Posts Tagged ‘still angry left’

This column is just written for the I wish I said that tag.

How right they were to insist that she was unfit for high office. Let’s just imagine what she might have done:

As president, she might have caused the stock market to plunge over 2,000 points in the six weeks after she assumed office, left important posts in the Treasury unfilled for two months, been described by insiders as ‘overwhelmed’ by the office, and then gone on to diss the British Prime Minister on his first state visit, giving him, as one head of state to another, a set of DVDs plucked from the aisles of Wal Mart, a tasteful gift, even if they can’t be played on a TV in Britain. (Note, the Prime Minister, who is losing his eyesight, may even be blind in one eye).

As vice president, she might have told Katie Couric that when the stock market crashed in 1929, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on TV to reassure a terrified nation. Or on her first trip abroad as Secretary of State, she might have, as the AP reported, “raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe…when she mispronounced her “EU counterparts names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe’s,” then gave the Russian minister a gag “reset” button, on which the word “reset” was translated incorrectly.

What a good thing that Palin, whom Christopher Buckley called “an embarrassment, and a dangerous one,” wasn’t in office to cause such debacles, and that we have Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton instead.

In case you don’t know these are all things done by the three people above. The Closing line was hot air’s quote of the day.

Call the Palinphobes lacking in logic and they will have tantrums, but this time the sandal might fit. This is the Audacity of Type, a faith-based illusion if ever there was one, the belief that qualities shared by and appealing to pundits and writers – glibness, a worldly patina, and a superficial verbal facility – are those needed to run a great nation in a troubled and dangerous era.

But which is more rational, to place limited trust in a proven reformer, who can learn certain facts she does not know already, or to breathe fictional traits into an unknown quantity, who has never run anything, or ever done much besides talk?

The left still has fits over her but she still sell magazines and brings viewers to any show she is on.

I would trade her for Obama right now in a heartbeat.

…because of stuff like this:

“George Bush the monkey? Fair ball”

“Draw a comic slamming the Stimulus Bill while featuring a chimpanzee? You, my friend are a racist, homophobic, hate-mongering etc… Neocon.”

Before you know it, you’ve made Olbermann’s list. For a party that controls virtually the entire comedic realm (sitcoms, Comedy Central, late night TV, etc.), the Democrats certainly have a lot of lightening up to do.

Many Conservatives think that the way to handle these attacks is to tread lightly and be hyper-sensitive to the issues. I say we need to be as unabashedly politically incorrect as possible. The only way we’ll end the “race war” is to discard it as an issue altogether. Who’s with me? Who else out there is willing to start speaking freely without fear of race, ethnicity or the liberal nutjobs who deem themselves offended?

I for one will proudly say that I thought the comic was funny… And on a totally unrelated topic; Barack Hussein Obama is one weird-looking dude.

He seems to be the last fearless comic in the world.

…comparing Bush to Bad Nazis.

You know that you’ve fallen far as a columnist when you can be safely put in the same category as Dennis Kucinich.

Oh and the information from Sullivan’s link comes from interviews with Al Qaeda terrorists who would cut his throat for being Gay as soon as look at him. Sullivan’s link doesn’t make that clear but NPR does.

There is a point where someone has gone so far over the edge that you just have to ignore them. I’m very sorry to say that Andrew has reached that place.

Well the White house has an answer to debating Rush:

When pressed again on whether President Obama — the leader of the free world with the biggest megaphone — will take up Limbaugh’s offer, Ms. Barnes let out a burst of laughter. “Well, I think it’s probably unlikely, but we look forward to hearing more from Mr. Limbaugh and from others as we continue to address these problems,” she said.

So lets take it from the top:

Before the election they decide on a strategy of attacking Rush Limbaugh they anoint him leader of the opposition. They attack him by name and belittle Republicans for not rejecting him.

Rush offers him 3 hours on the most popular radio program in history to debate and the White house votes “present” rather than yes or no.

Apparently the president and his staff and his followers are not convinced they can stand up to Mr. Limbaugh and persuade this audience, particularly without a teleprompter to tell him what to say.

The longer they pause the more likely we will see more news outlets actually covering what Rush says instead of reporting on the faux Limbaugh image that the media and the White House.

And the president’s defenders? They attack Rush for his past addiction, make fun of his weight but are unable to answer his arguments. Note how many times Rush has mentioned our president’s admitted drug use during this debate? Not once.

Leaders all over the globe will note that the leader of the free world is afraid of a talk show host. This is going to bleed for a while as s it does Republicans and conservatives will gain courage to stand up to him. I think Glenn is right time to break out the Chicken Suit.