July 31, 2006
I need sleep.
July 27, 2006
Deleted scenes from when Snow Miser allowed his brother Heat Miser to take over the North Pole for a day!
"Oh, some like it hot. But I like it REALLY hot!"
Unfortunately, he's probably going to focus on districts where he'll be preaching to the choir. But if there are any swing districts on the list this is awesome news.
But some Democrats, particularly centrist lawmakers who support [Democratic Minority Whip Steny] Hoyer, question whether Murtha can be helpful in many races that their party needs to win if they are to capture control of the House.One of the States he's mentioned is Connecticut! Oh boy, I hope and pray that he comes to the 2nd, 4th and 5th districts. Oh please, Oh please, Oh please!!!
Im sure Mr. Murtha is going to be traveling extensively, but I bet you he wont be going to Blue Dog districts, one lawmaker said, referring to members of the caucus of centrist Democrats from the South. I cant imagine that he will be very welcome in many Blue Dog districts.
The lawmaker said that while Murtha has a centrist record on many issues, voters would be most aware of his strong position against the war, which could alienate swing voters in states Bush won. The lawmaker noted that Democrats need to capture districts in those so-called red states.
A centrist Democratic candidate who requested anonymity to protect his relationships with Murtha allies said he turned down an offer for Murtha to come to his district.
Many CT Democrats (the foaming-at-the-mouth, Bush-hating variety) will be thrilled, no doubt. But the rest of us (especially Independents) will say "Hey, isn't that the goofball who proposed a full troop withdrawal and then voted against his own proposal?"
The article in The Hill also speculates that he has another reason for being so high-profile:
Murtha may be calculating that he needs to do more to help candidates if he is to counter Hoyers prolific fundraising for Democrats over years. Hoyer has given $770,000 to Democratic candidates this election cycle, more than any other lawmaker, his aides say. He has also raised $2 million for candidates this cycle, they add.I'd love it if whatever candidate he's stumping for introduces him as "the next Majority Leader of the House". They can play that on the news over and over and over and it would suit me just fine.
If Democrats win the House in November, freshmen could determine who becomes majority leader. One Democratic candidate who said Murtha offered to come into his district said the senior Pennsylvanian is doing spadework for his run to majority leader.
Why else would he be wanting to come into districts like mine? the candidate said, noting that President Bush carried it by more than 10 points in 2000 and 2004.
To be honest, you can probably count me among them. And that's a good thing.
Why, you ask? Because it means he's looking out for our interests, not theirs. And that's one of the many reasons I voted for him.
Honestly, what real benefit does the U.S. obtain from having it's President respected by foreign leaders? A boost to our national self-esteem? Whoop-de-do. Here's a news flash: most of the world hates us regardless of who is our President. It's derived from envy. The difference nowadays is that the expression of that hatred is more visible.
The U.S. is damned whatever it does. So allow me to quote Markos Moulitsas Zuniga: "Screw them."
July 26, 2006
A 52-year-old man who complained that he felt sick after riding a roller coaster at Busch Gardens died about two hours later in a hospital, park officials said Tuesday.When the President was asked about the story, he is reported to have said, "I don't anything about that."
BUSH LIED!!! BUSH LIED!!!
Wonder how they'd feel on my face.
I'll leave it open through the end of the day on August 7th.
As for the McCain watch poll, the numbers were pretty similar to the last one with the major difference being that the "I Would Rather Vote Democrat Than See McCain Become President" category increasing from 4.7% to 13.3%.
"Diet starts Monday!"
If Cindy the Moonbat keeps this "fasting" up she's going to look like Chris Farley as "Cindy, the Gap Girl".
h/t: Michelle Malkin
July 25, 2006
"And we Democrats must remain united, and...ahem...Ifyay Ehay OsesLay, e'sHay Onyay IsHay Ownyay...et itGay?"
Go be completely shallow and check out the list, which is made up mostly of staffers. And there's definitely some major babe-itute among the ladies.
To which, I ask: When was this ever not the case?
The nutroots will say "yeah, sure but wait until after Lamont wins the nomination, then they'll go with the party!".
Wishful thinking on their part.
The Dem leadership - Reid, Pelosi and their ilk - might. They have a lot to lose by pissing off the Left. But Dodd, DeLauro and Larson understand that - one way or another - Joe will be serving his fourth term starting next year. He may not be in their party anymore but they know who they're going to be working closely with for the next six years.
And Dodd, DeLauro and Larson don't have to worry about a backlash from the anti-war Left. Their seats will be safe - especially after Lieberman shows he can win without them.
Hat Tip: CT-CIA
July 24, 2006
"Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?But they're not. In their minds, they have some kind of self-designated moral authority to stand in front of Walter Reed Medical Center and insult our wounded veterans.
The cry of "chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of "chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of "chicken doves."
Then you have the Left-wing pinheads who try to have it both ways regarding support of the troops. You can't say you "don't support the mission, but support the troops". I can't think of a more ridiculous assertion. That's like saying, I support the players on the team but I don't support their effort to win the game.
Here's the skinny: if you don't support the mission than by extension you support its failure (and more for political reasons than anything else, which is sick). If you support the failure of the mission then you, in fact, support the failure of those carrying out the mission - which means you support the failure of the troops. In other words, you DON'T support the troops. You're just afraid to say you don't support the troops because you're worried that people will think you're not patriotic.
Most Liberals hate the military and everything it represents. If they could disband every branch and create a "Department Of Peace", they certainly would. Which is why they can't be trusted to defend this nation or be put in charge of it's national security.
So when these wingnuts taunt the supporters of our military as "chicken hawks" they make themselves feel superior enough. But for the rest of the country, they remind us why they should never be returned to power again.
Connecticut Democrats have been down this road before. In 1970, anti-Vietnam War candidate Joseph Duffy knocked off incumbent Thomas Dodd, who had been a supporter of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's policy. Dodd's son Chris Dodd is now Connecticut's other U.S. senator.So in 1970, you had a Democrat Senator from CT who was driven off the ticket by the Left for supporting his own party's President. The result was a net loss of one Senate seat for the Dems. The winner of that race becomes a "maverick" and a thorn in the GOP's side for eighteen years and is eventually beaten out by Joe Lieberman for the seat.
But the anti-war wing, although powerful within Democratic primaries, did not represent the political mainstream in 1970. Duffy lost the November election to Republican Lowell Weicker, who is backing Lamont against Lieberman, who defeated him in 1988.
Flash forward thirty-six years. Joe Lieberman is being driven off the Dem ticket by the Left for supporting the opposing party's President. The result will likely be a net loss of one Senate seat for the Dems. Lieberman, as an independent, has the capacity to be a "maverick" and a thorn in the Dems' side for the foreseeable future.
Thomas Dodd's son, Chris Dodd, is now CT's senior Senator. Lowell Weicker, who defeated Dodd now supports Lamont. And in both 1970 and 2006, the big loser as a result of the Left's actions is...the Democrat Party.
You just can't make this stuff up.
July 22, 2006
Hey, I'll be honest. I live in Connecticut. I'm a registered Republican. And I've never even heard of this guy. And honestly, I'd vote for Lieberman anyway.
Dems (especially the Lefties) will probably get all giddy over this, especially if Schlesinger drops out. But in reality, this is bad news for Lamont supporters. If Lieberman goes independent, the latest Quinnipiac poll puts him at 51% support over Lamont, who has 27% and Schlesinger with 9%. Schlesinger doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell as it is. But if he drops out, guess where that 9% is going to go? You guessed it. Liebs then polls 60% to Lamont's 27%. Hell, Lamont can even have all those undecideds and Lieberman wins in a landslide - with no formal ties to the Democrat party.
And every day it looks more and more like that will be the scenario. We'll know for sure in a couple of weeks.
July 21, 2006
No longer able to sell their hand-crafted doilies and table clothes, women in the tiny Polish mountain village of Koniakow turned their crocheting skills to making sexy lingerie.
And the business has proved such a success that the crochetiers have now launched an online shop for people around the world to buy the knitted underwear.
Tadeusz Rucki, who funds the granny g-string firm, said: "People aren't only mad about g-strings in traditional white crochet, but also in red and black."
But the head of the local Society for Folk Art, Helena Kamieniarz, is not happy with the new business, saying: "What is being done to our old traditions is a disgrace. The art of crochet is not intended for making such garments."
What would my dear old Nanna say?
There is another element to this film that should be recognized and applauded. It is the overwhelming number of men and women of differing ethnicities in police and fire department uniforms who were so much a part of the good that shone forth through evil on that terrible day. At a time when we are engaged in a battle over illegal immigrants and the future of American culture, it should be encouraging to see so many who recently came from elsewhere behave like most Americans think real Americans should behave. They did, because they are real Americans.It's refreshing to see a high-profile director like Stone celebrating what's good about America the way it is rather than what he thinks it should be.
128 queries taking 0.1334 seconds, 288 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.