd at the National Mall, many dressed in American-flag inspired shirts and caps, soaked it all up and often broke into chants of "USA. USA." Organizers had a permit for a gathering of 300,000, the AP said, and it appeared that the gathering easily exceeded that.

Beck said what was happening at his rally had nothing to do with politics "and everything to do with God." The crowd, many clutching American flags, spilled from the Lincoln Memorial nearly a mile all way to the Washington Monument. "Something that is beyond man is happening," Beck said, said. "America today begins to turn back to God."

Other major speakers included MLK niece Alveda King, leading presidential candidate Sarah Palin, baseball manager Tony La Russa and Albert Pujols.

August 28, 2010 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot.

It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke.

Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.

What accounts for this madness?

Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:

Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance:

Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game:

"Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."

And when you insult as a fringe mentality, the view of most Americans, what chance do you have to succeed politically.

August 28, 2010 9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"His individual freedom was stolen from him by a group that demands sheepish submission to a false consensus."

He wasn't individually "free" because if he disagreed with Republicans, he couldn't still be the Republican chairman?

And I suppose all the Democrats who are forced to pretend they are pro-choice are "free" under your thinking?

Truth is, Mehlman was perfectly free to join any group he wishes but, if you want to make a career of it, you need to try to go where you are committed to the cause.

btw, I don't see why a person couldn't be a homosexual and still not endorse the gay agenda.

Maybe there are homosexuals who don't want to change the definition of marriage because they realize that they don't really care if they are married.

I don't see how that'e inconsistent.

August 29, 2010 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most people, Republican or not, could care less if someone is gay. What they object to is the relentless pursuit of the gay agenda, which strives to normalize homosexuality, instead of simply accepting that it is, perhaps, a normal sexual perversion.

Alcoholics who are told they have a the alcoholic "gene" don't generally go around trying to tell kids that it's okay to be an alcoholic, because they have the alcoholic "gene" and thus have no control over their behavior and hey -- go ahead and do what you want.

Thus, because alcoholics don't band together to promote their problem amongst children, they don't set themselves up for a fight.

August 29, 2010 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

You don't see how lots of things are inconsistent. Hypocrites are blind to inconsistencies...and full of them.

Mehlman is now an advocate for same sex marriage rights because he decided not to spend his entire life in the closet. He said now that he's come out, he's a better person. Hypocrites who take a good long hard look at their inconsistencies and resolve them often find they become better people. You should try it sometime, Anon.

Here's more inconsistency I bet you don't get. Your side's FAUX News cheerleaders demonize the Saudi Prince who is the supposed funder of the Islamic Center in Manhattan, but that same Prince owns 7% of Newscorp, FAUX News' parent corportaion. And Rupert Murdock owns stock in that same Saudi Prince's holdings.

"Last week on “Fox and Friends,” the Bush administration flacks Dan Senor and Dana Perino attacked a supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center. But as “The Daily Show” keeps pointing out, these Fox bloviators never acknowledge that the evil prince they’re bashing, Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation) and the recipient of Murdoch mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia but also the subject of lionization elsewhere on Fox.

No less a Murdoch factotum than Neil Cavuto slobbered over bin Talal in a Fox Business Channel interview as recently as January, with nary a question about his supposed terrorist ties. Instead, bin Talal praised Obama’s stance on terrorism and even endorsed the Democrats’ goal of universal health insurance. Do any of the Fox-watching protestors at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits are flowing to a Obama-sympathizing Saudi billionaire in bed with Murdoch? As Jon Stewart summed it up, the protestors who want “to cut off funding to the ‘terror mosque’ ” are aiding that funding by watching Fox and enhancing bin Talal’s News Corp. holdings."

August 29, 2010 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mehlman didn't say some gene made him gay, but he did say:

“It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life."

“The process has been something that’s made me a happier and better person. It’s something I wish I had done years ago.”

August 29, 2010 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

incompetence alert:

"As the five year anniversary again summons up memories of Katrina's devastation of the Gulf Coast, Louisiana voters are giving higher marks to former President George Bush for handling of the storm's aftermath and dealing with crisis than they do for President Obama's handling of the BP oil spill, according to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted Aug. 21-22.

Fifty-four percent say Bush has done a better job in "helping Louisiana to deal with crisis" while 34 percent give more credit to Obama.

Sixty-one percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the oil spill."

they should know!!

August 29, 2010 12:51 PM  
Anonymous life is like a box of chocolates said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 29, 2010 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEW ORLEANS (Aug. 29) -- President Barack Obama says he isn't worried about a recent poll showing that nearly one-fifth of Americans know he is a Muslim.

Obama says "the facts are the facts" in an interview broadcast Sunday on "NBC Nightly News."

Obama says he wouldn't get much done if he spent all his time trying to cover up things, like persistent observations that he wasn't born in the United States.

He says he can't go around with a "photo-shopped birth certificate plastered on my forehead." And he says he his faith is for "the American people to get beyond."

August 29, 2010 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sooooo excited!

Barack's back from his luxurious vacation.

Everything will be alright now.

August 30, 2010 6:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? Do you mean to say everything's NOT going to be all right now because of the Beckapalooza this past weekend?

"A relatively dense and overwhelmingly white crowd stretched from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial out past the Washington Monument. Thousands strained to hear Beck and his most prominent guest, Sarah Palin, because they couldn’t get in range of the massive TV screens and speakers surrounding the Reflecting Pool. A friend of mine walked the whole stretch of the rally and counted 27 African-Americans -- three of them were onstage giving speeches. I could count the number I saw on my fingers."

Is there any doubt about who Beck's fans want to take America back from?

August 30, 2010 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last time a Democrat sat in the White House, he faced a nonstop witch hunt by his political opponents. Prominent figures on the right accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from drug smuggling to murder. And once Republicans took control of Congress, they subjected the Clinton administration to unrelenting harassment — at one point taking 140 hours of sworn testimony over accusations that the White House had misused its Christmas card list.

Now it’s happening again — except that this time it’s even worse. Let’s turn the floor over to Rush Limbaugh: “Imam Hussein Obama,” he recently declared, is “probably the best anti-American president we’ve ever had.”

To get a sense of how much it matters when people like Mr. Limbaugh talk like this, bear in mind that he’s an utterly mainstream figure within the Republican Party; bear in mind, too, that unless something changes the political dynamics, Republicans will soon control at least one house of Congress. This is going to be very, very ugly.

So where is this rage coming from? Why is it flourishing? What will it do to America?

Anyone who remembered the 1990s could have predicted something like the current political craziness. What we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals — even very moderate liberals — legitimate. Mr. Obama’s election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isn’t, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage.

By the way, I’m not talking about the rage of the excluded and the dispossessed: Tea Partiers are relatively affluent, and nobody is angrier these days than the very, very rich. Wall Street has turned on Mr. Obama with a vengeance: last month Steve Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman of the Blackstone Group, the private equity giant, compared proposals to end tax loopholes for hedge fund managers with the Nazi invasion of Poland.

And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage. Jane Mayer’s new article in The New Yorker about the superrich Koch brothers and their war against Mr. Obama has generated much-justified attention, but as Ms. Mayer herself points out, only the scale of their effort is new: billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife waged a similar war against Bill Clinton.

Meanwhile, the right-wing media are replaying their greatest hits. In the 1990s, Mr. Limbaugh used innuendo to feed anti-Clinton mythology, notably the insinuation that Hillary Clinton was complicit in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as we’ve just seen, he’s doing his best to insinuate that Mr. Obama is a Muslim. Again, though, there’s an extra level of craziness this time around: Mr. Limbaugh is the same as he always was, but now seems tame compared with Glenn Beck.

And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to be found.

To take a prime example: the hysteria over the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan almost makes one long for the days when former President George W. Bush tried to soothe religious hatred, declaring Islam a religion of peace. There were good reasons for his position: there are a billion Muslims in the world, and America can’t afford to make all of them its enemies.

But here’s the thing: Mr. Bush is still around, as are many of his former officials. Where are the statements, from the former president or those in his inner circle, preaching tolerance and denouncing anti-Islam hysteria? On this issue, as on many others, the G.O.P. establishment is offering a nearly uniform profile in cowardice.

August 30, 2010 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there are a billion Muslims in the world, and America can’t afford to make all of them its enemies."

what you don't understand is that opposition to an Islamic Center at Ground Zero won't make enemies of this billion

you must remember they exclude even the mention of Judeo-Christianity from their societies

so if public opinion somehow convinces this group to move their center to a less provocative area of Manhattan, there will be no rage in the Muslim streets

maybe a shrug and a yawn

have you ever looked at the stuff taught to grade school kids in Saudi Arabia and Iran about us?

they already consider us the enemy

the only difference between them are the tactics they favor to destroy us

August 30, 2010 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NBC anchorman Brian Williams asked Obama about popular news analyst Glenn Beck's rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday.

Obama said, "I think that Mr. Beck and the rest of those folks were exercising their rights exactly as they should."

The president acknowledged the ralliers' concerns about the economy and terrorism and observed, "Given the facts, you know, it's not surprising that Mr. Beck is able to stir up the country."

Obama added: "I have no doubt that we are gonna rebound and rebound strong eventually. But if you don't have a job right now, it's a tough, tough situation."

August 30, 2010 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"have you ever looked at the stuff taught to grade school kids in Saudi Arabia and Iran about us?"

What are you saying -- if we can't beat 'em in teaching hatred to their young, we should join 'em? How about we continue to be the shining beacon of liberty and equality high on the hill that so many all over the world aspire to attain instead of being as hateful and mistrustful as they are?

The hatred, fear and misunderstanding of Islam you espouse gives comfort and a big fat recruiting tool to our enemies in the war on terror. You should remember and heed Mother Theresa's words:

"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."

August 30, 2010 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What are you saying -- if we can't beat 'em in teaching hatred to their young, we should join 'em?"

no, I'm not

if you'll read my comment, you'll see that my point is that our debate here will have little effect on opinions in the Muslim world

they'll always dislike us more because we have an open liberal society and because we support Israel in their struggle against their anti-semitic neighbors

they don't like us because we allow them to build mosques here, which we do and always will do

we'll actually allow the Ground Zero Islamic Center too but we will also allow our people to speak against it and the buidlers need to understand it won't accomplish its mission where it is

"How about we continue to be the shining beacon of liberty and equality high on the hill that so many all over the world aspire to attain instead of being as hateful and mistrustful as they are?"

disagreeing with the ideas of a religion is not hatred

"The hatred, fear and misunderstanding of Islam you espouse gives comfort and a big fat recruiting tool to our enemies in the war on terror."

you're wrong, the enemies will make little use of this- they have other gripes with us that they get more mileage out of

but, if you really feel that way, I assume you think Harry Reid should resign

August 30, 2010 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"His individual freedom was stolen from him by a group that demands sheepish submission to a false consensus."

So, unless a chairman of a major political party can say whatever he wants and keep the job, he doesn't have individual freedom?

And we're to believe that if the chairman of the Democratic party announced his support for repealing Obamacare, he'd still be there the next day?

August 30, 2010 5:00 PM  
Anonymous amused said...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in the Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.

During a hastily-called Rose Garden event during which the sound system failed him, President Obama attempted today to communicate to the American public that his administration remains on top of the economic crisis.

The president said that his “economic team is hard at work in identifying measures that could make a difference in both promoting growth and hiring.”

The event could be seen as a metaphor for the administration’s flailing on the economy. Originally no remarks were scheduled, then on Sunday evening, the White House announced the president would make remarks in the Oval Office after his economic daily briefing.

Then on Monday that was upgraded to remarks by the president at 12:30 p.m. ET in the Rose Garden after his briefing, signifying a more formal event.

Then those remarks were pushed to 1 p.m.

Finally the president approached the lectern at 1:20 p.m.

Only five sentences into his remarks, the P.A. system fizzled.

“What we did know was that it took nearly a decade -- what we did -- how are we doing on sound, guys?” the president asked

“Is it still going to the press?” he asked, checking to make sure even if he couldn’t be heard clearly in the Rose Garden, broadcast networks were getting clean sound, which they were.

“OK,” the president said.

A plane flew nearby, drowning out his voice.

“What we did know was that it was going to take nearly a decade in order for -- can you guys still hear us?”

Reporters nodded.

“OK,” he continued, “let me try this one more time.”

Not a chance, Barry.

August 30, 2010 6:02 PM  
Anonymous can you trust scientists? said...

UNITED NATIONS (Aug. 30) -- The credibility of the United Nations' chief scientific body on climate change has been "dented" because of errors in its research and "fundamental changes" are needed, according to outside investigators who reviewed the body's workings.

The influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) needs "fundamental changes," said Harold T. Shapiro, a former president of Princeton University who chaired the international committee made up of members of the InterAcademy Council.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Monday that member nations of the climate change body will decide whether or not to replace him after the damning U.N.-ordered review."The errors made did dent the credibility of the process," he added.

August 30, 2010 9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tonight, Barack Obama will get on TV and try to take credit for ending the Iraq war

actually, there are still 50K U.S. troops there and the situation was stabilized by the Bush surge which was opposed by Obama and virtually everyone else except John McCain

still, Obama has, for the most part, acted responsibly in the Iraq situation so that's one bright spot in a rather dismal Obama administration record

August 31, 2010 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama has, for the most part, acted responsibly in the Iraq situation so that's one bright spot in a rather dismal Obama administration record"

Thanks so much for your blessing, oh so Great Pontificator!

August 31, 2010 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no problem, Barry

let me know what you want to do after you leave the White House in 2012 and I'll try to give you some ideas how to get started

August 31, 2010 9:44 AM  
Anonymous America is not amused said...

first, there was the corruption charges against Charlie Wrangel and Maxine Waters

then, the luxurious travel expenses of those crazy jet-setters, Barack and Michelle

now, three more Democrats are under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for charging personal items to the taxpayers

G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, Solomon Ortiz of Texas, and Alcee Hastings of Florida...

seems that whole hopey-changey thing had ulterior motives

the shame

the shame of it all

August 31, 2010 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The facts of the case against Rep. Young (R-AK) are as clear as they are disturbing. There is strong evidence that Rep. Young received improper benefits through his relationship with VECO, and it is disappointing that he will not have to answer for them in a court of law. The fact that Rep. Young will not be criminally prosecuted does not mean he did nothing wrong. The congressman must still be held accountable for his misconduct. The House Ethics Committee should immediately take up not only the VECO matter, but also the question of the earmark for a Florida interchange Rep. Young improperly inserted into a previously enrolled bill. In the recent days, the Committee has shown a newfound willingness to police members' conduct by holding two of the chamber’s most senior members’ feet to the fire; Rep. Young should be the third.”

CREW Calls on Senate Ethics Committee to Act on Senator Ensign

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--As the House of Representatives prepares to hold hearings on ethics charges against two of its most senior members, on the other side of the Hill, Nevada Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has yet to be held accountable for his even more egregious misconduct. In response, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Executive Director Melanie Sloan released the following statement:

“While the House is confronting the ethics problems of two of its members, the Senate appears to be slow-walking the case against Sen. Ensign. Sen. Ensign abused his position to conduct an affair with campaign staffer Cynthia Hampton, who was married to his then-chief of staff, Doug Hampton, fired them both, paid her severance that he improperly failed to report to the Federal Election Commission, and conspired to help Mr. Hampton set up a lobbying business in violation of federal law. Nevertheless, Sen. Ensign remains in the Senate, collecting a $174,000 pay check from American taxpayers.

Since Sen. Ensign has refused to do the right thing by resigning, the Senate Ethics Committee should convene a public hearing so Americans can learn all the details of Sen. Ensign’s misdeeds and decide for themselves whether he is fit for office.”

September 01, 2010 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More from CREW:

"Some members who lost their seats over ethics issues only four years ago have reappeared on the political horizon. Richard Pombo (R-CA) is running for a different House seat than the one he lost in the 2006 election. Although never convicted of corruption, Rep. Pombo's behavior was nonetheless deplorable. He urged the Interior Department to suspend rules opposed by the wind power industry, which just so happened to have paid Pombo's parents hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties. He used taxpayer funds to finance a family vacation through our national parks, and he accepted more than $35,000 from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. These and other ethical lapses earned Pombo a place on CREW's 2006 list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress and persuaded voters to oust him.

Similarly, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), is now challenging Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the Republican Senate primary. Mr. Hayworth, too, was tarred by the Abramoff scandal, receiving more than $100,000 in Abramoff-related donations and repeatedly using Mr. Abramoff's skyboxes to hold fundraisers without reporting the costs to the Federal Election Commission. In addition, Mr. Hayworth's wife served as the sole employee of his PAC and he paid her over 25% of money taken in, while also paying someone else for bookkeeping and fundraising.

For the past five years, CREW has released a list of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress. A review of last year's list of 15 members - 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans - demonstrates that ethical lapses may be the only bipartisan territory in Washington these days. Disappointingly, many of the members who have engaged in misconduct have never been held accountable for their appalling actions. Most have never received so much as a slap on the wrist by the ethics committees and many remain in Congress though voters have been wise enough to throw some of the worst offenders out."

September 01, 2010 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON (AP) - House investigators have recommended that three lawmakers be further investigated to determine whether political contributions were improperly linked to votes on the huge financial overhaul bill.

The independent House Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the member-run House ethics committee pursue potential rules violations by Republicans John Campbell of California and Tom Price of Georgia and Democrat Joseph Crowley of New York.

The ethics office recommended no further investigation of five other lawmakers in the same probe: Democratic Reps. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and Mel Watt of North Carolina, and Republicans Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Chris Lee of New York, and Frank Lucas of Oklahoma.

All offices of the lawmakers had received letters from the OCE by Tuesday and made the conclusions public.

September 01, 2010 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


the American people have already decided that the liberal experiment begun in 2006 and continued in 2008 has failed

heavy governmental intervention has made the economy worse not better

during the Reagan era (1980-2006), every recession was followed by a strong rebound, which is long overdue

the Democrats have failed and it will be a generation before they get another chance, if ever

September 01, 2010 10:30 AM  
Anonymous don't voters are thinking about the environment this year said...

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans saying the Republicans in Congress would do a better job than the Democrats in Congress of handling eight of nine key election issues. The environment is the lone Democratic strength.

September 01, 2010 11:20 AM  
Anonymous near beer said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 01, 2010 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excuse me, but what was President Obama’s Oval Office speech about?

Was it about Iraq, as we were led to expect, or was it about Afghanistan, as we were not led to expect? Was it about the economy, which the president mentioned, or education, which he also mentioned? Could it have been directed at Iraqis, whom the president praised in terms they would not have recognized, or was it about our troops, whom the president praised over and over again -- a kind of rhetorical tick that suggested he had run out of things to say? As a speech, Obama delivered a version of the pudding once served Winton Churchill. “Pray, remove it,” he supposedly said. “It lacks theme.”

An Oval Office speech is supposed to be an important event. This was only Obama’s second, after all, and if he asks us all to interrupt our schedules and listen to what he has to say, then he at least ought to say something. In this, he dismally failed.

Hmmmm...dismal failure.

What more can you say about O-bama?

September 01, 2010 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Many political observers were stunned by the new Gallup poll showing the Republican party with a 10-point advantage in the so-called "generic ballot" question. Now we have a better idea how that happened.

According to new, more detailed Gallup numbers, Democratic advantages on issues like health care, the economy, and handling corruption in government have simply disappeared. Democratic leads that were enormous when the party took control of Congress in 2006 have dwindled to nothing or have now become Republican advantages.

The most striking example is in health care. Back in October 2006, just before Democrats won control of Congress, Gallup asked the traditional question, "Do you think the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress would do a better job dealing with [the following issue]…" At that time, Democrats held a 64 percent to 25 percent lead on health care -- a 39 percentage-point advantage. Now, after Democrats passed their long-dreamed-of national health care bill, the advantage is gone. That is an enormous advantage to have thrown away during four years in power.

The news is just as bad for Democrats on the economy. In October 2006, Democrats held a 53 to 37 lead over Republicans on the issue. Now, after Democrats passed an $862 billion stimulus bill and touted 2010 as the "summer of recovery," Republicans hold a 49 to 38 lead. Democrats have gone from having a 16 point lead to being 11 points behind.

Then there is the question of dealing with corruption in government. Back in '06, a large majority -- 51 percent to 28 percent -- trusted Democrats more than Republicans to deal with the issue. Now, with Democrats facing high-profile ethics proceedings in Congress, Republicans hold a 38 to 35 lead.

Back in 2006, things had gotten so bad for Republicans that Democrats took the lead even in a traditionally Republican area: protecting the country against terrorism. Just before the '06 elections, Democrats held a 47 to 42 lead on protecting against terrorism. Now, after Ft. Hood, Detroit, and the Times Square bombing attempt, Republicans hold a 55 to 31 lead.

The only issue on which Democrats hold the lead today is the environment.

So look at the swings away from the Democratic party: a 38-point swing on health care, a 27-point swing on the economy, a 26-point swing on handling corruption in government, a 29-point swing on combating terrorism. All the progress Democrats had made on those issues during the Bush years has gone away. Is it any wonder Democratic strategists are approaching this November's elections in a state of panic?"

no, it isn't

September 01, 2010 11:03 PM  
Anonymous I see sleaze said...

the sleaze parade continues

yesterday, another Democrat, a state Senator in Maryland was indicted for bribery

seems that whole hopey-changey thing had ulterior motives

the shame

the shame of it all

September 02, 2010 8:19 AM  
Anonymous that's right...parade said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 02, 2010 8:54 AM  
Anonymous I see a presidential first said...

Sarah Palin is going to Iowa to be the headliner at a Republican fund-raiser. In the state that will be the first to hold a contest in the 2012 presidential campaign, even if it has to do it in 2011.

Her staff says this means nothing whatsoever, but let us acknowledge that Palin is on a roll. She’s got her own TV show, not counting Fox News. And she twitters! Her twit on the president’s Iraq speech was: “may make u want to dig out ur old Orwell books so rewritten history can be deciphered.”

And she endorses candidates. In the Republican primary for the United States Senate race in Alaska, her pick, a hitherto unknown person named Joe Miller, beat the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski.

Almost no one expected Murkowski to lose — certainly not the Alaska Democratic Party, which had dumped its nomination on Scott McAdams, the affable mayor of Sitka, a town with 9,000 people and no road access.

Miller’s victory was another big win for Palin in this year’s primaries, and it was followed by the news that she was going to appear at a fall fund-raiser in Iowa — the Iowa of Iowa presidential caucus fame. “Iowa Republicans are going to look favorably on anybody that has come to this state this year to help us win in 2010,” the state party chairman told The Des Moines Register.

So very easy to imagine her on a reality TV show. “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” is set to premiere in November on TLC, the cable network that was known in happier days as The Learning Channel. One of the episodes will reportedly involve an educational visit to Alaska by Kate Gosselin and her twins and sextuplets, who also have a reality show on TLC that used to be known as “Jon & Kate Plus Eight” until her husband ran off with a large number of different women.

Kate Gosselin appeared last year on “Dancing With the Stars,” and Bristol Palin will be competing on it this fall, holding what is apparently the Recent Break-Up slot in the competition. While Levi Johnston, the father of her baby, runs for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, on his own reality show. The Palins are now reality TV royalty, like the Blagojeviches and the Ozzy Osbournes.

In her spare time, the former governor of Alaska is making speeches at $75,000 a pop. To which she must be flown first class, as per her standard contract, or in a private plane that “MUST BE a Lear 60 or larger.” This is a new, emerging “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” version of Palin. In her public comments, Sarah is still just a down-home gal, making moose chili for the kids and assuring an N.R.A. convention that she and Todd prefer sleeping in the back of their truck to paying for a motel room.

I think it is time for her to take a pool of reporters out into the woods, bring down a moose and dress it on the spot. Maybe she could compete with other allegedly outdoorsy politicians, like Joe Miller. Maybe they could call it “Shooting With the Stars.”

September 02, 2010 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what Jim, no blog on the crazy enviromental terrorist yesterday ?

September 02, 2010 10:13 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

No, Anon, there's nothing to say. It's a sad story all the way around.


September 02, 2010 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"used to be known as “Jon & Kate Plus Eight” until her husband ran off with a large number of different women."

That's another promiscuous heterosexual who cannot stick with his commitment to remain married.

Listen to this hetero husband:

Tuesday, August 17, 2010; 12:00 AM

DEAR AMY: I read with some amusement the letter in your column from "Now True Blue," the husband who "cheated" with his wife's friends and then asked you if he could ever reconcile completely with his ex-wife.

My wife and I discussed this and her comment was, "I would rather you 'cheat' with a friend who I like than with some stranger." I realize that this is an unconventional answer, but men do "cheat." We love our wives, but we are just programmed that way. It's not our nature to be monogamous.

I have been fortunate to have many sexual relations with women who were not my wife -- I'm 72 -- and the majority has been with women who were also friends of ours, and happily married themselves.

Most men "cheat" not because there is something wrong with their present relationship, but because an opportunistic sexual liaison appears and one just takes advantage of it.

"It" just happens.

Men hunt. Yes, many sublimate that urge, but for many of us it helps to keep us young and vibrant, and even somewhat mysterious, which are, in the end, some of the qualities that made us attractive to our spouses in the first place.

Your answer to Not True Blue was well put.

But in my opinion the poor fellow is going to carry guilt for the rest of his life and his wife will never let him forget "what he did to her." -- Wandering Husband

DEAR WANDERING: Thank you for explaining why men cheat, but your assertion that "it just happens" means you don't have to understand or justify the choice to cheat. Neat trick.

Women cheat, too, of course (the many "happily married" women who cheat on their husbands with you, for instance), and so your "men are hunters" statement makes me wonder what primal tendency cheating women are supposed to be satisfying.

If you and your wife don't want to have a monogamous relationship, then -- hey, it's a free country.

But my view is that a guy who is married to a woman who wants to be in a monogamous marriage, and who cheats on her repeatedly with her friends (as "Now True Blue" had done), shouldn't also wonder why she doesn't trust him.

September 05, 2010 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is a race-baiting, fear-monger. During the 2008 election campaign, Sarah Palin began instigating hatred by pouring fuel onto an open flame. Americans have never fully addressed its racist origins that were institutionalized through the US Constitution (you know, that whole 3/5 thing found in Article I, Section 2). Instead, we have brushed our fears and prejudices aside and try to move forward. Not necessarily wise, but fair enough. Thus, we have a smoldering fire waiting for someone to come along and ignite that fire and Palin was just all too eager to fill that role. “He’s not like the rest of us,” she screeched repeatedly at campaign rallies. “He thinks America is imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists,” she continued. Despite all evidence to the contrary, she and those on the political right insist on repeating this mantra ad nauseum. The flames of racial intolerance were fanned every single day that Palin was on the campaign trail and she continues to stoke the fear of ‘Real Americans’ every time she posts to her Twitter or Facebook accounts.

Quitters of the World Unite. I am convinced that Laura Schlessinger orchestrated this controversy as a way to launch some new media venture, most likely a role on Fox News. Her response to the caller was so far out of context that even using the faultiest logic, no reasonable connection can be found between question and answer. What we do know is that the series of events that unfolded took less than one week to go full circle. She made her crass statements; gave the obligatory apology that insincerely ignored the issues; made the talk show circuit with her victimized whining; martyred herself by invoking as many Constitutional Amendments as she could fathom. She could only get as far as the first one.

The student is learning from the master. Many mistakenly thought Dr. Laura was no longer on the air, but it turns out that she just is an old dog who needed to learn some new tricks. So she is taking a page out of Sarah Palin’s playbook. Sarah’s classic resignation statement, “I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor,” still reverberates in my ears as if she said it yesterday. She ended her half term of Alaskan governorship with the words of General MacArthur. "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction." She wanted freedom to advance. Yeah, financially.

Schlessinger sees clearly that Sarah Palin is onto something, recognizing that she can sit at home in her bunny slippers attacking people from the obscurity of her home and not be held accountable for the nonsense that comes out of her mouth. Dr. Laura wants to “reclaim” her First Amendment rights by quitting her show. These two women are apparently confused by the First Amendment so I will provide a quick primer on the matter.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

September 05, 2010 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That’s it. That is the First Amendment in its entirety. The government won’t stop you from expressing yourself. Your sponsors can. I missed the part where is said that if a person exercises their right to free speech that those who are offended by said speech do not have an equal right to express themselves in opposition. And as the “free market” system works, sponsors just might elect to pull their sponsorship of the racist speech talk in deference to those who purchase their products. I’m just sayin’.

During a televised appearance on The Larry King Show, Dr. Laura announced her resignation by saying, "… I want to regain my first amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, and attack sponsors.” What exactly is on Dr. Laura’s mind? Blacks shouldn’t marry Whites? Blacks shouldn’t have joined the 43% of whites who voted for Obama? That being NAACP’d is English? When reminded by Larry King that she is free to say whatever she wants, Dr. Laura responded, "yes, but I don't have the right to say what I need to say. My first amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate, they want to eliminate. So that's why I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my peace and not have to live in fear anymore." What exactly is it that Laura Schlessinger so desperately needs to say? The word, “nigger?” Then say it already and let’s move on. And by the way, if you are so hot to say it over and over and over again, don’t apologize for it and claim you were wrong. Say it loud and proud and stand by it.

So now, we have these two women on the loose that are free to say and do anything they want; and they have both demonstrated that the type of speech they are itching to spew is hate-filled racist rhetoric. Sarah has had the luxury of right wing media protection since the day she was introduced to an unsuspecting national audience. She has not been asked a real question since she made a fool of herself with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. Palin is a woman who claims media bias when asked a question as benign as what she reads, and now wants to offer strategic communication consulting to another woman who has a history of racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Islamic sentiment. This really isn’t funny anymore. The flame is now an inferno. Palin and Schlessinger have now crossed their money-hungry ambition into the realm of incitement. What’s next? Teaming up with Sharron Angle to actually purchase the guns for the “Second Amendment solutions?”

September 05, 2010 1:08 PM  
Anonymous factologist said...

this whole malarkey response about how homosexual promiscuity is excused because heterosexuals engage in extramarital activity is ignorant

obviously, adultery is common and never has been rare

not to excuse it but heteros generally take it one at a time and have some relationship with the individual, even if this is generally because of the influence of the female partner

homos, on the other hand, have a tendency toward casual, random, serial encounter with a large gay population which allows to disease to transit more quickly through the population

a similar phenomena takes place in third world societies where prostitution is rampant and widespread

homosexuality and prostitution, but not heterosexual promiscuity appear to result in widespread HIV infections

teach the facts

September 05, 2010 1:20 PM  
Anonymous most liberals are liars said...

"So now, we have these two women on the loose that are free to say and do anything they want; and they have both demonstrated that the type of speech they are itching to spew is hate-filled racist rhetoric."

I don't remember hearing any hate-filled, racist rhetoric from either of these insightful ladies.

Please enlighten us with some quotes.

September 05, 2010 1:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only reason AZ Governor Jan Brewer stumbled into-- let alone through-- the first catastrophic debate was because, according to her campaign, she wouldn't have qualified for the more than $1.7 million in public campaign funding if she didn't debate at least once. Instead, for the remainder of the Inferno State's campaign, she will just speak directly to fellow racists, irrational loons and bigots via Hate Talk Radio and the Republican Party's Fox News.

Some people who watched the video of Brewer self-destructing before, during and after the debate think it may be because she had Ronald on her mind. No, not Ronald Reagan, Ronald Brewer, her criminally insane son. In fact, she could be feeling guilt pangs for allowing vital services to the mentally ill fall apart on the alter of the budget cuts she was trying to brag about during one of her brain freezes.

"Ronald Brewer, 46, is not just mentally ill. He was deemed criminally insane in 1990, following a July 1989 arrest and subsequent indictment for the sexual assault and kidnapping of a Phoenix woman. According to a Phoenix Police Department report dated July 29, 1989, Brewer, then an unemployed 25-year-old, forced his way into a woman's apartment on West Indian School Road and threatened to hurt her "real bad" if she didn't engage in sexual acts, including performing fellatio.

According to a police interview with the victim, the entire ordeal lasted "approximately 20 minutes. During the assault, she feared for her life and thought the suspect was going to kill her if she did not cooperate."

September 05, 2010 3:24 PM  
Anonymous liberals our stoopid said...

if this kind of personal attack is common in Arizona, Brewer will no doubt be reaping a large sympathy vote

haven't heard that Brewer is racist

let's see your evidence

btw, there is no "e" in altar, you fool

September 05, 2010 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You tell 'em, Stoopid, the spellchecker!

September 05, 2010 6:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asked in June, on local TV, to explain which beheadings she was referring to, GOP Governor Jan Brewer of AZ made her now-famous claim:

"Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded."

None of that, of course, is at all true. But it is very crazy.

On Friday, Brewer finally came up with something resembling an explanation:

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," the governor said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."
Brewer insisted later that she has been misquoted. "I never said 'Arizona,' and it's unfortunate that it was construed as 'Arizona.' "

Right. "Our law enforcement agencies" just meant various law enforcement agencies of the Earth, as a whole, and by "the desert" she meant some other desert not specifically in the state that she is the governor of.

Brewer actually demonstrated some degree of sense when she announced that she will not participate in any more debates, and "said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign."

(And we have not even mentioned the time when Jan Brewer said, "My father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany," even though he died, of lung cancer, in 1955, and never served overseas.)

Of course Barack Obama is partly to blame for all this crazy. He selected former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to be his Homeland Security Secretary and then-Secretary of State Brewer was next in line. Since then she's proudly signed every nutty thing the Legislature put on her desk. Brewer never would've won a gubernatorial election without being able to run as the woman who signed Arizona SB 1070. Because, as you can see, she's crazy.

September 06, 2010 8:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home