How do they say it on one of the Harry Potter movies? Ri-dik-u-lus!
Drudge isn’t the disgrace nor shameless. The only shameful thing I’ve seen in this comment from Joe Klein:
I know this is old news, but this guy is shameless. The headline, with a photo of a three-quarters crazed Hillary, is HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK but the linked story says this:
At this point, we don’t have anything punitive that we have proposed,” the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We’re providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans.” She said she could envision a day when “you have to show proof to your employer that you’re insured as a part of the job interview (emphasis mine)- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,” but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
Referring to this. After which Mr. Klein states:
How stupid does he [Drudge]think we are? Answer: Extremely dumbolic.
More to the point, Mr. Klein, is how dumb do you think we are?
I don’t have a lot to say. I don’t know the man and all things considered, with only 14 months left in Bush’s presidency, I don’t think we could get much worse than the Gonzales debacle. If the Democrats want to crow like this is some kind of victory, let them crow and then tell them to do some actual meaningful work. Or better, yet, find them some more meaningless work so they can’t do any more damage to the country than they already have.
This article did interest me because I’ve come to the same conclusions about Mrs. Clinton.
Like I said, I’m not a Dick Morris fan. He irritates me for some reason. I believe part of it is his voice since I can’t stand listening to him for more than a minute without having to get away from the TV… Some of it, however, is the fact that he was a Bill Clinton crony at one time. I’m not quite sure whether to trust everything he says. I do have to agree with his take on Hillary Clinton. I suppose he should know, all things considered:
Hillary Clinton’s handlers like to promote her image as an embattled warrior – a relentless foot soldier dedicated to the dual crusades of fighting for the exalted principles of goodness and light while simultaneously defeating the ever-present forces of darkness and evil. A modern-day Celtic warrior queen or Joan of Arc – that’s the spin on Hillary.
But in reality, Hillary’s favorite wars are much less lofty and much more self-centered and mean-spirited. Hillary emphatically comes from the “us versus them” school of American politics. Like Richard Nixon, the politician she so closely resembles, she sees the world in extraordinarily simple terms: there are those who agree with her and support her and then there’s the rest of the world. Those who don’t agree with her are bunched together and known collectively as “the enemy” – that vast right wing conspiracy that must be vilified, beaten, and destroyed … whatever it takes.
To Hillary, this easily quantifiable adversary is unquestionably the source of all evil. Therefore, any means of obliterating them is acceptable. She thrives on identifying, assailing, and defeating them. Her hatred for this ubiquitous enemy is actually a source of enormous strength – it motivates her, energizes her, keeps her going and reminds her of her superiority.
Now she even claims that it is actually her experience in beating the right wing that makes her the most qualified democrat to be president. At the last debate, she touted her success:
“And I will say that for 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine, and I’ve come out stronger. So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I’m your girl.”
Interestingly, she doesn’t exhibit the same passion for the real enemies of the U.S. – like Al Qaeda. You don’t hear her promising to take on, defeat, or destroy them. No, it’s the Republicans and the right wing that incite her wrath, sarcasm and rage.
And, she’s taken it even one step further. Her concerns about another terror attack on the U.S. are apparently rooted in fear. Not fear for American lives, but fear that the Republicans would benefit from an attack. According to Hillary:
“If certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.”
Everything, even the threat of losing innocent American lives, is secondary to her obsession with crushing the right wing and Republicans.
I don’t think a victory for her in November of ’08 will satiate her hunger for destroying her evil enemies. To the contrary, it will embolden her.
If she becomes president, look for a permanent “War Room” in the White House. Hillary loves War Rooms. She started using them in the 1992 campaign in Arkansas to seek and destroy the women – like Gennifer Flowers – who had been involved with Bill and might embarrass him by telling the truth. That bunker used almost $100,000 of federal campaign funds to hire private detectives to intimidate Bill’s women. Then, she created her Health Care War Room in the White House – operating in secret to advance her virtuous cause and overpower her adversaries. After she resoundingly lost the health care reform issue, she closed down the War Room.
But in 1998, when the Monica Lewinsky story broke, Hillary created the biggest War Room ever. Its purpose was to destroy those who dared to support impeaching her husband. Describing the unfolding of the scandal, Hillary described it as a “battle” on The Today Show. After the private peccadilloes of the speaker and other members of the House Judiciary Committee were publicized in favored liberal organs and Monica Lewinsky was depicted as a stalker and a loser, Hillary was vindicated. Now she knows just how to deal with those who get in her way.
She’s not a warrior, she’s a bully.
As much as I don’t care for the author, I still have to agree with him. Maybe it’s age catching up with me but I still remember all the stories about her time in The White House while she was still in the White House. I don’t know if it’s a curse or blessing to have a memory like mine. I don’t remember all the salient details but I do remember smidgeons of the here and there.
This caused one:
Maybe it was the uniforms that tipped her off: Idris Leppla, a senior at Columbia, has discovered something shocking – the Naval Academy is part of the United States Navy. In a hard hitting expose in the Columbia Spectator, the college senior recounts learning this when her brother decided to attend said Academy, located in Annapolis, Maryland. It has since been revealed that the US Military Academy at West Point is affiliated with the US Army, and the US Air Force Academy has something to do with the Air Force though what that is exactly remains to be discovered. Ms. Leppla, who claims that total strangers say “Wow, you must be smart” when they learn she attends Columbia, has issued a warning to anyone thinking about applying to these institutions that they are in fact military organizations. I’m glad this information is being disseminated to an unwary public, especially to young people not quite as gifted as Ms. Leppla.
They should make her Student of the Year for this one. Whadyathink?
“And, let’s face it, if the mothers ruled the war, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place,” Field said, but Fox cut away for much of her comment.
Not surprisingly, everyone focuses on the event of her being censored… by Fox. No one, at least as far as I’ve seen, has realized the fact that historically, she’s wrong. Think Queen Matilda (so hated Britain was relieved her reign was short), Mary, Queen of Scots, Queen Elizabeth I, Catherine de Medici, Cleopatra, and… well you get the point. Not to mention the fact that I’ve seen many a mother in a knock down drag out over their children. And isn’t it Angela Merkel in Germany who is more open to the possibility of armed conflicts than her predecessor ever was?
Just another one of those: “This celebrity doesn’t speak for me” moments.
Hmmmm… Not a lettuce picker among them. How truly strange.
And wouldn’t you know it?
When the first settlers reached the New World they brought with them diseases that decimated the Indian population.
But, no, there’s nothing to worry about all these people crossing the border by the hundreds every day. Nothing at all.
Cal Thomas states: (Please read the whole article.)
The gist of the opposition to the war and to the reports by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker is that they are either not telling the truth about Iraq, or they are not telling the entire truth. Facts and figures are in dispute about the number of sectarian killings and the general level of violence in various Iraqi provinces. Some areas appear less violent than others, but a political settlement remains elusive.
Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the Department of Homeland Security has failed to make even moderate progress toward eight of 14 government benchmarks in the four years since it was created. According to GAO, the least progress was made in improving emergency preparedness and eliminating bureaucratic and technical barriers to the sharing of information between government agencies. Whatever bipartisanship remains in Washington should ask why, six years after 9/11, the walls between intelligence agencies have not been torn down.
Nothing like a government that expects more from everybody else than they do themselves… while they’re the ones raking in the big bucks.
And this is just cute.
Question of the week:
Are we sure those polls are reflecting a lack of choice on the Republican side of the campaigning? I mean, they can’t be all bad when it’s such a close race pollwise, right?
What if they’re reflecting: The Democratic choices are so bad that Clinton is the best of the worst? We keep hearing about Clinton’s unfavorable ratings, yet, she’s way out in front of the pack as far as being the most likely winner. Something to think about anyway.
Some trackbacks (or interesting blog reads if you prefer):
Pretty much says it all, don’t ya think?
The original image can be found here: http://templar.osmthu.org.uk/hillary.jpg . I thought it only polite since he provided such a nice easy image to use.
I’ve been thinking (sometimes a dangerous thing). With all the demoguogery aimed at the military and the almost sure Democratic victory in ’08, there’s a lot to ponder.
During the Clinton years, the military was gutted, greatly defunded, and benefits taken away from retirees and some taken away from short timers, too. Other changes that occurred over time since the end of the Cold War cannot all be attributed to Clinton’s years but a sum total of the complacency with which we viewed what we believed to be a relatively benign world. The advent of the personal computer and easy access to the internet brought cultures together from across the world. Some with whom we had formed lasting bonds became bitter enemies after 9/11/01 as former friends took sides in the coming conflict.
The biggest problem with the war on terror is there is no country to which one can point and say this is where the enemy is because the enemy is in every country, including our own. I do not say this to frighten anyone nor is it a statement of sensationalism. It is simply a fact of the state of the world.
Many of our leaders believe we should concentrate on Al Qaeda only when Al Qaeda is but one part of the terrorists’ community. There are other parts that, together make up the whole, including the now deceased former dictator of Iraq. Iraq is but one front in the war on terror, albeit a particularly onerous one.
If we do not win in Iraq, we lose the war on terror, plainly and simply. There are military reasons why Iraq is important in the war on terror. To list and explain those reasons fully are the subjects of books, not a blog post. I’m not sure I understand many of the reasons myself, but then, I’m not a military expert and don’t claim to be one.
The enemy we face today is not one that can be appeased by anything but total surrender; surrender to their authority and their religion. Nor can our enemies waiting in the wings such as N. Korea and considering currents events, Russia and China are trying to reconstitute the Cold War as a prelude to armed conflict. Appeasement has been tried for decades with few long lasting results. Bargaining has been tried as well… with few long lasting results.
No one loves war but there are times when war is the only answer. We are in one of those times. After 9/11 it was said that the forces of radical Islam awoke the sleeping giant. We woke and saw the dangers all around us, not only from radical Islam but others who would like nothing better than to see America die to assuage their bitter envy and spite. Many of us are still asleep, sent back into a peaceful slumber by the lullaby: “If only we stop, they will stop” lulling you into ignoring the fact that we weren’t at war with Al Qaeda when it committed it’s great attrocity on 9/11/01, while they take no responsibility and have no commitment to the oath they took upon accepting the office to which they were elected.
Of course they’ll stop but only long enough to regroup, rebuild, and plan new attrocities with which to attack us. For them, there is no end until they are completely victorious.
To hear our congressional leaders villify our military the way they have done for at least the last three years, the most recent of which are their attacks on General Petraeus, nauseates me. I would hope it would nauseate anyone with an ounce of decency but I suppose many would say that’s too optimistic of me. To hear reports of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial defaced sickens me to my soul.
Placing our military under a cloud of hate for political gains is a double-edged sword. I hope the anti-military/anti-war crowd are sliced royally from the edge upon which they sit. When next we are attacked by forces whose greatest wish is to destroy us, I wonder if there will be anyone to answer the call, considering the way their service to this nation is viewed.
The Politico made much of an anti-Fred Thompson site yesterday, slamming the hosting company because the owner contributed $500 to the Romney campaign and has its headquarters in Utah. The article hinted that Romney or someone from his campaign was behind the smear site. Not necessarily.
While it pains me to defend a competitor, there are so few ethical hosting companies in the world, I doubt it will damage us overmuch. Bluehost has good prices, they also offer free domain names with one year signups. Much of this signup process is automated and it’s doubtful that anyone checked anything as long as the billing information was correct and the credit card passed a fraud review. The domain name registration is part of this automated process.
A simple whois from any number of sites providing such services would give the hosting company’s name, the IP address of the site plus other IP addresses assigned to the hosting company, abuse and technical contacts at the hosting company, but not necessarily the owner of the site’s name depending on what the site owner purchased and whether the ownership was made under private registration provisions at an extra charge.
When the site went public, The Poltico brought it to the attention of Bluehost, which was listed as the hosting company. Bluehost removed the site which was the ethical thing to do and also in their best interest. However, The Politico made much of Bluehost refusing to give them information of site ownership when to do so would have opened them to a lawsuit. That information is protected under law unless the owner him or her self makes it public. It is not at the discretion of the hosting company to divulge that sort of information without a legal document requesting such. I don’t think a writer at The Politico has that kind of power, regardless of what the writer may think. As a web hoster I can think of only two instances, at the moment, where I would divulge that kind of information, for a federal investigation or at the legal request of a lawyer for defamation proceedings.
For further information I would suggest visiting Ivan Hoffman’s site. He has numerous articles about internet liability, copyright laws, and other internet related matters.
Don’t be fooled by claims from so-called journalists who think they know more than they really do. Of course there was the usual pile-on from the posters to the writer’s blog.
No wonder nobody trusts the media anymore. If they can’t find a story, they make one out of nothing.
Update: This story has a little more meat. However, going after the hosting company is still just plain wrong. We’re just trying to make a living, folks, just like everyone else. Politically going after a hosting company over a $500 campaign contribution? Shades of the Salem Witch Trials from the “Progressive party”. Someone “progressive” said it, so it must be true.
Update number 2: The Boston Globe has more. It seems the site was taken down at the behest of a Thompson spokesman.
Late yesterday afternoon, a spokesman for Thompson called on Romney to fire Tompkins.
“There is no room in our party for this kind of smut. As the top executive of his own campaign, Governor Romney should take full responsibility for this type of high-tech gutter politics and issue an immediate apology,” said Thompson spokesman Todd Harris. “If this is true, Governor Romney should exercise some of his much-touted executive acumen and immediately terminate anyone related to this outrage.”
This is putting the blame where it belongs… the Romney campaign team. Now, Romney has a challenge. How he handles it will determine where his campaign goes from here. Unlike many, I won’t hold him personally responsible for the actions of another supposed adult. However, if he continues on with the political consulting firm of J. Warren Tompkins, that’s another story.
Update 3: While I was putting together the original blog post, I had also contacted The Politico writer arguing that Bluehost had acted ethically. The original post has been updated to reflect the other information in the earlier updates. Good for Mr. Martin. In addition, there has been posted more information about the exchanges between campaign camps about the issue. Captain’s Quarters also has a blog entry about it giving the Romney camp the benefit of the doubt.
To be honest, I’m not quite so sure myself, and not because I’m a Thompson supporter but because of the responses denying knowledge. First, that employee of the consulting firm wouldn’t be able to put up an addon site without someone’s permission and help to do so… unless he’s the webmaster with administrative control of the site. Second, this message indicates a message from the web hosting company rather than something from the site owner to which the questionable domain was attached:
“Domain phoneyfred.org is still attached to your politicalnetroots.com account as Addon,” the site states. “For security reasons, you must remove it BEFORE you can continue. After detaching phoneyfred.org from politicalnetroots.com, you should experience some brief downtime on phoneyfred.org while its DNS propagates to your new account.”
Now, I’m not trying and convicting anyone on the basis of these two things but they do raise questions in my mind. In all honesty, despite the fact that I’m a FredHead I’d be disappointed if Romney continues with that consulting firm. Not everyone else is a FredHead. We may well end up with Romney or Guiliani as our Republican candidate for the general election and something like this could make me very uncomfortable voting for Romney at that point. We’ve had too many elections where the choice has been between the lesser of evils rather than a clear good choice. Bush is okay, I guess, but the immigration issue always bothered me and it seems I was right to be bothered.