The Charlie Rangel situation is getting more and more interesting. While Rangel himself is digging in his heels and welcoming the ethics investigation into his alleged crimes, President Obama has taken a different position. He said the following in an interview with CBS News:
I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served -- his constituents very well. But these -- allegations are very troubling. And he'll -- he's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that -- what he wants is to be able to -- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that -- it happens.
Set aside the disjointed sentence structure and rampant ageism by the President for a moment and really think about the implications of Obama's statement in the context of the rising tension between the White House and Congress. It's safe to say that Congressional Democrats and Obama aren't getting along like they used to anymore because the former can't seem to get the latter's help in supporting his agenda. The President talked a great game about health care reform, but left Congress to try to make the sale to its constituents. That didn't go well, and Obama did little to help them. This made the Congressional Democrats look bad, and I firmly believe it caused the health care reform bill to stay stuck in Congress far longer than it should have been. But it wasn't Obama who took the heat for that. It was Congress. And given some of the egos in Congress, that's not going to sit well.
There are a lot of other dynamics in play here, but the tension between the Obama White House and Congressional Democrats are going to get worse in the light of Obama's statement against Rangel before they get better.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Prez on "The View"
I figured since so many people were talking about it, I'd chime in on President Obama appearing on "The View" this week. And what do I think about it?
Absolutely nothing.
Seriously, do we have nothing on our plates but the President going on a daytime talk show? Why would we care? If the President wants to go on a talk show, let him. It's his credibility on the line when he does. No skin off my nose. But to hear conservatives talk about it, Obama was disgracing the office of the President by showing up on "The View."
Folks, you have to pick your battles. The President going on "The View" is no big deal because the show stinks on ice. Having the President go on it would be like having him go on "The Joy Behar Show": only a handful of people are going to watch, and usually it's the type of people who already agree with him. He's not going to convert anyone. If he wanted to make an impact, he would get the guts to go on the Glenn Beck show.
It's like the attention paid to Chelsea Clinton's wedding. It's worthless attention paid to an event that doesn't warrant more attention than knowing she's getting married. End of story, kids. Let it go.
Don't get sucked into the tilting against over-hyped windmills. Keep the focus on subjects that matter.
Absolutely nothing.
Seriously, do we have nothing on our plates but the President going on a daytime talk show? Why would we care? If the President wants to go on a talk show, let him. It's his credibility on the line when he does. No skin off my nose. But to hear conservatives talk about it, Obama was disgracing the office of the President by showing up on "The View."
Folks, you have to pick your battles. The President going on "The View" is no big deal because the show stinks on ice. Having the President go on it would be like having him go on "The Joy Behar Show": only a handful of people are going to watch, and usually it's the type of people who already agree with him. He's not going to convert anyone. If he wanted to make an impact, he would get the guts to go on the Glenn Beck show.
It's like the attention paid to Chelsea Clinton's wedding. It's worthless attention paid to an event that doesn't warrant more attention than knowing she's getting married. End of story, kids. Let it go.
Don't get sucked into the tilting against over-hyped windmills. Keep the focus on subjects that matter.
A House of (Race) Cards
Remember when the Left portrayed President Obama as the "post-racial President"? It seems that, in spite of that lofty (and as yet unexplained) title, some in this country can't get past race. And no, my little Leftist reader, they're not on the Right.
Yes, my friends, it's the Left that keeps playing the race card. Criticize Obama's policies? You're a racist.
Point out that the NAACP nodded and applauded Shirley Sherrod saying that she didn't help a white farmer as well as she could have? You're a racist.
Think that Arizona's immigration law is a good idea? You're a racist.
Agree with the TEA Party? You're a racist.
The Left keeps playing the race card to the point of comic absurdity. In fact, I was once called a racist by a Leftist because I said I didn't care what race Obama was. But such is the thinking of the Left these days. They see racism under every rock, behind every tree, and under every bed.
But, as with so much of what the Left believes, reality paints a far different picture. You wouldn't know it from listening to the Left, but by and large the races get along. There will still be at least some friction among the races, just as there is friction between people. Yet, there isn't the kind of racial animosity that the Left assumes is there.
It goes a bit deeper than that, though. Have you noticed that if you're in favor of something that the Left is against, the Left makes it into a racial issue even when race isn't really a factor? With the election of Obama, the Left has gotten ultra-sensitive about race, while the rest of us have given race the same general consideration that we did before Obama's election, which is to say we don't really care.
Then again, the Left thrives on keeping racial tensions high because it benefits them. Money to candidates, unblinking support of Democrat candidates, the maintenance of the image of the Left defending civil rights, all of these and more that I didn't mention are at stake if the races get along. Instead of accepting the reality and working within it, though, the Left prefers to be destructive rather than constructive. Thus, they keep playing the race card in the hopes that enough people still believe there is racism everywhere you go.
However, what the Left doesn't realize is that they can't keep playing the race card without it losing its impact. That's what's happening now. By spending time and energy inventing racism where it doesn't exist in situations that have nothing to do with race or to defend allies who have screwed up, the Left has watered down real racism, like the racism exhibited by the NAACP in the Sherrod video when members laughed and applauded when Sherrod said she didn't help the white farmer as well as she could. And what is the Left doing?
Going after Andrew Breitbart, Fox News, Glenn Beck, and anyone else who sees real racism in the footage and being unafraid to point it out.
And people are starting to pay attention to the Left's Chicken Little act and rejecting the Left's arguments as being unfounded. The more that happens, the more desperate the Left will get, and the more likely they are to keep playing the race card, which will continue their downward spiral. Unfortunately for them, they don't see the negative impact it's having on their credibility to keep crying "racism" instead of "wolf" at every situation that comes along where the Left and the Right clash these days. They'll keep building their house of race cards higher and higher and hope nobody sneezes.
And the crash when someone does will be spectacular.
Yes, my friends, it's the Left that keeps playing the race card. Criticize Obama's policies? You're a racist.
Point out that the NAACP nodded and applauded Shirley Sherrod saying that she didn't help a white farmer as well as she could have? You're a racist.
Think that Arizona's immigration law is a good idea? You're a racist.
Agree with the TEA Party? You're a racist.
The Left keeps playing the race card to the point of comic absurdity. In fact, I was once called a racist by a Leftist because I said I didn't care what race Obama was. But such is the thinking of the Left these days. They see racism under every rock, behind every tree, and under every bed.
But, as with so much of what the Left believes, reality paints a far different picture. You wouldn't know it from listening to the Left, but by and large the races get along. There will still be at least some friction among the races, just as there is friction between people. Yet, there isn't the kind of racial animosity that the Left assumes is there.
It goes a bit deeper than that, though. Have you noticed that if you're in favor of something that the Left is against, the Left makes it into a racial issue even when race isn't really a factor? With the election of Obama, the Left has gotten ultra-sensitive about race, while the rest of us have given race the same general consideration that we did before Obama's election, which is to say we don't really care.
Then again, the Left thrives on keeping racial tensions high because it benefits them. Money to candidates, unblinking support of Democrat candidates, the maintenance of the image of the Left defending civil rights, all of these and more that I didn't mention are at stake if the races get along. Instead of accepting the reality and working within it, though, the Left prefers to be destructive rather than constructive. Thus, they keep playing the race card in the hopes that enough people still believe there is racism everywhere you go.
However, what the Left doesn't realize is that they can't keep playing the race card without it losing its impact. That's what's happening now. By spending time and energy inventing racism where it doesn't exist in situations that have nothing to do with race or to defend allies who have screwed up, the Left has watered down real racism, like the racism exhibited by the NAACP in the Sherrod video when members laughed and applauded when Sherrod said she didn't help the white farmer as well as she could. And what is the Left doing?
Going after Andrew Breitbart, Fox News, Glenn Beck, and anyone else who sees real racism in the footage and being unafraid to point it out.
And people are starting to pay attention to the Left's Chicken Little act and rejecting the Left's arguments as being unfounded. The more that happens, the more desperate the Left will get, and the more likely they are to keep playing the race card, which will continue their downward spiral. Unfortunately for them, they don't see the negative impact it's having on their credibility to keep crying "racism" instead of "wolf" at every situation that comes along where the Left and the Right clash these days. They'll keep building their house of race cards higher and higher and hope nobody sneezes.
And the crash when someone does will be spectacular.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
In the "This Shocks Who?" Department...
Shirley Sherrod is planning to sue Andrew Breitbart for posting the video of her speech at an NAACP event. After all, she was the wronged party, according to her! Breitbart was clearly targeting her, a little-known Department of Agriculture employee until now, so she's just trying to restore her good name.
Meanwhile in the real world, we get to see Sherrod for what she truly is: an opportunist.
Granted, everyone has a bit of this streak within them. But not everyone gets to write his or her on history as Sherrod and her ideological allies have done. No matter how the Left spins the facts, the timeline doesn't fit their spin, which puts Sherrod's case in a bit of trouble. See, the courts tend to have a little higher standard of proof than Media Matters. With the media coverage making her into an overnight sensation, though, I'm thinking she's letting her ego write checks that her legal team won't be able to cash. (But maybe they'll get some of that sweet settlement money Sherrod and her husband just received from the federal government.)
Some on the Left say Sherrod is only trying to restore her reputation. Given how she's trying to cash in on a lie, I'd say her reputation has already been affirmed.
Meanwhile in the real world, we get to see Sherrod for what she truly is: an opportunist.
Granted, everyone has a bit of this streak within them. But not everyone gets to write his or her on history as Sherrod and her ideological allies have done. No matter how the Left spins the facts, the timeline doesn't fit their spin, which puts Sherrod's case in a bit of trouble. See, the courts tend to have a little higher standard of proof than Media Matters. With the media coverage making her into an overnight sensation, though, I'm thinking she's letting her ego write checks that her legal team won't be able to cash. (But maybe they'll get some of that sweet settlement money Sherrod and her husband just received from the federal government.)
Some on the Left say Sherrod is only trying to restore her reputation. Given how she's trying to cash in on a lie, I'd say her reputation has already been affirmed.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Remember What I Said About Context?
Even when the facts regarding Shirley Sherrod's "firing" by the Obama White House come out, some on the Left refuse to accept that Fox News didn't get her "fired."
Mediaite's Steve Krakauer tried to set the Left straight as to the actual timeline of Fox News' coverage of the Sherrod story, but one poster (who will remain nameless to protect his/her fragile Leftist ego) wasn't buying the facts:
You got the facts right Steve, but I’m not buying your conclusion.
So, let me get this straight. The facts were right that showed that Fox News didn't get Sherrod fired as the Left has claimed, but they're still to blame for getting her fired because of the "atmosphere" they allegedly created? The only way you can even remotely make this claim is to invent a reality where Fox News and Andrew Breitbart masterminded a great racist conspiracy to bring down a virtual unknown to get back at the President.
Meanwhile, the real story (that being the NAACP's racism in its midst after chastising the TEA Parties for racists in their midst) is being ignored by the Left. By jumping on the TEA Parties as racist from the very beginning, haven't you created the environment under which Sherrod was fired, using your logic? So, when are you going to man up and accept responsibility?
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on this. Needless to say, now that the "Fox News got Shirley Sherrod" lie has been discredited, the Left is reduced to creating new reasons to blame them for the boneheaded actions of the Obama Administration and the NAACP. But no matter what narrative they invent, the facts are out there, and no one but them is buying their spin.
Mediaite's Steve Krakauer tried to set the Left straight as to the actual timeline of Fox News' coverage of the Sherrod story, but one poster (who will remain nameless to protect his/her fragile Leftist ego) wasn't buying the facts:
You got the facts right Steve, but I’m not buying your conclusion.
The administration didn’t fire Sherrod because they saw the video on Fox News, true.
The administration fired Sherod because a right-wing smear machine disguised as a news network that has repeatedly race-baited the White House with their “us vs them/Black against White” narrative EXISTS.
If that wasn’t the FOX M.O. then the White House would not have acted so rashly. They knew by experience that they could not expect fairness from FOX when it comes to race and that is what makes Fox at least partly to blame.
If there was no history of Fox race-baiting their would be no reason to act rashly.
I do believe Fox created the ATMOSPHERWE for this to happen and that is why they are to blame.
Fuck timelines..Fox has been doing this since Obama was nominated. There’s your timeline. [Emphasis mine]
So, let me get this straight. The facts were right that showed that Fox News didn't get Sherrod fired as the Left has claimed, but they're still to blame for getting her fired because of the "atmosphere" they allegedly created? The only way you can even remotely make this claim is to invent a reality where Fox News and Andrew Breitbart masterminded a great racist conspiracy to bring down a virtual unknown to get back at the President.
Meanwhile, the real story (that being the NAACP's racism in its midst after chastising the TEA Parties for racists in their midst) is being ignored by the Left. By jumping on the TEA Parties as racist from the very beginning, haven't you created the environment under which Sherrod was fired, using your logic? So, when are you going to man up and accept responsibility?
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on this. Needless to say, now that the "Fox News got Shirley Sherrod" lie has been discredited, the Left is reduced to creating new reasons to blame them for the boneheaded actions of the Obama Administration and the NAACP. But no matter what narrative they invent, the facts are out there, and no one but them is buying their spin.
Monday, July 26, 2010
A Forgotten Lesson
One of the hot issues right now is the proposed building of a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. Some say it's a way to heal the wounds of 9/11 by showing that we're above hatred. Others say it disrespects the families of those who died on 9/11.
Guess which side I'm on.
Folks, let me be as blunt as possible. If this mosque goes up, it will prove that we haven't learned a damn thing from 9/11. We're doomed to make the same mistakes of believing hollow words and ignoring real action unless we think through this carefully.
And the place to start is with the fundamental question: why build a mosque within two blocks of a site where Muslim extremists attacked a major American, and dare I say world, city? Wasn't there another spot that is closer to the Muslim community in NYC? And wouldn't the greed and social climbing connected to Manhattan be an affront to Islam on some level? None of it makes sense.
Unless you look at it from the standpoint of a radical Muslim. To them, building a mosque within a short distance of a martyrdom site is highly attractive, especially when it's going a poke in the eye of "the Great Satan." (For the uninitiated and for the Left, that's us.) And let's not forget that radical Muslims are trained to use our freedoms against us and invent scandals to make us scared to speak out against them.
And what does Mayor Mike Bloomberg do? Become the Capitulator in Chief and defend the mosque being built.
There's a fine line between tolerance and allowing people to take advantage of you. And let me tell you, radical Muslims are taking advantage of all of us with this Ground Zero mosque. While the Left attacks Sarah Palin for Tweeting her opposition to the mosque, they miss the obvious: they're being used for a purpose that will ultimately destroy them and, if they bothered to think through their stated positions for more than a microsecond, they would be opposed to, and should be if they had any sense whatsoever. I'm asking a lot, I know, but it's still a dream...
However, to be fair, I am willing to drop my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque on one condition: they allow me to erect two symbols at the entrance to the mosque.
A Star of David, and a Christian Cross.
After all, if it's all about tolerance, shouldn't we hold Muslims to the same standards that they want to hold us to?
Guess which side I'm on.
Folks, let me be as blunt as possible. If this mosque goes up, it will prove that we haven't learned a damn thing from 9/11. We're doomed to make the same mistakes of believing hollow words and ignoring real action unless we think through this carefully.
And the place to start is with the fundamental question: why build a mosque within two blocks of a site where Muslim extremists attacked a major American, and dare I say world, city? Wasn't there another spot that is closer to the Muslim community in NYC? And wouldn't the greed and social climbing connected to Manhattan be an affront to Islam on some level? None of it makes sense.
Unless you look at it from the standpoint of a radical Muslim. To them, building a mosque within a short distance of a martyrdom site is highly attractive, especially when it's going a poke in the eye of "the Great Satan." (For the uninitiated and for the Left, that's us.) And let's not forget that radical Muslims are trained to use our freedoms against us and invent scandals to make us scared to speak out against them.
And what does Mayor Mike Bloomberg do? Become the Capitulator in Chief and defend the mosque being built.
There's a fine line between tolerance and allowing people to take advantage of you. And let me tell you, radical Muslims are taking advantage of all of us with this Ground Zero mosque. While the Left attacks Sarah Palin for Tweeting her opposition to the mosque, they miss the obvious: they're being used for a purpose that will ultimately destroy them and, if they bothered to think through their stated positions for more than a microsecond, they would be opposed to, and should be if they had any sense whatsoever. I'm asking a lot, I know, but it's still a dream...
However, to be fair, I am willing to drop my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque on one condition: they allow me to erect two symbols at the entrance to the mosque.
A Star of David, and a Christian Cross.
After all, if it's all about tolerance, shouldn't we hold Muslims to the same standards that they want to hold us to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)