Nancy Pelosi, before she drank too deep of the Kook-Aid:
It’s a reminder, of course, that the Democrats don’t have any fixed principles that they routinely apply to all situations. Their sole, naked goal, is total victory and control.
Hat tip: Sadie
George Orwell, 1984:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Nancy Pelosi, on the unreasonableness of the democratic legislature process:
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.
Barack Obama, on the occasion of his 2nd inauguration:
Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
Mommy! I’m scared!
A friend wrote to me quite appropriately outraged about the fact that Nancy Pelosi is saying that, if there was a security failure in Benghazi, blame belongs to the Republicans:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on CNN Tuesday attempted to shift the blame for the disastrous handling of the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya from the Obama administration onto Republican lawmakers, arguing they withheld $300 million in funding that could have provided much-needed security at the consulate.
Appearing on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show, Pelosi also said calls coming from the GOP to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi are likely politically motivated.
“So, are you saying this is political from their perspective,” Blitzer asked the congresswoman.
“One might suspect that,” she replied.
Read the rest here.
So, if I understand Pelosi’s reasoning, the State Department, which is responsible for embassy security and which is entirely under Democrat control, said no to multiple requests for increased security in Benghazi because Republicans wouldn’t hand over $300 million? Yeah, right. This from an administration that, without even blinking, spent several trillion dollars we don’t even have on green boondoggles, socialized car manufacturing, and other exciting Democrat initiatives?
Even someone without a sense of smell can recognize that this doesn’t pass the smell test. As my friend says, the reason there was no security in Benghazi is that the administration wanted “no boots on the ground.” They didn’t want it to appear that U.S. forces were “invading” another country. A shallow administration had a shallow reason for putting American lives at risk.
On the one hand, what Pelosi says is absolutely maddening. After all, given her access to the legacy media, she has a bully pulpit to spin these fantastical tales to the American people. On the other hand, though, that bully pulpit leads to hubris, which leads to stupidity — and, eventually, stupidity is hard to hide.
What I’m about to say appears like a digression, but it’s not: Another friend told me that he heard two gals in a suburban coffee shop, both obviously stereotypical liberal soccer mom types. Except that one said to the other something along the lines of “I don’t know. It seems like the news never reports anything critical about Obama. All they say is good stuff about him and bad stuff about Romney.”
I mention this because even the most biased and disinterested Americans might be figuring out that people like Nancy Pelosi are full to the brim with hubris and fecal matter. (Setting a good example for my kids, I don’t swear.)
Of course, that coffee shop gal might have been like me — a stealth agent politely trying to open liberals’ eyes to the fact that they live in a bubble, and an increasingly dangerous one at that. Part of my stealth tactic comes about because I’m not a big fan of direct confrontation. Part of it, though, comes about because I believe that, when a person’s ideology is being challenged, it’s much more effective to infiltrate from behind than to engage in a full frontal attack. Using the dumb blonde strategy is an effective way to get people to think without making them feel threatened.
Anyway, I’m almost pleased when Nancy Pelosi says such insanely, intuitively stupid things because it gives me great openings to suggest to my blindly liberal friends that their leaders have mouse-sized brains and rat-sized personalities.
I’m with American Crossroads, which believes that Joe Biden is just what the Democrat ticket needs:
Gravitas! (Giggle, giggle.)
I’m suspect, though, that the Democrats themselves are becoming disenchanted with Good Old Joe. Apparently they cast around for the Hillary alternative, only to get a resounding “No!” from a woman who neither wanted to be on a winning nor a losing Democrat ticket, because she thought both would be bad for her career. You can always trust the Clintons to keep their eyes on the main chance.
So who’s next? I’m voting for a “Draft Elizabeth Warren” movement.
Think about it for a moment: while the Republican party has more young guns than it can count, who does the Democrat party have? Jesse Jackson, Jr.? No. Poor guy has a bipolar disorder. I wish him well, but no one wishes him on the ticket. Rahm Emanuel? Nope. You don’t go from Chief of Staff, to Mayor of a corrupt, crime-ridden city, to second on the presidential ticket. Raddled old Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? Big NO there. Debbie What’s-her-name Schlemeil? I think Baghdad Debbie has had her dishonest day.
I didn’t think so.
The only “young” gun they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren. She’s struggling to stay above water in Massachusetts, but Democrats might see her as someone who can revive the base if she’s on the presidential ticket. After all, when it comes to “You didn’t build that,” she and Obama are two minds with but a single thought. Better an exciting candidate on the presidential ticket than a struggling candidate for a senate seat that’s already filled by a fairly popular, attractive RINO.
My best guess today is that, in a week or so, poor old Joe is going to get very sick and need to retire abruptly. And stalwart Progressive Elizabeth Warren will valiantly step up to fill Joe’s shoes.
What do you think?
Writing a couple of years ago about the streets of San Francisco, in a post I called “Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco,” I had this to say:
Last week, I had occasion to make four separate trips to the City. Each was unpleasant.
The first trip, I got a flat tire from broken glass in the street. I know that can happen anywhere, but it’s more likely along the Market Street stretch I had to travel.
The second trip, I found myself at a corner that boasted both a stop sign and a red light. This was ludicrous, confusing and, therefore, dangerous. This is manic control run amok.
The third trip, I almost got a ticket when I parked at what appeared to be a non-metered space. Half the block had parking meters; half the block, the part where I was parking, didn’t. It was only because a nice pedestrian warned me that I learned that there was an electronic kiosk about 25 feet away from my car that sold parking passes for the car’s dashboard. Other than that word of mouth tip, there were no signs at all warning that, while half the block had old-fashioned meters, the other half had switched to a computer system.
The fourth trip, my husband and I were walking down Gough Street towards the Opera House at dusk. Between the failing light and the broken and dimmed street lights, it was impossible to avoid the hazards of pitted, jagged, broken uneven sidewalk. It was only because we’re in good shape, with decent balance, that the two of us avoided a painful tumble. I won’t even describe the smell of urine and sewage that kept wafting up towards us as we walked along.
Welcome to Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco.
Well, San Francisco has made this disgrace official, by naming a street after Nancy Pelosi.
Proving, as he so often does, that a picture is worth a thousand words, Michael Ramirez has nailed this most recent San Francisco development.
Newt made a very good point about his earlier support for an individual mandate when it came to health care: The Heritage Foundation, as reputable a conservative think tank as one can find, actually thought the idea was a good one. Then, as Newt did, it backed off when it realized the ramifications:
Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma: “Mr. Speaker, you speak passionately about first principles and small government — smaller government, yet you supported individual mandates for health insurance….Why should limited government conservatives like me trust that a President Gingrich will not advance these sorts of big government approaches when you are president?”
Newt Gingrich: “Well…the original individual mandate originally was developed by [the] Heritage Foundation and others as a method to block Hillarycare in 1993, and virtually all of us who were conservatives came to the conclusion that, in fact, it was more dangerous and more difficult to implement, and guaranteed that politics and politicians would define health care. And that’s why virtually every conservative has, in fact, left that kind of a model.”
Speaking of Newt, was I the only one who was delighted with his response when Nancy Pelosi threatened to reveal secrets? Rather than cowering, he said (a) bring it on and (b) I’m going to ream you for violating ethics rules. And then she backed down. This is why conservatives like Newt. He’s not afraid of the establishment. He may be a fruitcake, but he’s our warrior fruitcake!
David Axelrod’s talk yesterday included a shout-out to the lovable Nancy Pelosi, whom he feels is unfairly maligned by the Rushes of this world. Per David, Nancy is not an effete San Francisco liberal. Instead, she’s a tough political operative — for all the right, i.e., Progressive, reasons, of course — who was trained in her Dad’s old-fashioned, rough-and-tumble ward rooms. He described with affection Nancy ramming her finger repeatedly in his chest when she felt he’d failed to deliver on something or other.
What a charmer.
I can readily believe Axelrod’s talk about Nancy’s toughness and finger strikes. The “principled” part, though, is a little harder. Isn’t this the woman who recently castigated Catholics for having “this conscience thing“? Hmmm…. Conscience? Principles? They kind of seem like a matched set to me.
Just the other day, Pelosi again stumbled on her principles when she complained that Bishops who object to forcing Catholics to subsidize things that they think are morally evil (abortions, for example) are “lobbyists.” The Anchoress has more on this one. When I think of Nancy Pelosi and principles, I keep getting a mental image of Jon Lovitz doing his compulsive liar shtick. “Yeah, principles. That’s the ticket!”
Nancy Pelosi may be mad at Robert Gibbs for admitting that the upcoming elections aren’t going to result in Democratic gains, but the fact is that she sounds pretty desperate herself in this email I got begging for funds:
Midnight tonight is your last chance to contribute to the DCCC before one of the most critical FEC deadlines of this election and the first since Republicans have experienced a surge in their fundraising.
It’s critical that House Democrats have a strong showing this month. The media and Washington pundits will view our fundraising totals as an indication of our strength to take on Republicans and their powerful special interest supporters in November.
Republicans have been claiming to have the momentum. We know that’s not true, and if you stand with me at this decisive moment in our campaign, we will make this clear to the world. We are just $35,919 away from our goal and are so committed to making this goal that all gifts today will be matched 2-to-1 by a group of generous Democratic donors.
This election comes down to a choice between going forward or going back to Republican rule and the same exact failed policies of the Bush agenda.
My question for you: Does she really think that, 18 months into Obama’s presidency, and 6 years into a Democratic controlled Congress, “blame Bush” is still a workable tactic?
As part of a longer post about the Democrats’ anti-democratic tendencies, Peter Wehner has this to say:
If you wanted a sound bite that embodied much of what is wrong with contemporary liberalism, you could do worse than listen to the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on health care:
We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we’re going to get health-care reform passed for the America people.
Set aside the fact that Ms. Pelosi sounds like Tareq and Michaele Salahi trying to crash a White House State dinner. She seems to view herself as part of the guardian class, as one of our philosopher kings who knows better than the great, unwashed masses what is good for them. It is of a piece with the collectivist mindset, one that believes that it is with the ruling class that wisdom resides. They know best – and they will give you not what you may want but what they believe you need.
This view is exceedingly arrogant and, if it is indulged in often enough, it becomes, in some sense, anti-democratic.
There is a long history in America to dictate the proper role of its legislators. Some argue they ought to mirror public opinion all the time; others argue that we elect people to political posts based on our confidence in their judgment. They therefore have a relatively free hand to pursue the agenda they deem appropriate. But even those who subscribe to the views of the second group understand that in the end, ours is a representative form of government. The will of the people matters. We are, after all, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
I concur heartily and urge you to read Wehner’s entire post.
That Nancy Pelosi is a pistol. Here she is, a terrible public speaker, but still arguing strongly that it’s absolutely unconscionable for Congress to sneak bills through committee, to vote on things they haven’t read and don’t know, to vote on bills that the American public hasn’t had to read, to have bills in the thousands of pages that are unintelligible, to vote on things the voters strongly oppose, and to allow the government to have access to people’s tax information for matters unrelated to taxes. These are some amazing, even if somewhat muddled speeches. I felt like standing up and cheering whenever, periodically, I was able to understand her.
The only problem was that these speeches were given in 2005. Apparently these heart-felt principles just don’t matter when you’re the party in power, and you have the opportunity to take over almost 20% of the American economy and forever after deprive American citizens of their freedom from government control:
Hat tip: Stop the ACLU and Andrea Shea King
To protest against the Healthcare Bill, instead of a 60s sit-in, Bay Area Patriots will be having a
We are sick to death of being ignored;
We are sick to death over what the Health Care bill will do to us and our children;
We are sick to death having this govt intrude on our G-d given liberties;
This Health Care Bill sickens us all;
This Health Care Bill is Gonna Kill Us!
When: Sunday, November 15th
Time: 12:00 pm until 4:00 pm
Note: We will be setting up, chatting, meeting one another and selling merchandise from 12:00 until 1:00 when the SICK- IN will officially start. Amplified sound needs to stop by 3:00. We can hang around until 4:00 but without amplified sound.
Place: Adjacent to Justin Herman Plaza, the Embarcadero, San Francisco. Technically, at the South Lawn Music Concourse (between Steuert and the Embarcadero/Mission and Market).
When you face the Ferry Building and are standing at Justin Herman Plaza, it is directly to your right…a rectangular patch of grass! If you Google Justin Herman Plaza, click on satellite image and move the cursor to the right, you can see it clear as day.
You can take the Ferry or BART or drive and park.
What to bring:
· BAP shirts if you have them…otherwise red…
· Crutches, slings, walkers, wheelchairs, bandages for around your head…whatever you can bring that is simple and easy to make you look sick…we will do some filming so we can prepare a video called “Killer” to the tune of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video. Be ready to line up and look like a sick ghoul or zombie…masks are discretionary…looking like regular sick folk is just fine.
· We will use quiet time to work: Be prepared to send and write letters to senators, thanking the reps who voted against the bill, and letting the reps who voted for the bill know how we feel about that. We’ll try to have some computers set up so you can BLAST FAX them as well.
· Bring your sense of humor, determination and patriotism.
RSVP: to Sally at email@example.com
Please spread the word…and bring friends…as the weather gets more challenging it will be more difficult to have these outdoor tea parties.
We will be selling T-shirts ($15-$20), tote bags ($5), bumper stickers ($3) and wrist bands ($2). All proceeds help defray the costs associated with the tea parties. Thanks for your support during these very difficult economic and emotional times.
UPDATE: The above text comes directly from Bay Area Patriots. This is me, Bookworm, speaking: We all had a lot of adrenalin going in August. People all over the country were attending Tea Parties, and it was tremendously exciting to be part of a mass movement. Now, the days are shorter, the air is colder, and Nancy ignored us completely. It’s as if the air got sucked out of our protest balloon. That’s a significant problem because we conservatives and independents, unlike liberals, are not practiced or professional protesters. We don’t roll out of bed every morning and grab the Marxist signs that live perpetually in the back of our closets. Instead, we need to be fired up and now we’re not only not fired up, we’re demoralized.
All of which makes it that much more important for us to dig within ourselves and find the energy to holler out “NO!” to a bill that will bankrupt our economy, insert the government in every area of our lives, destroy our medical system, criminalize us for not purchasing a product and, for those pro-Lifers amongst you, inevitably mean that you bankroll abortions.
As for me, I love the idea of the first resounding NO taking place on Nancy Pelosi’s home turf. I live with the Pelosis of this world and I understand how they feel about a rally in Wichita — they don’t care, because fly-over country is made up of hicks. (If you doubt me, just cast your mind back to Obama’s insulting speech about Pennsylvanians, whom he includes within the fly-over country category.) A rally at home, a massive, charged up, in your face rally at home, shakes the liberal politicians, because it upsets their world view.
One more thing: Please, please, please, if you show up, keep your signs and your slogans focused tightly on the health care bill. A reality in our world is a hostile mainstream media, and one “Hitleresque” sign will occupy 100% of the media’s focus. No one outside of the protesters themselves will see the hundreds of straightforward, or brilliant, or witty signs directed at the insanity that is the Pelosi/Obama health care bill. I viscerally appreciate that it might feel good for you, personally, to vent your spleen, but it’s a short lived pleasure, with long term negative consequences for a very, very important issue.
In 1993, Clinton tried to raise taxes. Bad idea. In 1995, Gingrich tried to cut Medicare. Bad idea. Both of those moves set up a resounding rebuff from voters. As Kristol explains, Pelosi is setting herself up as a classic overachiever and trying to do both, plus a little bit more:
Politicians aren’t altogether stupid. No president or congressional majority has tried to raise taxes since 1993. No president or congressional majority has tried to slash Medicare since 1995.
Until now. With Barack Obama as her front man, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi–the real power in the Democratic party–has gone Clinton and Gingrich one better. Clinton tried to hike taxes. Gingrich sought to cut Medicare. Pelosi wants to do both at once. This is quite a feat: She’s combined the most unpopular Democratic and Republican proposals of the last generation in one piece of legislation.
And her timing is impeccable. Pelosi has decided to raise taxes and discourage employment just as joblessness approaches 10 percent. She’s decided to cut Medicare reimbursements just as seniors’ retirement accounts have shrunk. She’s decided to advance a huge spending bill just as the deficit is at historic highs. She’s decided to insist on federal funding of abortion just as the issue seems to have reached some sustainable middle ground. And she’s decided to put forward a 2,000-page piece of legislation with a mind-boggling array of scary instances of bureaucratic coercion and farcical examples of nanny-state liberalism–all nuggets of political gold for Republicans–at a time when the public is sick of statist overreaching and big-government meddling.
The big question, of course, is whether Pelosi will succeed where both Clinton and Gingrich, the star politicians of the 1990s, failed. Pelosi does have something neither had back then, which is party control of the White House and both branches of Congress. She also has an utterly compliant media. Kristol thinks that, offsetting these aids to power is something new: Swine Flu.
This should be interesting.
The San Francisco Chronicle, although the major newspaper in the San Francisco Bay Area, is basically fish wrap. Today’s front page story about the protests at town hall meetings, in just the first few paragraphs, reports as true proven lies:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent her chamber home for the summer recess with a list of talking points to respond to constituents’ questions about pending health care legislation.
But those traditionally sleepy town hall meetings have become rowdy shout-fests across the nation, including Northern California, with opponents hanging members in effigy and mocking them with Nazi and devil imagery in an effort to derail discussions of health care. [As Kevin Ryland carefully documents, the charge of Nazi imagery, which originated with Nancy Pelosi, seems to be a Pelosi fantasy that is unsubstantiated by even the most fervently anti-conservative, pro-single payer medicine news sources and blogs. This doesn't stop the Chron from repeating this vicious slander as the God's own truth.]
They’re organized in part by conservative think tanks like FreedomWorks, which offers tips on how to disrupt a meeting (“Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early,” says one) and helped in some cases by anti-tax “Tea Party” sympathizers. [Here's another canard, and Mary Katharine Hamm completely debunks it. There is no evidence for astroturfing here. Even one second of decent research by someone who purportedly makes a living digging for the truth should have revealed that this is a lie from start to finish. The reporter is simply regurgitating false Democratic party talking points and pretending they are news.]
The same “news” story repeats at length Pelosi’s charge that this is all “astroturfing.” Interestingly, the reporter apparently made no effort to talk to conservatives to see what their view is about the concerned citizenry pouring into these townhall meetings.
It says an enormous amount about Nancy Pelosi’s credibility that the public, by a two to one margin, believes spooks rather than her.
Steven Crowder’s Nancy Pelosi impression (love the lipstick, dude) is hysterical:
The Politico headlines reveal that the Dems are picking a direct fight with the CIA. Pelosi says they lied to her, while the Dem leadership is accusing the CIA of breaking laws.
My idle question is this: Is it wise to pick a fight with those who ferret out and keep the secrets? Bush never attacked the CIA and they set out to destroy him anyway, in part because they felt he made them look bad by revealing their failed intelligence in Iraq. While the CIA (to put it politely) may have a Democratic tilt, it’s primarily a “look out for yourself organization.” There’s no way in H-E-double toothpicks that CIA operatives are going to sit by while the Democrats, from the president on down, impugn their collective integrity and threaten them with criminal action.
My answer to my own question is that this was an incredibly stupid move on the Dems’ part. If they were wise, they’d drop it and work hard to make amends. Since wisdom seems beyond them, they’re just digging deeper and deeper.
Richard Cohen, after an opening paragraph in which he basically begs Leftist bloggers not to attack him (“I hate Cheney more than you do”) goes on to do a pretty honest evaluation of the merits of Cheney’s claim that “enhanced interrogation techniques” save lives (and throws in a nice little attack on Pelosi’s embarrassing efforts to avoid her own past):
Still, every dog has his day, and Cheney is barking up a storm on the efficacy of what can colloquially be called torture. He says he knows of two CIA memos that support his contention that the harsh interrogation methods worked and that many lives were saved. “That’s what’s in those memos,” he told Schieffer. They talk “specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped.”
Cheney says he once had the memos in his files and has since asked that they be released. He’s got a point. After all, this is not merely some political catfight conducted by bloggers, although it is a bit of that, too. Inescapably, it is about life and death — not ideology, but people hurling themselves from the burning World Trade Center. If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about enhanced interrogation methods? Should they be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is and not just what ought to be?
In a similar vein, can we also find out what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it? If she did indeed know about waterboarding back in 2003, that would hardly make her a war criminal. But if she knew and insists otherwise, that would make her one of those people who will not acknowledge that the immediate post-Sept. 11 atmosphere allowed for methods that now seem abhorrent. Certain Democratic politicians remind me of what Oscar Levant supposedly said of Doris Day: “I knew [her] before she was a virgin.” They have no memory of who they used to be.
I’m impressed that Cohen was able to rise against both his own personal and political biases. I’m not inclined to believe, though, that he was motivated purely by high-mindedness. I assume Cohen lives in either New York or Washington. I therefore wonder if his sudden willingness to reexamine the whole “torture” thing is because he lives in cities that, to terrorists’ eyes, have big targets painted on them.
It’s easy to whine about the immorality of torture when you’re pretty sure that, despite your whining, your government is going to use a certain amount of bullying against the bad guys to protect you. It becomes less easy to support that high-minded stance when you’re suddenly faced with the specter of a government that promises to take you seriously, even if that means it helps paint even brighter colors on the target currently decorating your backside.
This morning Mr. Bookworm offered me something: “Hey! You want to blog about something Obama’s doing that I don’t like?”
I was curious. “What?”
“This Employee Free Choice Act. What’s up with that?”
“That’s been around for a while,” I said. “It’s one of the platforms on which Obama ran.”
He asked, “What do you mean? I’ve never heard of it.” I forebore to point out that this might be an indictment about the NY Times, NPR and The New Yorker, which are Mr. Bookworm’s only news sources.
“Anyway,” I said, “it’s kind of old news. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama promised to enact it as one of their first pieces of legislation.”
Another why question: “Why would they do that? This is a piece of crap?”
“They’re doing it because it’s payback time to the union bosses.”
A blank look: “What do you mean? This is a piece of crap legislation.”
I explain: “This isn’t about the legislation’s merits. This is payback. The union bosses deliver the vote; the politicians deliver an Orwellian act that’s aimed at turning every workplace into a union shop.”
The last plaintive words I heard drifting down the hall as I headed off to work were, “But I don’t understand….”
It saddens me a great deal that a bright person caught in the NY Times web managed to vote for someone when he had no idea what that someone was promising to do. It also saddens me a great deal that a bright person is so naive that he can’t understand that a dangerous and crappy piece of legislation is on the table as part of political dirty dealing. On the other hand, I’m pleased to see a little crack in the wall. That, at least, might lead to bigger and better things.
After noting Pelosi’s assurance that millions for STD treatment will help stimulate the economy (or, I might add, at least stimulate some libidos), Mark Steyn has this to say:
The more interviews Speaker Pelosi gives explaining how vital the STD industry is to restarting the U.S. economy, the more I find myself hearing “syphilis” every time she says “stimulus.” In late September, America was showing the first signs of “primary stimulus”—a few billion lesions popping up on the rarely glimpsed naughty bits of the economy: the subprime mortgage racket, the leverage kings. Now, the condition has metastasized in a mere four months into the advanced stages of “tertiary stimulus,” with trillions of hideous, ever more inflamed pustules sprouting in every nook and cranny as the central nervous system of the body politic crumbles into total insanity—until it seems entirely normal for the second-in-line of presidential succession to be on TV gibbering away about how vital the federalization of condom distribution is to economic recovery.
That is some mighty fine political writing.
This is about the most depressing video I’ve seen in a long time:
It’s obvious that the media effectively got its message across — and it’s impressive how unperturbed these voters are by their abysmal ignorance. The last woman, who is also the most charming, openly professes surprise at her ignorance, but discounts any possibility that more information might have changed her mind. Aargh!!!!
If you watch this video, you should also read Paul Kengor’s article about the way in which modern education has drained students of any ability to think independently or analyze data, and has turned them into mindless Leftist drones.
UPDATE: Deanna left a comment worrying that Democrats will simply discount this video, because it’s a small sample, and we don’t know the selection process. However, in this case, the Dems can’t colorably make that argument, because this pathetic simply of ill-informed individuals (fed by NPR, CNN, the New York Times, or nothing at all) are actually perfectly representative of a poll Zogby conducted showing the voters’ profound ignorance of basic political facts:
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
There is no doubt that Democrats will discount this video, but that reason will be denied them.
Was I the only one who found it hysterically funny that Nancy Pelosi, after building a political career on the cult of victimhood — especially women’s victimhood — is now snapping at all those well-trained victimized women to give it up and get with the program?
“I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim. This is about you go out there and you fight,” she said. “I think that what Hillary Clinton did was tremendous for the country. She has kicked open many doors, which now we have to bring many more women through, millions more women through. My being speaker of the House was breaking the marble ceiling in Congress, which is hard. Sen. Clinton [had] a bigger challenge to run for president of the United States. What we have to do now is say, we have to translate that not just for individuals, but for all women.”
It’s nice to see the victim concept step out from behind the curtain. As you and I have long realized, it has nothing to do with ones actual status, and everything to do with where one stands vis-a-vis the Democratic Party and its goals.
(As a by the way, I’ve been reading a delightful book about Einstein, and I’ve learned a lot of about the theory of relativity. I can assure you, therefore, that when Einstein talked about relativity, he wasn’t contemplating whether the Democratic Party thought you were for it or against it.)
On the same trained dog theory, is it any surprise that Barack Obama, running for President of this land, is trying to terrorize TV stations into pulling an ad reminding people of his close ties to a terrorist? When you’re a Leftist, you never fight ideas with ideas (or with truth), you just bring in the big guns. Of course, given that the truth, for Obama, can only hurt him, it’s probably not surprising that he’s opting for bullying and threats in the face of a very damaging ad.
Here’s one more piece of food for thought about that Ayers ad. The same news article that describes Obama’s bullying tactics contains this line: “Obama has denounced Ayers’ past activities.” All well and good, but please note that Ayers himself has never apologized or expressed remorse. To the contrary: He’s proud of what he did, wishes he’d done more, and believes that the “in-America” terrorist fight should continue. Given that Ayers is unrepentent, who cares that Obama has “denounced” the acts he committed in the 1960s? What matters is that Obama is completely comfortable with someone who continues to hold radical, violent anti-American views. Again, sometimes you just can’t untrain Pavlov’s dog.
UPDATE: I knew I’d seen the Ayers ad somewhere, but couldn’t find it. Power Line has a copy running, though, so here it is. So far as I know, there is nothing in that ad that is untrue.
IBD does an enjoyably neat job of cutting Nancy Pelosi down to size:
When challenged in an interview with Politico.com about her bullheaded refusal to let Republicans submit energy policies for approval, Pelosi resorted to risible hyperbole to justify her iron-fisted rule of the House parliamentary process.
“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she responded. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”
If the San Francisco Democrat’s magisterial narcissism isn’t off-putting enough, her intent should be. She’s saying that her importance to the survival of Earth transcends our system of open government, elections and power-sharing. Because she’s trying to save the world, she can’t be challenged and dissent will not be tolerated.
Read the rest here.
Oh, speaking of stupidity regarding oil policy, get a load of this video of Barack Obama advising us to dig out our tire air gauges to save the planet, along with John Hindraker’s little reality check.
The story is amazing and the source — the normally anti-American Spiegel (a German magazine) — is equally amazing. According to this story, things in Baghdad are going really well, and the citizens have a renewed sense of well-being and purpose:
There is an unexpected air of normalcy prevailing in Baghdad these days, with consumption flourishing and confidence in the government growing. The progress is astonishing, but can it last?
Pork is available in Baghdad once again. Not just in the Green Zone, where US diplomats can enjoy their spare ribs and Parma ham, but also across the Tigris River, in the real Baghdad, at “Al-Warda” on Karada Street. Bassim Dencha, 32, one of the few Christians remaining in Iraq and the co-owner of Baghdad’s finest supermarket, has developed a supply line from Syria. As a result, he now has frozen pork chops and bratwurst arranged in his freezers, next to boxes of frozen French fries and German Black Forest Cakes. And the customers are buying.
For four years, selling pork or alcohol in Baghdad was a security risk. But the acts of terror committed by Islamist fundamentalists, who once punished such violations of their interpretation of the Koran with attacks on businesses and their owners, have gradually subsided. The supply of imported goods is also relatively secure today, now that roads through the Sunni Triangle are significantly safer than they were only a few months ago.
“It’s worth it again,” says businessman Bassim Dencha. “All we need now is enough electricity to reopen our refrigerated warehouse.”
And on and on, with details of progress and optimism. The story (of course) points to the fragility of this renewal, and has doom and gloom statements about its sustainability, but the story’s general tenor is cautious optimism.
Do you think Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama have read this? Do you think they care? How about the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, etc., ad nauseum? I doubt any of them want to see stories like this published in America between now and November. It will be devastating to their oft repeated message that the Iraq War is unwinnable (since this report allows for the possibility that we won), and that Bush was a horrible, malevolent idiot, whose wrongful conduct taints all Republicans, practically mandating an Obama victory.
Please go to the Spiegel story and email it to your friends. More people should read it and see what they’re missing when they open America’s papers and magazines, or turn on the news channels.