I’ll get real original on January First and have a “Beginning of Year Open Thread”.
David Thompson fell upon his sword for us and gathered a selection of just how lunatic the left has become in 2015. A sample:
…In May, we witnessed the intellectual heft of the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee, including her belief that obesity isn’t chiefly a matter of inactivity and overeating but instead has a more pernicious cause, i.e., a lack of socialism: “It is inequality and disrespect,” we learned, “that makes people fat.” Though chunkier readers should note that waiting for a socialist revolution probably isn’t the best way to lose those extra pounds. We also pondered the deep ruminations of Marxist philosopher Adam Swift, who insists that reading to your children causes “unfair disadvantage” to the children of parents who are negligent and stupid, and should therefore induce feelings of guilt and discomfort. To our Marxist intellectual, being a competent, caring parent is something to atone for, being as it is an act of class oppression…
I fear they will get even sillier in 2016.
Food stamp usage is at record levels and because of this, the Obama Administration thinks we should expand the program even more. No explanation how this expansion works Administration talking points about how great the economy is doing. The Administration cooked up a report which proves that food stamps are just fabulous for those using them. Mostly, though, they are fabulous for our liberal Ruling Class – the more people dependent upon them for their daily bread, the more likely liberals will win elections. Its funny how that works – control their food, control them.
Ruth Marcus realizes that a Trump vs Hillary battle won’t necessarily go the way the Democrats think:
…Bill Clinton has a penchant for something. He had a successful presidency — with an ugly blot. “Sexism” isn’t the precise word for his predatory behavior toward women or his inexcusable relationship with a 22-year-old intern. Yet in the larger scheme of things, Bill Clinton’s conduct toward women is far worse than any of the offensive things that Trump has said.
Trump has smeared women because of their looks. Clinton has preyed on them, and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true…
No GOPer has ever had the guts to really call out the Clinton’s on their nauseating behavior – personally and professionally. I do think that Trump would not hold back. And if Cruz or Rubio stop the Trump Express, I hope they understand that attacking the Clinton’s will be a vital part of a winning campaign.
It appears that 10,000 unaccompanied minors have illegally cross the US border in the past couple months. No one in our Ruling Class seems to care that this is highly dangerous for these kids…
Jerry Lewis – who is still alive – praises Trump and hammers Obama.
The kook left gotta kook left – already spinning conspiracy theories about how we’re going to steal the 2016 election.
In many respects this past year didn’t end up being the catastrophe that many of us thought it would be — a lot of incremental BS around the edges, but nothing reeeeeeeally bad. Hopefully we’ll just keep chugging along with no major hiccups until we can get a change in leadership. I’m going to at least start out the new year on an optimistic note, and we’ll see what happens, knowing that I’m prepared for pretty much whatever happens.
I think 2016 will prove to be one of the most damaging years ever to America. Starting with this:
Central American countries and Mexico have reached an agreement that would allow 8000 Cuban immigrants currently stranded in Costa Rica to enter the US legally. The US was not party to the negotiations but will apparently acquiesce as other countries dictate US immigration and asylum policies. It is the coming change in our asylum policy toward Cuba that is fueling the current exodus from Castro’s paradise. And US authorities are concerned that its only the beginning of a potential mass migration from Cuba to America.
Obama will do everything in his executive power to diminish America and to strengthen his global ambitions in 2016 and all of us will suffer because of it.
I’m not sure it is a bad thing to accept the Cubans.
America has done pretty well with the Cubans we have taken in (notwithstanding Scarface, lol).
Just because Castro is a piece of shit and his government is a government of shit does not mean its people are a danger, per se. If these 8,000 Cubans are spies waiting to infiltrate, I’d say they are late to the game. There have been many Cuban spies that made it here in the last 60+ years. Castro would really have been playing the long game to use these folks in Costa Rica to topple America.
“America has done pretty well with the Cubans we have taken in…”
Well, sometimes we have, sometimes we haven’t. Back in the 90s we didn’t always do so well with the influx of Cuban refugees.
• PATRICK COCKBURN in Washington
• Saturday 27 August 1994
THE UNITED STATES believes Cuba has started to release prisoners from its jails and suspects that President Fidel Castro is about to send them to join the boat people leaving the island for Florida.
This would immediately escalate the confrontation between Washington and Havana. During the last exodus of Cubans in 1980, Mr Castro created a crisis for the White House by sending criminals, drug addicts and mentally retarded people to the US.
Officials in Washington say they have learned from sources in Havana that the releases from Cuban prisons began last weekend. President Bill Clinton is acutely conscious of the effectiveness of the Cuban tactic of sending killers and thieves along with genuine refugees: in 1980 his own political career was almost ended when 18,000 Cuban boat people, mostly former prisoners, rioted at a US military base, Fort Chafee in Arkansas.
The US Coastguard has not so far reported that newly released criminals are among the 17,000 Cubans picked up from rafts and dinghies in the Straits of Florida over the past month. But the freeing of the prisoners occurred very recently and bad weather has slowed the outflow of people to only 585 on Friday compared to some 3,000 a day earlier in the week.
During the so-called Mariel crisis – named after the Cuban port from which the refugees sailed – 14 years ago President Castro sent 125,000 Cubans to the US. Many were later discovered to be violent criminals, identifiable by their prison tattoos between their thumbs and their forefingers.
Mr Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, was persuaded by President Jimmy Carter to house almost 20,000 at Fort Chaffee, once used to hold German prisoners of war. After serious rioting they smashed down the gates of the base, stoned police and set fire to buildings. Accused of mishandling the incident, Mr Clinton was voted out of office.”
OK, maybe the Cubans we are now talking about have not been released from prisons and mental hospitals to flood this country with problems, but we do have a history of having had to deal with this kind of thing. And even if the “…Cuban immigrants currently stranded in Costa Rica …” are just more poor people yearning for a “better life” our system is already overburdened with demands for food, housing and medical care for other immigrants who have come here to be cared for by Uncle Sugar.
To me, the even bigger problem is the United States being governed by agreements made in other countries, agreements in which we never participated and to which we never agreed (“… as other countries dictate US immigration and asylum policies…”) I have pretty strong feelings about the United States running its own show, making its own laws (in its proper legislative process, BTW, not by presidential fiat) and not being told what to do by any other nation or nations.
Bob, my point was that through our “renewed” relationship with Cuba, we are actually allowing other countries to make immigration decisions for us. That’s insane. What’s even more insane is to continue to allow unfettered immigration into this country while we struggle to take care of the people who are already here, amass $20 trillion in debt, and see 50%+ unemployment rates amongst our youth, primarily black youth. We are killing this country. Do you not see that?
I see what you are saying, but I do disagree.
The U.S. is not allowing other governments to control immigration. The State Department of the U.S. government has agreed to let the other two countries decide on these 8,000 immigrants.
As regards the overtaxed system, yes it is overtaxed, but 8,000 is a small piece of the 325,000 annual immigrants (I had to look up that 325k number, I hope you’re happy!). I do not expect these 8,000 folks to break the already-broken system.
Lastly, Cuban immigrants have been, as a whole, among the most pro-U.S. immigrants ever.
Bob, not sure how you find “..The U.S. is not allowing other governments to control immigration” and “The State Department of the U.S. government has agreed to let the other two countries decide on these 8,000 immigrants” to not be contradictory statements. First, is the State Department authorized to make laws concerning immigration, and second, why are we (as in “the State Department”) allowing any other countries to make ANY decisions about who we do and not allow into the country?
Yes, as a whole, taking into consideration every immigrant from every country, Cubans have been, overall, good additions to our melting pot. But that is not the whole picture here.
As for a mere 8000 people not making much of a difference in the totality of our dependent class, there is a saying that no drop of water considers itself responsible for the flood. I am not convinced by an argument that can be rephrased as “We are already in so deep, with so much debt, there is no reason to object to adding to it”.
I also point out that LEGAL immigrants, who have gone through the system and been investigated and held to standards of being able to have jobs and be self-sufficient, are not the problem. The figure of only 325,000 legal immigrants is not even relevant here. What is breaking the system is the millions (that is, your 325,000 multiplied by 30 to 40 times) and this has to stop somewhere.
I was once in a business which required a certain type of background and training specific to one part of the world. There were a very few Americans who had gone to the trouble to get this kind of training, so I am quite familiar with the H1-B process for skilled professional workers. I got these visas four times, and then sponsored one of these workers for a permanent residency visa. They had to prove they would be employed here, and their visas would have been revoked if they stopped working. So the 325,000 documented immigrants are not a problem, unless they are taking work that can be done by Americans. (I had to advertise in many newspapers and other employment sources for workers for these jobs before they could go to foreigners.)
We are in trouble because of the attitude that oh, hell, we already have so many illegals here, what’s a few thousand more. I suggest that instead of adding to the number, we reduce it. Yes, many of these Cubans might be wonderful, productive, additions to the American way of life. But we don’t know, because we seem to be telling some other countries that they can pick out who will come here.
The objection is not to Cubans per se—it is to the process by which these particular immigrants are being allowed into the country, which is apparently some kind of casual agreement between a US agency with some other nations, not approved by Congress, not in compliance with current immigration laws or standards, and complying only with an agreement among other nations, an agreement with which we have not participated in negotiating and to which we have not agreed.
On top of that, 8000 people “stranded” in another country don’t sound like people who can support themselves here, at least not for a while, meaning that they will almost certainly be added to the Dependent Class.
“Obama will do everything in his executive power to diminish America and to strengthen his global ambitions in 2016 and all of us will suffer because of it.”
I suggest that this statement, while true, should be expanded to include actions OUTSIDE his actual, Constitutional, executive power.
While Shawny expressed dismay about overturning laws with the wave of a pen, I am very happy to hear Ted Cruz state that on his first day as President of the United States he would rescind every Executive Order issued by Obama that went beyond the true scope of executive power. An Executive Order may have the power of an actual legislated law when a tyrant is in office, but strictly speaking it is not a law, and what is established by the wave of a pen can be overturned the same way.
BTW, this would include the sweeping authority granted to the EPA to make its own laws, and enforce them, a power never granted by Congress but merely by the President because he had a political whore, Ken Salazar, in place to follow the directions of the radical Left, and the power to appoint an equally submissive successor when Ken bailed out.
BTW, I think an early priority of Congress ought to be making serious changes to the whole Civil Service job guarantee policy we now have. One of the problems with the massive expansion of agency power due to presidential fiat is the increase in the number of people who simply cannot be fired.
The flip side of a well-meaning effort to make jobs less dependent on political power is that once a party in power has appointed people, or expanded an agency so much it has to add people who are of course chosen by the head of that agency, the new employees can’t be removed due to a change in administration. That means that an agency loaded with party hacks and guided by party agenda can continue to function even with a new president.
Progressive administrations, including some flying the Republican flag, have created a leviathan government with so much power embedded so deeply in its very structure that merely having a different president is not guaranteed to make it possible to change, at least not without changing the internal structures that support the beast.
I know, we have so many, so very many, examples of Leftist hypocrisy sometimes we are tempted to just stop exposing them, but this stands out to me:
From a good article by Michelle Malkin, herself an example of said Lefty hypocrisy as Lefties savaged her, calling her vile names and ridiculing her appearance, often using truly hateful racist terminology. (emphasis mine)
“Remember 5-year-old Sophie Cruz?
Groomed for a year by an outfit called the “Full Rights for Immigrants Coalition,” Sophie is the ponytailed poster child for amnesty who was literally propped up in front of the pope during a September visit to Washington, D.C.
Latino activists brazenly bragged about training the first-grader before the visit and crafting a letter in her name pleading with the Catholic pontiff to help her rescue President Obama’s executive illegal immigrant amnesty program DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents), which was halted under federal court order on May.
Sophie Cruz’s family now works with FWD.us, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s multi-million-dollar lobbying group, which just two weeks ago featured the girl in a high-profile ad campaign reading a fear-mongering script on “how her family would be ripped apart” if America got serious about deporting illegal border-crossers, visa overstayers, document fraudsters and criminal alien fugitives.
The Washington Post again provided positive coverage of little Sophie Cruz’s latest foray in politics. The article attacked Republicans who support strict immigration enforcement and included a massive photo of the cute child, supplied by her father, coloring a “pro-immigration” propaganda picture for amnesty.
Imagine if a conservative political cartoonist had depicted Sophie as an organ grinder monkey on a leash held by her illegal immigrant parents and Mark Zuckerberg.”
Propaganda is always disgusting to see.
On a different note, I consider Michelle Malkin a joke who weakens the conservative movement.
She is the girl who cries wolf…er, terrorist or bogeyman-of-the-moment. There are countless examples but the ultimate was lambasting Rachel Ray as being a supporter of Palestinians because her paisley scarf was vaguely reminiscent of a hijab.
Like the boy who cried wolf, perhaps some of Malkin’s observations hold weight but her constant calling out of non-wolves makes me ignore all she says.
We need serious people defending conservatism.
I don’t follow Malkin so I am not aware of the things you mention, but overall I have found her making some very salient points, and I think this is one of them. I don’t think any prior missteps detract from the times she is right.
I also remember the vile and vicious personal attacks on her from the Left, which gives her a slight edge in my book when she does overreact. And in spite of some overreactions, I still consider her a serious conservative.
In the example I have given, I think she is completely on target. I had not paid much attention to the Lefty love fest about the little girl sent on a photo op mission to get face time with the Pope—I was vaguely aware of it but wrote it off as just more silly Leftist posturing, like the infamous “RESET” button. I appreciated the reference to her last name and comparing the blatant use of her by the Left to the innocuous presence of two little girls sitting with their daddy listening to a story. I think it is a great article, so if you insist on disliking Malkin maybe you can put it in the “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes” category.
I don’t make a habit of following blind squirrels as a means to find acorns. There are plenty of ably-sighted squirrels pointing out plenty of acorns, following a blind one diminishes the hunt.
I put her in the same category as Michael Moore. On occasion, Moore makes a devastatingly good point, but he puts out so much garbage to slog through, I can’t pay him any mind hoping for that rare good and valid point.
But you are right, on this item she is correct. Use of that little girl is positively Goebbelsian (um, ok let’s pretend that is a real word).
I think it is a fine word, if I could only manage to pronounce it within two or three tries.
As far as dismissing Malkin goes, I cringe at any comparison of any decent human being with Michael Moore, unless it is to contrast him with basic human decency. I run into hypersensitivity all the time and don’t usually condemn people for it.
One example is the email I got referring to Obama allegedly making a gesture symbolic of unity with Islam. Rebuttal of this interpretation says he was merely captured making a gesture of acknowledgement to a funny comment made by someone offscreen when the picture was taken. Maybe yes, maybe no—but if it is an incorrect interpretation of the gesture, it is only a feasible interpretation because of the context of repeated incidents of appearing to be siding with Islam against the interests of the United States, and is not a stand-alone event. I feel the same about Malkin—while she may be oversensitive to slights and overzealous in some of her interpretations, they are within a context of some really crappy things happening, such as the passionate declarations of support for Palestine and/or Islam as shown by, among other things, the wearing of clothing intended to show support.
BTW, it’s been a while since Malkin joined in—did not intiate—the commentary on Rachael Ray’s scarf choice. I wonder if you also decided Dunkin’ Donuts was worthy of your contempt.
“Is Rachael Ray, the talk-show host, cookbook author and magazine editor, a terrorist sympathizer?
Dunkin’ Donuts, worried that its customers might think so, abruptly yanked an ad in which Ray wears a scarf that resembles a keffiyeh — a traditional headdress worn by Arab men — after conservative commentators became enraged by the ad and even threatened to boycott the company.
Ray, who signed on as the company’s pitchwoman last March, will continue to appear in other ads and commercials.
The controversial ad, which appeared earlier this month on the doughnut chain’s Web site to promote its iced coffee, came under fire nearly two weeks ago when pro-Jewish blogger Pam Geller posted it under the headline “Rachel [sic] Ray: Dunkin Donuts Jihad Tool.”
“Have you seen Rachel [sic] Ray wearing the icon of Yasser Arafatbastard and the bloody Islamic jihad,” Geller wrote. “This is part of the cultural jihad.”
Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin took up the cause last week , when she wrote on her Web site michellemalkin.com: “The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not so ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities and left-wing icons.”
That is, once the scarf was identified by several others as resembling a keffiyeh, Malkin explained why that would be offensive.
More research on Malkin/keffiyah: It turns out she was one of those who called attention to the scarf worn by Ray. However, I found her actual words on the subject pretty calm and rational. As I so often do, I will highlight the words I think deserve a little more attention.
“Rachael Ray, Dunkin’ Donuts, and the keffiyeh kerfuffle
by Michelle Malkin
I’ve been a fan of Dunkin Donuts for years. Their Munchkins are heaven. Their coffee is better and cheaper than Starbucks. And the company’s management has taken a brave and lonely stand in support of immigration enforcement–refusing to hire illegal aliens and blowing the whistle on applicants with bogus Social Security numbers.
So it was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company’s ads in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh.
The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.
Three years ago, pop singer Ricky Martin donned a traditional red-checked keffiyeh with the phrase “Jerusalem is ours” inscribed in Arabic. Apologizing for his obliviousness, Martin said: “I had no idea that the kaffiyeh scarf presented to me contained language referring to Jerusalem, and I apologize to anyone who might think I was endorsing its message.” Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Spain’s Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, and Hollywood darlings Colin Farrell, Sienna Miller, and Kirsten Dunst, and rapper Kanye West have all been photographed in endless variations on the distinctive hate couture. So has Meghan McCain, daughter of the GOP presidential candidate, who really ought to know better given that her dad positions himself as the candidate best equipped to “confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.”
The scarves are staples at anti-Israel rallies in San Francisco and Berkeley. Balenciaga made them chic on the runway. British retailer Top Shop sold them stamped with skull prints. Urban Outfitters turned the keffiyehs into a youth trend a few years ago and marketed them as “anti-war scarves.” Which brings us to Rachael Ray.
Ray hawked Urban Outfitters scarves on her website before appearing in the Dunkin Donuts ad. If she (or whichever stylist is dressing her) wasn’t aware of the jihad scarf controversy before she posed for the Dunkin campaign, she should have been. Urban Outfitters initially pulled the keffiyeh merchandise and apologized when Jewish customers protested, but reintroduced them with different names and colors in several global markets. This is the same company that marketed a bigotry-laced “Everyone loves a Jewish girl t-shirt” stamped with dollar signs and shopping bags. Most recently, the company halted sales of a violence-promoting t-shirt last week depicting a young Palestinian boy in a keffiyeh carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, over the word “Victimized.” The t-shirt also featured the Palestinian flag, a map of the Palestinian territories and a small white dove.
“Please understand that we do not buy items to provoke controversy or to intentionally offend,” a company spokesman pleaded. Their actions, however, speak louder than their assuaging words.
Dunkin Donuts won’t identify where Ray’s scarf was purchased, but issued this statement after blogger Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs and I, along with many other bloggers and consumers, called attention to it:
“Thank you for expressing your concern about the Dunkin’ Donuts advertisement with Rachael Ray. In the ad that you reference, Rachael is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design that was purchased at a U.S. retail store. It was selected by the stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we will no longer use the commercial.”
It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists. Too many of them bend over backwards in the direction of anti-American political correctness. Naturally, liberal commentators on the Internet are now up in arms over Dunkin Donut’s decision to yank the ad and mock anyone who expresses concern over the keffiyeh’s symbolism.
It’s just a scarf, the clueless keffiyeh-wearers scoff. Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing? Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence—unintentionally or not–they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style."
So, back to context—in this case it is not a wild-eyed hysteric rooting around for something to find offensive, but an awareness of the long term relationship of Rachael Ray and the company Urban Outfitters and ITS long term marketing of Palestinian propaganda and clothing indicating support for the Palestinian cause.
“Everyone loves a Jewish girl t-shirt” stamped with dollar signs and shopping bags.”
“a …. t-shirt ….. depicting a young Palestinian boy in a keffiyeh carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, over the word “Victimized.” The t-shirt also featured the Palestinian flag, a map of the Palestinian territories and a small white dove.”
“Urban Outfitters turned the keffiyehs into a youth trend a few years ago and marketed them as “anti-war scarves.”
Context, my friend…context.
Actually, it is indeed the context – or failure to look at the context before opining – that makes Malkin’s opinions moot.
Let me take a non-political example. Let’s say John Wayne, manliest of movie stars, privately liked to wear womens’ clothes. Now, let’s say, back in his day, a photograph came out of the Duke, fully decked out Catlyh Jenner-style, casually standing in a grocery store.
Most people, even back then, would think he was either in makeup for a movie or was engaged in a joke. Why? Not because he was manly. No, people would assume Wayne was savvy enough that if he really were a transvestite he would not casually appear in public so, for all the obvious reasons.
OK, so a still frame of Obama looks like a Muslim pose. Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to appear in public throwing up Muslim gang signs. To jump to the conclusion he was doing so would make one look foolish, imho.
Likewise, when I see the cutesy annoying apolitical FoodTV host hawking coffee, any assumption she is sending subtextual political messages requires vetting before stating publicly. Had it not been Ray but perhaps anyone who had ever stated a political opinion publicly, ok, maybe it would not be out of line. But Rachel Ray had never said or done anything political before. To spout off on such an out-there notion demonstrates lack of intelligence.
If she saw a picture of Hillary Clinton in bed, naked, with Saddam Hussein, don’t you think she would be immensely stupid if she went to air with it instead of thinking “hey, this is probably just Photoshop?”
She has a long history of spouting off heatedly on issues that even a cursory glance would make a reasonable person think otherwise.
Bob—if you choose to dislike Michelle Malkin and dismiss everything she says because you have been offended by some of her comments, you have every right to that opinion. For all I know she feels the same way about you.
I merely pointed out that the single example you gave was not compelling for me, once I looked into it and realized the context in which her rather mild commentary was made. I didn’t find anything that “lambasted” Rachael Ray as a “supporter of Palestinians” much less that it was “….because her paisley scarf was vaguely reminiscent of a hijab…” but rather a pretty rational discussion of how some people are misled into appearing to support hateful regimes and movements and so on, with lots of examples of other celebrities doing the same thing, and the importance of being aware of what messages are sent. She specifically mentioned Ricky Martin, Hugo Chavez, Spain’s Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Howard Dean, Colin Farrell, Sienna Miller, Kirsten Dunst, Meghan McCain and Kanye West as being “….. photographed in endless variations on the distinctive hate couture. ” On this list only Chavez and Howard Dean might be considered politically involved, and peripherally, Meghan McCain. Not sure about Zapatero.
“But Rachel Ray had never said or done anything political before. To spout off on such an out-there notion demonstrates lack of intelligence.” Or, as Malkin said, the scarf could have been simple ignorance of the symbolism of what she was wearing. “…..the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.” I didn’t see an accusation of Ray being a political activist trying to make a political point. Urban Outfitters, yes. Rachael Ray, no.
There are a lot of people who just rub me the wrong way, but if I were to justify my antipathy with a reason that can so easily be shown to be wrong, I wouldn’t get upset about it.
And I have to say, your list of examples was just confusing to me, none of them seeming to make much of a point. I never accused Obama of giving a “Muslim gang sign” but used the photo as an example of the importance of context. I do disagree that he would never be so blatant as to do something like that knowingly in public, as it can so easily be explained away (as it has been) and was in a crowd pretty much oriented to both understand it and approve while to ignorant Westerners it doesn’t mean much at all. Obama is stunnngly arrogant and sees himself as above all criticism, so I reject the claim that he is too “savvy” to try to slip a sly message to Muslims and Muslim sympathizers into a public appearance. I’m not saying he did—just that your argument is weak.
The John Wayne thing made no sense at all, and neither did the Hillary Clinton reference. I believe a picture of Hillary in bed with any man would immediately scream “Photoshop”.
It’s OK—go ahead and be offended by Malkin. I don’t care. I just don’t think the Rachael Ray commentary was a very big deal and if that is what you’re hanging your hat on I think it’s a weak premise. I assume you have other reasons to dislike her, and I really don’t care what they are.
I tried, I really did try, to not bring this up, but I can’t help it.
“…..John Wayne, manliest of movie stars….”
Obviously you never saw The Birdcage. I think of this scene every time I see a John Wayne movie.
The Birdcage was such a funny movie. After seeing the clip, I think I need to watch it again.
I’m not sure who had The Duke down better, Nathan Lane with the walk or Robin Williams with the voice. Very funny.
I miss Robin Williams……………..
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to appear in public bowing down to foreign tyrants.
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to tell the families of men who were murdered in Benghazi that they were killed because of a You Tube video
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to appear in public claiming to be responsible for the death of Bin Laden after being photographed near the back of the situation room wearing a golf shirt and looking pissed off and petulant while the grownups handled the job at hand.
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to repeatedly take multi million dollar vacations on the taxpayer dime
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to appear in public calling policemen “stupid” for asking for identification from a man reported by neighbors as a stranger to the neighborhood trying to get into an empty house
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to publicly snub the leader of our only real ally in the Middle East
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to publicly accept the gift of a book written by a brutal dictator and promise to read it
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to appear in public playing golf while the bodies of service men and women are being returned to the nation they died serving
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to appear in a nationally televised State of the Union address and scornfully lecture and insult the Supreme Court justices sitting in the audience
Love him or hate him, we all know Obama is way too politically savvy to continue his friendship with admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife, killer Bernadine Dorhn, famous among other things for gleefully repeating how “cool” it was when Charles Manson followers repeatedly stabbed Sharon Tate’s unborn nine month old fetus, in her womb, as they tortured her
….and so on…
WAYYY too “politically savvy….”
Wow, I had no idea I was attacking such a sacred cow when I pointed out Malkin is a lightweight.
My opinion of her is not based solely on the Rachel Ray incident, just google “stupid shit michelle malkin has said” and you’ll see a fuller list I’d imagine you will defend. But, ok, I get it, you like her and I don’t and we can leave it at that.
As for the list of items showing Obama’s lack of political savvy…I mean, geez, you come off as one of the BDSers that insisted GWB – Governor, two-term President, son of a lifelong politician, grandson of a lifelong politician – had no political savvy.
As for your list of supposed misstaps by Obama – Jesus, you have me defending Obama! – here goes.
There is no photograph of Obama bowing to a foreign tyrant, unless you mean the courteous bow one might give a Japanese head of state. GWB held hands with the Saudi head, as custom would require.
You know Obama did not tell families their loved ones died because of a video. He did what politically savvy people do, he used a cover story when caught. Same as Clinton did with Lewinski. Same as Reagan did with Iran-Contra. I’m quite certain that when Obama talked privately with the families he told them their loved ones died in service to their nation, as any President would.
As for the photo of Obama during the Bin Laden mission, I believe you are in the minority (maybe not at B4V) in your read. Most consider that photograph to have been a very savvy release, regardless of expressions on his face. And it was savvy to claim credit for his death, look how much it has helped him.
I can continue the list but why? The list makes you look like you have ODS.
Not to be that douchbag that quotes The Art of War, but its central tenet is you must know yourself and you must know your enemy for victory. If you think Obama isn’t incredibly politically savvy, you are not being honest with yourself.
The John Wayne example, which you dismissed in the same way I dismiss Malkin, was that John Wayne was smart and would not casually put himself in a position to lose everything. Likewise, Obama is smart and would not kowtow to Islam publicly – even if he were privately a devout Muslim – because he knows the fallout that would come.
C’mon, Amazona, are we arguing just for the sake of arguing?
Bob, you are missing my point. WAAAYYY missing my point. I even outlined it and explained it to you, and you are still misstating it.
i am not defending Malkin. When I say I don’t care if you dislike her, what I really mean by that is that I don’t care if you dislike her.
However, in the single example you gave as a reason for disliking her you said it was because she said things that I learned, when I looked into it, she didn’t actually say.
I pointed that out, and instead of an Emily Litella “never mind” you doubled down, and started misquoting my comments about your misquoting Malkin’s comments and amplifying your reasons for claiming Rachael Ray was unfairly being attacked.
The simple fact is, Malkin did not attack Rachael Ray. All she did was point out that Ray, along with many other (named) famous people, had given the APPEARANCE of supporting a hateful and vile and violent movement. She quite fairly said that this could very well be due to simple ignorance of the symbolism of the scarves they wore. She could very easily have segued into commenting on the same thing regarding the popularity of Che T-shirts, and talked about how most who wear them are not really advocating murder for hire or torture or thuggery, they just don’t understand the reality represented by what they wear.
I am not saying that Malkin never wrote anything that actually did mark her as a lightweight. All I did was say that in my opinion her comments on the Rachael Ray scarf did not. And that in fact she did not do what you said she did. I, for example, can’t stand a couple of the “conservative” talk show hosts, including Mark Levin (though he writes great books). But if I said I don’t listen to his show because he said something, and he never said it, I would not be hurt or angry or upset if someone pointed out that no, he really didn’t say that at all.
I was baffled by your overreaction to this, and I still am. While Michelle Malkin has no importance in my life, and I have no strong opinion of her, she quite obviously occupies a room in your brain. Or maybe it is Rachael Ray who spurs your sense of outrage because you think she was treated unfairly.
All I did was quote, and link to, an article by Malkin which even you admit was relevant and made good points. I truly had no idea this would spark a whole Malkin Outrage sequence. I responded to that not out of loyalty to Malkin but out of a sense of fairness—it didn’t seem right to have her damned for saying what she actually did not say. Damn her for something else, anything else, but the example you gave did not hold water. Sorry if that observation trips your trigger.
Your response(s) took me by surprise because your posts are usually so well thought out and rational, and in this thread they seemed loopy. I tried to tease you out of your snit with the John Wayne Walking video, but that evidently did not work. I did have to crack up at the comment about Obama being so “politically savvy” and would have even without the glaring misstatement that we all know he is. He did bow, to several people, and he did hug Chavez and take his gift book and promise to read it. He did do the things I mentioned, and no, they do not represent Obama Derangement Syndrome, they are things he did. He has had very little “savvy” about a lot of political things. He has been guided well by his minders, but when on his own he has had many missteps. As far as the raised finger, that would have been a very very safe little inside joke, as in this culture it means so many things–“we’re number one” or “hey, good comment, Charlie” or “just a minute”. It is the very innocuousness of the gesture in our society and culture that would make the gesture a safe one to use in public.
There were many articles about the ongoing arguments with Obama over the need to immediately act on the intel on Bin Laden, about him reluctantly agreeing and then being lectured by Valerie Jarrett and coming back and saying he had changed his mind. This happened more than once. There is ample evidence that the SecDef and SecState decided to go ahead anyway, and told Obama only when the op was in play, and he was on the golf course when he was told. And he did then take credit for the whole thing. Between Barry acting like he was the first man out of the helicopter and then Biden blowing the whole secrecy of the identities of who actually did the work, the White House pulled a Curly Moe and Larry routine on the Bin Laden venture. I don’t think the egotistical bragging about taking out Bin Laden “helped him” at all, as it only reinforced the admiration some already had and disgusted others. Go back and listen to his speech, if you missed the constant reference he made to “I” and “me”, acting as if he did the whole thing on his own. It took Biden to blurt out that the work was really done by then-secretive Seal Team Six, many of whom then had to move their families and basically go into hiding.
You obviously thought the John Wayne reference made sense and made a point. Sorry, I missed that. You obviously thought the Obama comment made a point, and I thought you were so off base it ended up being both irrelevant and wrong. That’s just a difference in the way you and I see some things.
I am not trying to argue. I just like some degree of precision, and a claim that someone said something she didn’t say is probably going to prompt a comment from me no matter what the topic. So you go right on disliking Michelle Malkin. She has, so far, not come onto my radar in the same way she has yours, so till that happens I will just accept what I do know about her and not fret about what anyone else thinks. I may, however, step up if she is misquoted again.
BTW, I went back and looked up photos of Obama bowing. The White House said he was just leaning over because he is, you know, just so freakishly TALL he has to, to make eye contact.
His bow to the Saudi king had his eyes downcast in the supplicant or inferior position, he was bowed at the waist, and the back of his head was at the level of the Saudi king’s shoulder. Other bows also have him looking at the ground, not at the face of the person he is bowing to. They do include the Emperor of Japan and the leader of China.
I am tall for a woman. In heels I can easily hit 6’1″. I was wearing heels when I was introduced to Prince Philip, who is a tiny little man, and I did have to bend over a little to shake his hand, but I kept my head up and I looked him in the eye. That showed respect, not submission. If I had bent over so the back of my head was at or below his eye level and I was looking down instead of looking at him, it would definitely been a bow. And that is what was seen repeatedly when Obama made obeisance to foreign leaders.
Yes, Bush did honor the customs of Saudi Arabia when he held the hand of the king, but he did not do so as an inferior. Only an equal can hold the hand of the king. It was a statement of equality, of two leaders on the same level.
I think there is misquoting going on all around.
My original statement about Malkin was that there were plenty of examples, the Rachel Ray incident being the most obvious. A squeaky clean girl wears a paisley scarf and is publicly put up as a supporter of the Palestinian cause.
And by the way, asking if someone supports the cause because of a possibly Arabic headdress is the same as calling them that. That sort of argument is the type of dodge my eight-year-old would try. “Gee, I didn’t say I drew on the walls, I just asked what IF I drew on the walls?”
You are better than an argument like that, Amazona.
And I am not going to defend Obama again, it makes my skin crawl. But you saying he has no savvy and is just managed well is exactly what the BDS crowd said of Bush and Reagan. Is that really the argument to hang your hat upon?
I love discussions with you, Amazona (this is not sarcasm) because you make such great points but you are really whiffing at the ball on this…I’m sorry, you are WAAYYY whiffing the ball
(ok, that last part may have been sarcastic but c’mon, I can have a little fun, right? uh, right? Is this mike on?)
And I am not going to defend Obama again, it makes my skin crawl. But you saying he has no savvy and is just managed well is exactly what the BDS crowd said of Bush and Reagan.
Bob, I think it’s a matter of perception. I put myself in the crowd along with, I suspect, Amazona, that believes that, if Obama does indeed possess a degree of political savvy, his contempt for people like us and America in general often overrides that political savvy. You can tell when he says or does something unscripted and shows his true self as opposed to when he’s reading from a script. Personally I don’t believe he is either very bright or very politically savvy, but is surrounded by and handled by people who are. You have every right to believe differently, and I respect that right, because, quite frankly, neither of us can prove whether or not we’re right — as I said, a matter of perception. It’ll be interesting to see what he’s like when he’s out of office. If he decides to try to be a player on the world stage, I suspect his inadequacies will become quite obvious.
What a great example of how two well-meaning people can see the same thing so differently. Maybe it is because I don’t have a pre-existing antipathy toward Michelle Malkin that I just didn’t see her comments as hostile to Rachael Ray but merely a commentary on how people can, in all innocence, use symbols that are offensive to others, and I saw that comment as not only valid but valuable. Maybe it is because in this case I agree with Malkin, having noticed for myself that many celebrities either jump on political bandwagons and purposely wear symbols of their support or are just too ignorant to realize that some things are not just fashion statements but are actual STATEMENTS. I have the same reaction to seeing the American flag used as clothing, or under the feet of someone, so I agreed with the fallout over the high school girl who thought she was showing her patriotism by having her school photo shot in front of a huge American flag which was so long much of it was on the floor so she was standing on it. I never thought the girl, or the photographer, INTENDED disrespect, but it was still there. Words have meanings, and symbols have meaning, and people need to know that.
While I will admit that Obama may have SOME “political savvy” I still think he is so arrogant that he thinks the cover he automatically gets from most of the media, and his own “savvy” in lying, will protect him from most fallout from whatever he does. I offer the continuing flaunting of outrageously expensive and lavish outings, from Michelle’s entourages on her vacations to the 500+ people he took to Paris with him to this latest multi-million dollar vacation in Hawaii as examples of him simply not caring what we think. I don’t think they show much “savvy”, just an attitude of “so what do you think you can do about it, sucker..” My perception of Obama is not so much that he doesn’t understand how his antics come across to the American public, he just doesn’t give a damn, because he is the Great Obama, and he has had so much success in ducking consequences. Like a child, he knows that the more he gets away with, the more he can get away with.
The response to the hand signal is proof of that—the shrieks of outrage AT THE VERY IDEA were instantaneous, over the top hysteria. Again, given the context of his ongoing support of Muslim causes, noticing the gesture was quite natural, whereas if any other president in our history had been photographed doing the same thing it would not have caused a flutter. And let’s face it, there is no downside to anything he does now, anyway. He is on top, he is in the Oval Office making laws and defying Congress and there isn’t a damned thing any of us can do for the next year and 20 days. He knows it, and he has made it clear he is going to do whatever he wants to do. “Politically savvy” to create a presidential edict that we are going to take in tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants, in this climate of Islamic terrorism? Not MY definition of savvy, but certainly my definition of F-You arrogance.
True “political savvy” would have had Bill and Bernadine NOT tag along on the trip to India, whether or not they were officially part of the Obama Caravan, and give vile anti-American interviews while they were there, as he was meeting world leaders. But it didn’t matter to him, because he just didn’t care. He is bullet-proof, and he knows it. All we have to do is look at the things that would have sunk any other president—the Rev. Wright and the Ayers connection and the refusal to provide college records, just to name three—-and see how his minders gave him cover. It was cadres of skilled political propagandists and operatives out there creating smoke screens of racism he could hide behind, accusations of which could be and would be and are used to deflect any commentary on anything he does.
Neither Bush or Reagan ever engaged in such blatant defiance of the will of the people, neither of them ever wallowed in such self indulgence on the peoples’ dime, neither of them ever gave the impression of siding with America’s enemies or purposely acting against the interests of this county, neither of them ever carried on the way Obama does, so I don’t think there is any comparison at all between the complaints that they were not bright and were carried by back-room strategists and my comment that Obama is constantly defended by minders who provide cover for him when he does those things.
Again, not just to argue but because I am a stickler for accuracy:
You said “A squeaky clean girl wears a paisley scarf and is publicly put up as a supporter of the Palestinian cause.” Before that you said Malkin was “…lambasting Rachel Ray as being a supporter of Palestinians because her paisley scarf was vaguely reminiscent of a hijab.”
In the interest of accuracy, Malkin never said any such thing. Or hinted at it. Or, as you implied, tried to hint at it through careful phrasing. She pointed out, in detail, naming names, that a lot of other people had also appeared to think the look was merely fashionable, and wanted to call attention to the fact that it is not just a fashion statement.
Dunkin’ Donuts treated it as an innocent mistake, albeit one they found serious enough to pull the ad. Malkin said it might be an innocent mistake. Ray was not chastised, punished or abused for the innocent mistake., It was apparently written off by all as an innocent mistake. As far as I can tell, no one really freaked out about it but you. It evidently twanged something in you that prompted a lot of reading-in of nefarious motives, leading to actually misstating what was said.
If I were Rachael Ray, I would have had three reactions. One would be to reexamine my relationship with a company that has persisted in hawking symbols of violence and intolerance, going so far as to try to disguise them by making some alterations in patterns and colors but still showing a pattern of downright nastiness, blatant anti-Semitism and support for Palestine so extreme they engage in overt propaganda. One would be to take a long hard look at my stylist, to determine whether or not there was an agenda in recommending that look for the ad campaign. And one would be to say to myself that I need to be a little more aware.
Then I would have dropped Michelle a note saying thanks for pointing that out, and saving me from embarrassment.
so I don’t think there is any comparison at all between the complaints that they were not bright and were carried by back-room strategists and my comment that Obama is constantly defended by minders who provide cover for him when he does those things.
I think it’s fair to say that both Reagan and Bush had people around them who exerted significant influence over them. If you want to call them handlers, fine, but if you’ve ever read any of Reagan’s personal writings, you know that he had a pretty good head on his shoulders. Obama, though, has something that neither Reagan or Bush had — an adoring media running almost constant interference for him, and either apologizing for his arrogant, in your face attitude or ignoring it altogether.
One of the tests of a truly great leader is the ability to convince subordinates that they are leading you when you are actually leading them. MacArthur had that ability – it involves planting an idea for the subordinates to “discover” and then bring to the boss, who then gives the go-ahead for what he was planning on doing all along. It is much easier to convince subordinates to give it 100% when they think it is their idea. Reagan also had it. Lincoln did, too. Oddly, Churchill didn’t – he got his way by force of character, but as he could not infuse conviction in others, his subordinates often dropped the ball when trying to carry out Churchill plans that they didn’t really believe in (Gallipoli, Anzio, eg).