From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
It was confusing before Fitzie started his investigation of who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. The jury decision this week only confounds that investigation and its supposed resolution .... If the "truth" was known before the investigation, why did it continue? If the jury considered Libby a "fall guy" and kept "waiting" for Cheney or Rove or the President to be called, then why was Libby found guilty? Oh yeah -- he perjured himself .... This observer has said all along that if Libby perjured himself -- he was guilty of perjury, but questions remain .... Was the investigation (at the point of interviewing Libby et al) "legitimate" or was it, indeed, a witch hunt to incriminate someone/anyone from the Bush administration? And if the issue was "only" perjury, why does the jury even discuss or suggest that "others" were involved .... and why, in the closing deliberations -- did the jury need clarification on the definition of "reasonable doubt?" And what influence did the judge's decisions to disallow certain evidences and/or witnesses have on the deliberation process? Was Libby denied the right to defend himself by prejudicial omissions? As for the jury -- Why is only one jurist speaking out? Something or someone doesn't jive ..... The outspoken jurist likely has ulterior motives in his post-trial role(s) .... What is or was his relationship with witnessing journalists? Something just doesn't jive.
Hopefully, other jurists will speak out. I don't trust anyone associated with the journalism community -- especially someone who was a lead jurist and now spokesperson for the jury ....
-- until she posts another rock'em-sock'em discourse, that is.
This filibuster on Coulter's comment has been worked, re-worked and over-worked long enough. Tonight I posted my last comment. Maybe. It was on HotAir's blog ... Here it is --
I’ve watch Coulter’s 28+ minute speech and Q-A session several times. IMO, it’s vintage Coulter. While the f-word (in any context) has never been on my fav list, I thought her reference to rehab as a liberal reaction to everything NOT politically correct as funny! In all honesty, I was more “shocked” hearing MM (whom I respect highly) refer to McCain as John “screw you” McCain in her interview with Sean Hannity. And I’m not even a McCain fan ….
If this comment offends someone, sobeit. I don't really give a flying flip. What I do give a flying flip about is that (whether she's loving all this negative reaction or NOT), Coulter is a dang good writer and speaker. She IS effective. She makes lots of money doing what she does and her counter-points are delivered with wit and precision. And humor. She is articulate, ultra-bright, intellectual. She's also a humorist. A satirist. I'm becoming concerned that many conservative pundits are taking their objection to her a tad too far. I fear many of them may regret some of their protestations .... Whatever has happened to the pundits who have taken a stern objection to Coulter (personally and professionally), I can't answer.
Nor can I "answer" why, on tonight's O'Reilly show, Michelle Malkin shot a harsh eye and warning at her co-guest Kirsten Powers: "I'm not the person to be picking a fight with ...." Dang. Not becoming. And over the Coulter comment? Jeez -- must be the eclipse or something going on we don't know about .... Even O'Reilly cringed.
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, watch Ann Coulter's entire speech and the Q-A session.
It's good to be with so many conservatives. In fact, I invited all the conservatives in Massachusetts to come hear me today and I'm glad to report that they are both here.
I'm happy to learn that after I speak you're going to hear from Ann Coulter. That's a good thing. I think it's important to get the views of moderates.
The mainstream media is surprised that we're here. They wrote our obituary last fall. Course, they've written our obituary before: after Watergate, after the 82 midterm elections, after Iran-contra, and after Bill Clinton's election. The truth is that their wishful thinking reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I predict that we'll be around a lot longer than . . . say, newspapers.
No conservatism is alive and well. And it is needed more than ever. America faces a new generation of challenges, critical challenges. Today is similar in many respects to what we faced as a nation 30 years ago, looking at the menacing face of communism.
In fact, 30 years ago, in this very conference, one man stood up and told America what was needed. It was conservatism, a new coalition of conservatives that would lead to a brighter future for the nation. Ronald Reagan said this: "What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority." And here is where he said that this conservative alliance would lead: "I have seen the conservative future, and it works."
Coming from Massachusetts, I saw first hand the liberal future, and it doesn't work. That's why I ran against Ted Kennedy. Liberal social programs weren't solving poverty; they were in fact creating a culture of poverty. I didn't win, but at least Teddy had to take out a mortgage on his home to beat me.
I was once campaigning in a poor section in Boston when a person came up to me and said: "What are you doing here? This is Kennedy country." I looked around at the vacant store fronts and boarded up windows and replied: "Yeah, it looks like Kennedy country."
No, it is the conservative coalition represented here that can build a brighter future for America: economic conservatives, social conservatives, and national security conservatives.
I saw the potential of economic conservatism when I became governor. The state budget was $3 billion short. Liberals wanted to raise taxes, but I cut government instead. I eliminated and combined duplicative and wasteful agencies and programs, and I balanced the budget four years in a row. One commentator said that I didn't just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd. And after four years as governor, I'm proud to report that Massachusetts has 600 fewer state workers than when I took office.
I went after taxes as well. The Legislature passed a $250 million retroactive capital gains tax increase. I knew my veto would be overridden by the 85% Democrat majority. So I had the Department of Revenue send every taxpayer a pro forma bill for their new higher taxes, and then I waited for folks to call their legislators. And did they ever. Then, I sent the Legislature an amendment that turned the $250 million tax increase into a $250 million refund. Amazingly, the Legislature now saw the error of their ways.
I didn't stop there. We made the investment tax credit permanent. We passed sales tax holidays. We gave tax breaks to medical manufacturing companies. We gave real estate tax breaks to seniors. And in each of my last three years, I submitted a budget that cut the income tax.
It's time for some economic conservatism in Washington as well.
We've seen an embarrassing spike in non-defense, discretionary spending . As you know, I'm proud to be the first Presidential candidate to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge. But I have another pledge I am making to you today. If I am elected President, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent. That alone will save $300 billion over 10 years. If Congress sends me a budget that exceeds the cap, I will veto that budget. I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat Congress, I will veto that budget.
And I know how to veto. I like vetoes. I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as Governor. And, by the way, if Congress doesn't want to do the cutting itself, then give me the same line item veto I had as governor.
And one more thing, I will personally lead a top to bottom review of government programs, agencies, procurement and spending . It's time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government. I've done that in business, I've done that in the Olympics, and I've done that in Massachusetts. And boy, I can't wait to get my hands on Washington.
Democrats in Washington are itching to raise taxes – 2011 is set to be a record breaking tax hike. Not if I'm President. I'll fight to stop the tax hike. And I'll fight for a new savings plan for middle class Americans as well – one that will grow the economy and help families at the same time. Under my plan, the amount of tax they will pay on dividends, interest and capital gains will be absolutely zero.
It's high time to take government apart and put it back together, but this time simpler, smarter and smaller.
Let's talk about social conservatism too.
Massachusetts became center stage for the liberal social agenda – sort of San Francisco east, Nancy Pelosi style.
Ten months into my term, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said our Constitution requires gay marriage. John Adams, who wrote it, would be surprised.
Less than a year later, scientists were trying to convince me that it's not a moral issue to clone entirely new human embryos solely for research.
Not long after that, the Catholic Church was forced to exit their adoption service because they preferred placing kids in homes with a mom and a dad, not two dads or two moms.
I have stood in the center of the battlefield on every major social issue. I fought to preserve our traditional values and to protect the sanctity of life.
I vetoed bills, and filed new bills. I enforced a law that banned out-of-state same sex couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married. I went to the court again and again, I testified before Congress for the federal marriage amendment, and I championed our successful drive that collected 170,000 signatures for a citizen ballot initiative to protect marriage.
To me, a fundamental principle of democracy is at stake. It is the people who are sovereign in America, not a few folks in black robes. Judges add things that aren't in the Constitution, and they take away things that are in the Constitution. In that regard, they let the campaign finance lobby take away First Amendment rights. If I'm President, I will fight to repeal McCain-Feingold.
Another aspect of American sovereignty is the security of our borders. The current system is a virtual concrete wall against those who have skill and education, but it's a wide open walk across the border for those that have neither.
McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer. As governor, I took a very different approach. I authorized our state police to enforce immigration laws. I vetoed a tuition break for illegals and said no to driver's licenses. McCain-Kennedy gives benefits to illegals that would cost taxpayers millions. And more importantly, amnesty didn't work 20 years ago, and it won't work today.
The new generation of challenges we face today includes challenges to our national security as well. Violent [jihadists] are intent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with a Caliphate. To do that, they seek the collapse of our economy and our military.
We will defeat the violent jihad with a two-part strategy. First, an unquestionably strong military. The best ally peace has in the world is a strong America. We need more men and women in the military, better armaments, and a Strategic Defense Initiative. And there's a second aspect of our strategy: we must bring together all the civilized nations of the world in what might be called a Second Marshall Plan. Together with them, and with volunteers, businesses and NGOs, we must support moderate Muslim nations and peoples. They need public schools that are not Wahabi schools, the rule of law, property rights, modern banking and agriculture and pro-growth economic policies. In the end, it is the Muslim people themselves who will eliminate radical jihad.
Iraq is just one front in the war. We removed Hussein, but afterward, we were under-prepared, under-planned, under-manned, and under-managed. But walking away now or dividing the country and then walking away would have real and severe risks for America and for our troops. I support the troop surge for that reason. And one thing I know, we shouldn't let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid dictate our battle strategy to the commanders in the field or to the Commander-in-Chief.
Conservatism is a belief in strength. It is because of America's strength that we don't all speak German and that our kids don't all speak Russian. And it is because of America's strength that our grandchildren will not have to speak Farsi or Arabic or Chinese. America must remain the world's military superpower. That is a first principle of conservatism. To remain the military superpower, we must remain the world's economic superpower as well. You can't be a Tier I military with a Tier II economy – the Soviet Union tried to keep that up for a while, and lost.
It's inconceivable to us that we could ever be passed economically. But 100 years ago, it was inconceivable that anyone could have passed England or France. But we did. And if you look East, you can see that we are facing much more difficult competition from Asia than we have faced before. They want to move the center of manufacturing and technology and innovation from America to Asia. We may just smile, but don't forget what Will Rogers said:
"Even if you're on the right track, if you don't move, you'll get run over." America will move, but the question is, "In what direction?"
History can be a guide. The 20th Century saw two economic systems pitted against each other. Ours was built on free enterprise, free trade and the primacy of the individual. The Soviet's was built on government command and control, and the primacy of the state.
Ours produced the most powerful economy in the world that has given its citizens a standard of living our grandparents never dreamed possible; theirs produced a downward spiraling standard of living and eventual collapse.
The 20th Century history lesson is that America's economy is strong because we put our trust in freedom, in the American people, and in the free enterprises they create.
If we are to keep America strong, we must turn to the source of America's strength. Liberals think that government is the source of our greatness. They're wrong. The American people are the source of our strength: hard working, educated, skilled, family-oriented, willing to sacrifice for their family and their country, God-fearing, freedom-loving American people. They always have been the source of our strength and they always will be.
And so if we need to call on the strength of America, you don't strengthen government, you strengthen the American people.
You strengthen the American people by letting them keep more of their own money, and not taxing their families at death.
You strengthen the American people by making sure that the voice of millions of voters trumps the voice of unelected judges.
You strengthen the American people by securing our borders and by insisting that the children who come legally to this land are taught in English.
And perhaps most importantly, you strengthen the American people when you strengthen the American family. marriage must come before children because every child deserves a mother and a father.
This is not the time for us to shrink from conservative principles. It is time for us to stand in strength.
Because America faces unprecedented challenges, strength is the only answer. Strong military, strong economy, strong families.
Thirty years ago, in challenging times, a great coalition was forged in these halls. Today, we face a new generation of challenges.
If we in this room lock our arms together, we can forge the political will to rebuild our military might. If we in this room will simply march forward we can propel America's growth and prosperity to lead to the world. If we in this room lift up our eyes, we will lift the spirit of the nation.
Now is the time, this is the place, for us to stand together, to lead a great coalition of strength, For our families, for our future, for America. May God bless this great land.
Politico: Governor, you’re pretty popular on blog row.
Romney: Well, it’s a great group, I’ll tell you that. I appreciate the blogs because the blogs are able to really zero in on issues and find the truth. Sometimes the mainstream media writes one article and it sits out there and it may be accurate, it may not be accurate. But the blogs are open – there’s a discourse, there’s back and forth and it allows us to get to the truth. And that’s why the blogs are playing such an important role, particularly in grassroots organization of American politics.
Politico: How helpful do you think the blogs have been so far?
Romney: Oh, I don’t know at this stage that you can point to great advances for anybody based on blogs alone. But I think what you’re seeing is that blogs are able to get to bottom of things and to cut through the spin. The spin has a huge impact on the mainstream media. Candidates are able to go to the mainstream media, spin their story, they write it and sometimes it’s accurate, sometimes it’s not. The blogs actually are open for comment and debate and they ultimately get the truth out. And that’s critical, in my opinion. Because there are going to be a lot of opposition research folks on other campaigns trying to put up things that aren’t accurate.
Politico: Governor, what did you mean by “spin”?
Romney: Well, sometimes an opposition research team will go to the mainstream media and try and slant or direct a story in favor of their viewpoint. And the nice thing about blogs is that if that happens to them, why they still are open to get the views of the other side and you see the truth getting ultimately told.
Politico: Governor, how do you unite a polarized country?
Romney: I think that what we have to do is have Republicans and Democrats be willing to reach across the aisle and find common ground on important issues. I remember Ronald Reagan used to sit down with Tip O’Neill -- they were friends even though they were competitors, from a political standpoint. I have, in my service as governor, sat down almost weekly with the Senate president and the speaker of the House of the opposition party. We work on issues together. We sometimes agree, sometimes we don’t. But communications, openness and searching for common ground is what America wants to see. They do not like the fact that the polarity in our political process has yielded an absence of action. They want Washington to change and I represent a change in the way business has been done in Washington.
Politico: Do you have any hope for doing that?
Romney: I do, because I’ve done it in Massachusetts. Here I was in a state that had a legislature 85 percent Democrat, and I balanced the budget all four years without raising taxes. I also put in place, together with the legislature, an insurance plan that took some mandates off insurance companies -- I wanted to take off more -- but got insurance for all of our citizens without the requirement of raising taxes and without a government takeover. That’s the kind of conservative thinking that’s willing to reach across the aisle and find common ground with Democrats.
Politico: Are you concerned that only people of vague faith will be able to run, if someone who’s strong and vocal about their faith gets picked apart, as your Mormon faith has been?
Romney: When people don’t know a great deal about a person’s faith, they’re just not sure what it means. And as they focus in on my faith, I think that they’ll see Ann and my marriage, they’ll see our family and they’ll say Hey, there‘s nothing wrong with that. Whatever has produced those guys has got to be OK. And I don’t mean by that they we’re perfect -- we’re a long way from that. But our faith has certainly made us better than we certainly would have been otherwise. I’m proud of the fact that my parents were of my faith, and I’ve learned from them. I think you will find that the people of America, as they get to know us better, will be pretty darn comfortable with us as a couple and me as a politician.
Politico: Mrs. Romney, do you mind joining the conversation? (The former governor smiles and playfully shoves two of the four tape recorders on the table in front of her.) On ABC’s “This Week” and at a recent event in Salt Lake City, you were quite candid or blunt about the fact that you saw this was going to be a difficult process, but you seem to have steeled yourself for that. Could you just talk about what you think this is going to be like?
Ann Romney: It’s interesting. If you go to Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Atlanta – wherever it is, in Orlando – you LOVE meeting people. That is not hard. You love, actually, even, the fundraisers. They’re great. People are wonderful and supportive. The only part that’s distasteful is, unfortunately, the media. (Smiles.) Here you guys sit.
Romney (chuckling): These aren’t the media. These guys are open, honest, fair and balanced guys.
Ann Romney: All the rest of it is an extraordinary honor, to be able to be doing what we’re doing. I’m awed by it. People in Iowa and South Carolina and New Hampshire take their citizenship very personally and responsibly. It is impressive to me, and I’m buoyed up by it. (Refers to the media.) It keeps people out of that arena. That’s very unfortunate.
Romney: You’ve got to have a pretty thick skin to be able to do it. And I’ve grown up in a home where politics was spoken about and then my dad ran for office and my mom did. And I’ve learned that you can develop thick skin and just don’t worry about it.
Politico: Mrs. Romney, how involved do you plan to be in the campaign? (Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. She says she’s healthy now but worries the stress of the campaign could inflame her MS.)
Ann Romney: As involved as my heath will allow. We’re not quite sure where that line is yet. I can’t keep up with him. There’s no question about that. I also am an equestrian – I love to ride horses. They keep me balanced and healthy and feeling great about life. Besides my family, it’s the joy of my life. So I have to get out every once in awhile and see my horses. I’ve got to tell you: They don’t care whether [you're] Republican or Democrat. They just want to know if their oats are coming. It’s kind of stabilizing and balancing and being able to pull out every once in awhile – see the grandkids, see the horse, get my bearings, and then jump back in.
Politico: Governor, how do you strike a balance between being your own candidate, without renouncing the president?
Romney: I just have to do what Popeye used to say: “I am what I am and that’s all I am.” I indicate what my positions are, what I think about issues. I try and do so with respect. In doing so, in some respects I’m going to be acknowledging the president’s leadership. In other cases, I’m going to be critical, just by virtue of my positions -- not intentionally, but just every person is different. Even if you’re in the same party, you have different views on certain issues and I don’t line up that I know of with any Republican, exactly -- even Ann. (Gestures toward his wife.) And so people will draw their distinctions. I’ve lived a different career, I have a different management style than does the president and do other Republicans, and people will draw that distinction as they think appropriate.
Politico: What is the difference in your management style?
Romney: Oh, I’m going to have to let you make that assessment. I wouldn’t try and characterize the president’s. My management style is to bring in a lot of people who are bright and have more skill and experience in certain areas than I, to gather a lot of data and insist on an analytically driven decision-making process, to ask for a lot of debate, a lot of discussion of the pros, the cons, the upsides, the downsides. I like a highly deliberative process for making decisions. Now, I can pull up and shoot whenever I need to. But I like having a very extensive debate of people who agree and disagree on issues in order to make a final and best answer
Politico: What have you learned about the country so far in this process?
Romney: I read, some time back, excerpts from Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech, which says that the problem in America is the American people and that the wonderful government leaders are doing their job but the American people could just wake up – effectively, that’s what is says. What I’ve learned is, as I have always believed, the greatness of America is the American people – that the heart of the American people is strong and well and the American people are looking for leadership in Washington to finally get their act together and lead. And that’s why I am in this. It’s because I’m very concerned about the America that I’m going to leave to my kids and grandkids and your kids and grandkids and I think I can make a real difference.
Politico: Governor, what books should we be reading?
Romney: I like reading – I read a lot of books.
Politico: Even during this process?
Romney: Yeah, yeah. “The Looming Tower,” I just read, by Lawrence Wright, which I found very interesting. “The Cube and the Cathedral” – a very good book, about Europe. “America Alone,” by Mark Steyn – I read that. I just read one called “The River of Doubt,” about Teddy Roosevelt. “Mayflower,” by Nathaniel Philbrick. So I like reading.
Ann Romney: We pass the books between us.
Politico: Ever fiction?
Romney: I LOVE fiction. Right now, we’re reading a lot of Vince Flynn. I’ve read every Louis L’Amour book there is – I love those old Westerns. Unfortunately, those are gone – although, as my memory gets weaker, I can go back and read some of them again. Vince Flynn is a spy-novel type.
Ann Romney: Vince Flynn? I’m on his third one. It would really be nice if those characters that were in those books were real and were really doing some of this stuff.
Romney: What’s the other one that I like? The great CIA operative? Mitch Rapp!
Politico: What the White House reporters really want to know is whether your Crawford will be in Deer Valley, Utah, or Lake Winnipesaukee, N.H.? (He has homes both places.)
Romney: Well, that’s a hard choice. But without a question, it would have to be in Lake Winnipesaukee, N.H. We’ve actually chuckled about that, thinking about it the last couple of weeks and months. I wouldn’t want to impose the Secret Service and the press corps on our nice little community in New Hampshire. So maybe I’d get to visit once a year for a quick weekend and then get the heck out. Because I wouldn’t want to intrude on the beauty and the calm of that fabulous place.
Sans the editor's introductory comments (you may read them at the link above) this is one of the most personally informative interviews by Mitt and Ann Romney to date.
It is a "no frills" resource for elder-care, elder-issues and topics designed for the aging population and their care-givers.
We're don't sell insurance or travel packages or equipment -- our purpose is to become an information hub for self-help and helping others -- to understand the problems, the needs and resources for promoting dignity and support for the aging population within our global community.
Stop by and share the resources -- suggestions are always welcome!
In case you plan to attend post-2008 election festivities, bring your own lawn chair. And blanket.
On this day in 1789 the U.S. Constitution went into effect, and so it was that this day was chosen as the original Inauguration Day. Just about every president from Washington to Roosevelt was inaugurated on this day.
Washington's first inauguration was delayed until April 30th, but his second inauguration took place on this day in 1793, and he delivered the shortest inaugural address in history. It was only 135 words long.
President Andrew Jackson was inaugurated on this day in 1829. He invited the American public to the White House, and more than 20,000 drunken partygoers showed up.
On this day in 1841 William Henry Harrison stood outside in an ice storm and delivered the longest inaugural address in American history. It was 8,445 words long, and it took Harrison two hours to deliver it. He died a month later from pneumonia.
Abraham Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses, delivered on this day in 1861 and 1865, are generally considered the greatest inaugural addresses in American history. His second inaugural address included the great lines "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Photographs of Lincoln's second inauguration show John Wilkes Booth in the audience, watching.
Franklin Roosevelt was the last president to be inaugurated on this day in 1933. He was a polio survivor, and couldn't walk without great difficulty. But in spite of that, Roosevelt walked 37 steps up to the podium, and he stood there for five minutes in order to deliver his address.
Thanks to Garrison Keiller for this tidbit of history!
sub-head: ... and dems are fit to be tied. eh. eh. eh.
Comment boards have festered and parlayed all night. ROFL
I joined the fracas over at Lucianne a few times ... This morning I made my last (maybe) comment:
LucianneLucianneLinkLady....somebodyanybody -- Puleeeezeeeee! Close the gate!! Don't allow any more of these girlyman-groupies in!! We've got to get sleep and they're everywhere -- weeping, wailing, gnashing teef, hacking up their arms and legs, crawling out of the woodwork, suckin' up bandwidth protesting (or apologizing for) one widdle wise 'n willy wealthy whoa-man who had the audacity to infer that one of their lead-sheeple's masculinity (winkwinkwink -- you read that Oregon study, didn't you?) was suspect.
Thank GAWD you don't allow smoking in here!! With all these fagots lying around, somebuddy would likely flick their bic or drop their butt on an errant twig and start a fire or a stampede or even worse -- a... a... a SMOKE SCREEN!
And that's what this has become: a smoke screen. A smoke screen for dems to again remind pubbies of their submissive role as compassionate conservatives and for pubbies to literally roll over and yield to the wiles and ploys of the politically profane.
Ann Coulter is brilliant. She may wear the book cover of compassionate conservatism, but on page 1 -- she's got the TT's (that's titanium tits for you ballsie-boys) and the intellect to give the politicos a dose of their own medicine. And she does it with flair and finesse. Laughing all the way to the bank.
Too bad the rest of us only watch through the fence -- huddled securely in our compassionate little herds and can only gasp at the shock and awe.
I abhor the f-word that Ann Coulter used in her speech yesterday, but I find it more disgraceful that many pundits (from both camps) have expounded upon it. While dems have feigned shock, pubbies have literally bent over backwards to condemn Coulter's comment -- even though folks from both camps have been snickering about Edwards' girly-man image since he ran the last time.
(And no -- Mitt Romney didn't introduce Ann Coulter -- grasp another straw, ye naysayers).
What Coulter said:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot' – so... Kind of at an impasse. Can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."
When I first read Coulter's closing comment, I had visions of Tim Hardaway disclosing <gasp> that he didn't want to play with homosexual teammates ... or the Grey's Anatomy character who called <ut oh> a cast member gay .... or Mel Gibson who disparaged Jews .... or that Seinfeld actor who went bonkers and used the n-word during a comedy sketch ...
All those folks (and may others) are in rehab for their mis-speaks -- not to mention the mis-deeds that have sent celebs and politicos such as Foley and Kennedy into treatment programs.
It didn't occur (matter?) to me (until later) that Coulter was also zinging a reference to John Edwards propensity to primp! Good grief. Coulter dropped a sound-byte that wasn't even original (Google Hot Air videos and Michelle Malkin for starters)!!
It was a joke (not one that made me laugh, btw) by an entertainer. A political satirist. Albeit, not one I'd expect to speak at a national conservative convention, but Ann Coulter hasn't made her fortune soothing fevered brows. And the woman DOES draw a crowd!
In defense of Edwards: The guy may sometimes comes across as a wuss, yet it's not for me or Ann Coulter or anyone who leans to the right of center to verbalize that the poor guy is in any way deserving of being characterized as a male who demonstrates a propensity for feminine behaviors in certain scenarios. However, this is not his first trip to the sacrificial alter of politics -- and nobody is twisting his arm to stay on the pyre.
After all ---
Only democrats are allowed to use offensive terms and descriptors. Only democrats are allowed to wish (as did Bill Maher and other left-leaners) that VP Cheney had been killed by the recent bomb .... or to state that the bomb lobbed at the camp in which he slept was "wasted" .... or to refer to Bush and Cheney as killers, drunks, liars, murderers, etc.
The repercussions from Coulter's comment? Dems have gone berserk (shuddup, you double-standard Deaniacs), Repubs have apologized for her comment as if it was something other than a sound-byte, candidates have understandably distanced themselves for the "inappropriateness" of the inference. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear the gaffaws.
And no -- two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. But what IS good for the ole goose is STILL good for the gander, isn't it?
FLASH: this is what Coulter supposedly had to say for herself: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."
And on that note -- here's a YouTube video making the rounds this evening:
Former Sen. Edwards really shouldn't take this free publicity as all bad, however. To many folks, a fagot is nothing more than "a bundle of sticks and branches bound together."
It's an honor to be featured again .... And while you're here -- let me share a few life-notes which reflect my blogging interests:
1. Avoiding potential Stalkers .... Unlike some of you, I don't blog about personal issues for one frightening reason: I was stalked online and later off-line by a rather ruthless person a few years back. Of course I notified authorities, but they can only do so much .... YOU MUST ALWAYS BE AWARE THAT KOOKS SURVIVE IN THE DARKEST CORNERS on and off-line. Each of us must be sensitive to the danger of conveying too much personal information online .....
2. Humor .... the ability to laugh at yourself as well as to find and share laughter with others. Take my wrinkles, for example (ahem). They are actually laugh-lines earned from 60+ years of humorous reactions to most things uneventful to others ...
3. Politics .... above and beyond the power to control and manage -- I'm a strong advocate for the politics of life -- which include honesty, fair-play, a sincere regard for others and a satirical approach to never, never taking yourself too seriously. On power and control issues, however, I'm a moderate conservative.
4. Loving Life .... All parts of it -- my aches and pains, my illnesses, my family, my dog, my old jeep, my work, my hand-picked staff, my clients, my flowers, my family (did I mention them?), my health, my friends, my memories -- because without the ability to love, to care, to feel, etc., there isn't too much else. Know what I mean?
5. Blogging .... About Mitt Romney -- the person whom I sincerely believe to be thehope to lead this wonderful nation from the harsh realities of 9/11 toward a realistic new world order .... blogging about the bias and slanting of main stream media .... blogging about the politics of life, humor and the random thoughts of a person who is likely 2-3 times older than most of you .... blogging about life-values: i.e.,
... if you tell the truth - you never have to remember what you said .... ... never argue with a pig in his own pen. You'll both get muddy and he'll love it. ... when they're riding you outta town on a rail, get in front and make it look like a parade .... ... always remembering that none of us have ever seen a hearse pulling a U-Haul.
Ann is on a rampage, and again -- she stops them in their (carbon) footprints.
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."
Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.
There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.
Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.
If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.
"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.
It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.
::::rushing to the freezer to be certain I threw that tofu out::::::
It was on this day in 1854 that about 50 opponents of slavery gathered in Ripon, Wisconsin, to found the Republican Party. The group was made up of Northern Democrats, Whigs, and a small antislavery party called the Free Soil Party. And they were remarkably successful for a brand-new party. In 1856, after just two years in existence, they elected 92 representatives and 20 senators, and they came close to capturing the presidency with their candidate John C. Freemont. And just four years after that, they did win the presidency with their candidate Abraham Lincoln. No new political party since then has won the presidency of the United Sates.