Rightwing News

[Montgomery Burns]

I came across these random thoughts at Rightwing News tonight and I thought a few of them might make for some good discussion:

A mini-meme that has begun developing is that, "Conservatives are taking a 2nd look at McCain." That seems extremely doubtful. As the Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (2006 Edition) poll showed, McCain is despised by much of the right side of the blogosphere and is even less popular than he was in 2005, so it's hard to see how he could be getting more popular with conservatives on the whole.

I agree. I don't think McCain is as popular with the Republican base as the MSM portrays him. I'd be interested in hearing ModerateameriCain's (and others) take on this.

There are apparently a few people on the right concerned because Alito broke with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas in his first case. They shouldn't be. Although the conservatives on the court usually agree on the big issues, they don't always vote in lockstep. Plus, the reason Alito was such a great pick was because he had a long record that let conservatives know exactly where he stood. That's why there's no need to worry.

Exactly. That is one of the big differences between righties and lefties. Rightwingers tend to be more individualist while leftwingers tend to be more lockstep.

The Libby trial isn't going to start until January of 2007? Wow. Liberals have to be hating that because the mainstream media would have loved nothing better than to cover every detail of the trial so they could use it to smear Republicans all the way through the 2006 elections. Now that's off the table.

Gurrrrate News!

Interesting reaction to the Danish cartoons from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the biggest Shiite poo-bah in Iraq:

Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the publications as a "horrific action."

But in remarks posted on his Web site, al-Sistani referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community whose actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

Understandably, he's not happy with the cartoons, but he is also ripping radical jihadis. Not bad!

I wouldn't exactly say Sistani is "ripping" radical Jihadists, but I agree with the first half of your sentence. To be fair, Sistani seems to be a reasonable guy.

One other thing about the Danish cartoons that people should keep in mind is that Muslims who are upset, unhappy, angry, and calling for boycotts over these cartoons are not bad people. Certainly those of us who are Christians sometimes do the same things when we get offended. The point of publishing these cartoons was to show the bad actors out there, the radical Islamists, that they can't intimidate the press with threats. As you follow this story, it's worth keeping that in mind so that Muslims -- who aren't acting much differently than we Christians would under similar circumstances -- don't get painted with the same brush as the thugs.

I suppose...but I'm not really sure I agree with this. I have seen these cartoons; they aren't a major deal--perhaps the one with Mohammed having a bomb for a turban was mean-spirited--but overall they weren't a huge deal. It's not like it was a crucifix dipped in urine ("art"), or a Madonna splattered with elephant sh*t ("art").

Christians aren't breaking into Muslim homes looking to kidnap them as revenge for the Mohammed Cartoons. Lighten up Muslims. The left demonizes Christians far worse than these cartoons.

Hillary's stock has dropped enormously in the last year. A year ago, she probably had 80%+ chance of wrapping up the Democratic nomination in 2008. Now it seems like she's below 50% and still dropping. Just look at this poll at the very influential Daily Kos. Hillary is tied for 7th place with John Kerry and Bill Richardson at 3%. Granted, the views of that crowd aren't uniform across the Democratic Party, but there are a lot of grass roots libs who work on campaigns, donate money, and vote in the primaries whose opinion it does represent. Of course, most of them are a little kooky, too, but they still have pull and they don't like Hillary at all.

I agree somewhat. Although I think Hillary is stronger than the above quote, I also feel she is no shoe-in to win the 2008 Democrat nomination. Cripes, these people elected a radical like Howard Dean to lead the DNC.

"Progressive liberals" have a lot of influence in today's Democrat Party and they dislike Hillary for pretending to be centre-left--instead of being an angry hate-filled "progressive liberal".

Additionally, Hillary has a lot of negatives. The right is licking its chops in anticipation of getting to rip her.

Speaking of Kos, isn't it a little ironic that John Kerry very publicly delinked the Daily Kos from his website when he was running for President because he thought it might lead to bad publicity, but now he's actually posting there? On second thought, isn't that actually typical of liberals? They move to the middle when they run for office and then when the election is over they slice way back to the left.

Or, in Kerry's case, they do another flip-flop.

UPDATE: US jobless rate drops to 4.7%. Employers added about 193,000 jobs, which was, incredibly, below the expectation of about 250,000 jobs. Wow! The Americans are very confident in their economy; the expected number of jobs created per month to maintain a healthy economy is about 150,000.

President Bush learned well from Ronald Reagan: Low business and personal taxes = healthy economy = more revenue for the govt.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Montgomery Burns

[GostHacked]

I am glad I do not subscribe to any religion. I really did not find much ado about those cartoons. If they really wanted to be offenced they should visit somethingawful.com The photoshop fridays those people do are just amazing. I recall one of those sessions where the topic was about Passion of the Christ. I do not recall a big stink about it. You can be that

People just need to relax, lighten up. If you cannot laugh at yourself, then just simply go away.

[YankAbroad]

I have to snicker at the political cultures of the Tweedledum party here when it insists it's "under attack from the MSM." Go over to the Tweedledee party and you'll find a similar sentiment.

They always insist the evil of the world is against them, the establishment is against them, the powers that be are against them.

Except, without fail, they are the evil of the world, the establishment, the powers that be.

[geoffrey]

UPDATE: US jobless rate drops to 4.7%. Employers added about 193,000 jobs, which was, incredibly, below the expectation of about 250,000 jobs. Wow! The Americans are very confident in their economy; the expected number of jobs created per month to maintain a healthy economy is about 150,000.

President Bush learned well from Ronald Reagan: Low business and personal taxes = healthy economy = more revenue for the govt.

Or the Fed was smart in not going overboard in interest rate hikes.

Depends on what view you subscribe to I guess. Supply-side economics hasn't always worked (actually, I'd argue it never works alone), so I'm not going to look at these numbers as it is Bush's victory. I'd like to give more credit to Alan, too bad he's gone.

[YankAbroad]

I wouldn't hail Bush's economy as all that healthy OR all that low-tax.

Running huge deficits is just a hidden tax increase in two ways -- one, it raids supplies of borrowing which would otherwise go to businesses and individuals (an indirect tax), two, it increases the long-term tax rate since taxes have to stay high to pay interest and principal.

In adddition, George W. Bush has run the most socialist and activist government in American history. Federal employment increased over 50%, he launched a new socialist drug program which will cost over $90 billion its first year, he launched a disastrous war which has cost over $400 billion, and he increased foreign aid by over eighteen times the prior high.

A true libertarian committed to small government and low taxes, he is not. But then again, Republicans ALWAYS campaign like Libertarians and govern like socialists.

[geoffrey]

I wouldn't hail Bush's economy as all that healthy OR all that low-tax.

Running huge deficits is just a hidden tax increase in two ways -- one, it raids supplies of borrowing which would otherwise go to businesses and individuals (an indirect tax), two, it increases the long-term tax rate since taxes have to stay high to pay interest and principal.

In adddition, George W. Bush has run the most socialist and activist government in American history. Federal employment increased over 50%, he launched a new socialist drug program which will cost over $90 billion its first year, he launched a disastrous war which has cost over $400 billion, and he increased foreign aid by over eighteen times the prior high.

A true libertarian committed to small government and low taxes, he is not. But then again, Republicans ALWAYS campaign like Libertarians and govern like socialists.

True on all accounts, well said Yank.

[moderateamericain]

"'A mini-meme that has begun developing is that, "Conservatives are taking a 2nd look at McCain." That seems extremely doubtful. As the Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (2006 Edition) poll showed, McCain is despised by much of the right side of the blogosphere and is even less popular than he was in 2005, so it's hard to see how he could be getting more popular with conservatives on the whole.'

I agree. I don't think McCain is as popular with the Republican base as the MSM portrays him. I'd be interested in hearing ModerateameriCain's (and others) take on this. "

I am actually not very suprised. John Mccain doesnt have his hands deep in the pockets of big industrialist. Sure he may get slipped coin here or there but hes not part of the "power" republicans. Hes also far too liberal in social policies for the religious factions to give him there blessing. A great candidate who is in the wrong era.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I also feel she is no shoe-in to win the 2008 Democrat nomination.

Ever since many of Asper's newspapers got into the habit of misspelling the word "shoo-in" in his dailies, I complained about it wherever I could. But it wasn't until I complained about it here that PocketRocket took it upon himself, ( "just to make me happy" he said) , and made sure my complaint got to Asper's main editor's ears.

Now all my daughters are back on track in spelling it the right way, and I hope this latest Vancouver Sun article gets you there too.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...bb-ea54c39f3e72

You're welcome!

[tml12]

I wouldn't hail Bush's economy as all that healthy OR all that low-tax.

Running huge deficits is just a hidden tax increase in two ways -- one, it raids supplies of borrowing which would otherwise go to businesses and individuals (an indirect tax), two, it increases the long-term tax rate since taxes have to stay high to pay interest and principal.

In adddition, George W. Bush has run the most socialist and activist government in American history. Federal employment increased over 50%, he launched a new socialist drug program which will cost over $90 billion its first year, he launched a disastrous war which has cost over $400 billion, and he increased foreign aid by over eighteen times the prior high.

A true libertarian committed to small government and low taxes, he is not. But then again, Republicans ALWAYS campaign like Libertarians and govern like socialists.

A big government Republican reminds me of a social fascist.

[Biblio Bibuli]

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...bb-ea54c39f3e72

So ... what do you think of Stockwell Day's new 'Department of Homeland Security' portfilio, hmm?

That's more important than 'Foreign Affairs', no?

Eat dirt, Peter!

[Montgomery Burns]

I also feel she is no shoe-in to win the 2008 Democrat nomination.

Ever since many of Asper's newspapers got into the habit of misspelling the word "shoo-in" in his dailies, I complained about it wherever I could. But it wasn't until I complained about it here that PocketRocket took it upon himself, ( "just to make me happy" he said) , and made sure my complaint got to Asper's main editor's ears.

Now all my daughters are back on track in spelling it the right way, and I hope this latest Vancouver Sun article gets you there too.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...bb-ea54c39f3e72

You're welcome!

The liberal Aspers might have their own way of spelling, but KKKarl Rove told me that "shoo-in" is the correct spelling and I always take the side of The Dark Lord™.

[Montgomery Burns]

"'A mini-meme that has begun developing is that, "Conservatives are taking a 2nd look at McCain." That seems extremely doubtful. As the Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (2006 Edition) poll showed, McCain is despised by much of the right side of the blogosphere and is even less popular than he was in 2005, so it's hard to see how he could be getting more popular with conservatives on the whole.'

I agree. I don't think McCain is as popular with the Republican base as the MSM portrays him. I'd be interested in hearing ModerateameriCain's (and others) take on this. "

I am actually not very suprised. John Mccain doesnt have his hands deep in the pockets of big industrialist. Sure he may get slipped coin here or there but hes not part of the "power" republicans. Hes also far too liberal in social policies for the religious factions to give him there blessing. A great candidate who is in the wrong era.

Nice to hear your take.

[Montgomery Burns]

I have to snicker at the political cultures of the Tweedledum party here when it insists it's "under attack from the MSM." Go over to the Tweedledee party and you'll find a similar sentiment.

They always insist the evil of the world is against them, the establishment is against them, the powers that be are against them.

Except, without fail, they are the evil of the world, the establishment, the powers that be.

Your party got 399,000 votes and you're mocking the "Tweedledum Party" that got 62 million votes?

[YankAbroad]

Your party got 399,000 votes and you're mocking the "Tweedledum Party" that got 62 million votes?

You guys cannot even be sure of the vote totals, remember?

Besides, in "Gore vs Bush" you guys argued that the popular vote doesn't matter -- it's the electors that matter.

Hey, if you're all for a face-to-face between our two parties, let our guy in your debate, and make it a real debate -- not one of the orchestrated fake-o ones you're so fond of having where all questions are vetted days in advance. Then we'll see how many votes we get, versus you.

But I bet you're not willing to let that happen -- nor lift the ballot restrictions you've placed on us either. George Bush would piss himself silly if he had to face down a Libertarian who would poke holes in all his arguments, from Iraq to his constant hidden tax increases and biggest expansion of government in world history.

No matter. We're still right, you're still wrong. The fact you couldn't criticize any of the truth I told about your big government socialist party is all the proof I need. And eventually, your comeuppance will come -- conservative socialism, like it's left-wing counterpart, always tumbles down eventually.

[Montgomery Burns]

YankAbroad:

You guys cannot even be sure of the vote totals, remember?

Oh right. The Rigged Diebold Voting Machines™ conspiracy.

One hurdle for the Libertarian Party--shaking the "Loonytarian" tag.

Besides, in "Gore vs Bush" you guys argued that the popular vote doesn't matter -- it's the electors that matter.

Not I. Electoral College Votes is what counts. It is rare that a losing candidate edges the winning candidate in the popular vote. That's a strawman you typed. The Republicans got 62 million votes, the Democrats 59 million votes, and the Libertarian Party only received a miniscule 400,000 votes. Even Ralph Nader got a couple of million votes in 2000.

Hey, if you're all for a face-to-face between our two parties, let our guy in your debate,...

When Michael Badnarik files an income tax return, gets a drivers license, and quits publically musing about blowing up the UN office as his first act as President (throwing the sh*t-sucking anal leeches into the Hudson River would suffice), then maybe we'll talk. Getting a few million votes wouldn't hurt either.

Did I mention the Loonytarian tag earlier?

...and make it a real debate -- not one of the orchestrated fake-o ones you're so fond of having where all questions are vetted days in advance. Then we'll see how many votes we get, versus you.

Oh yeah. The press is soooo soft on Bush.

And I doubt that Republicans are quaking in their boots at the thought of facing an almost anarchistic type of rightwinger like Badnarik.

No matter. We're still right, you're still wrong.

Badnarik's Libertarian Party: 400,000 votes

Bush's Republican Party: 62 million votes

Did I mention the Loonytarian tag earlier?