Shackleford on "Compromise."
Yeah, Rusty. Your mouth saysyes:
Just remember, politics isn't religion. Voting for someone other than Reagan or Jesus doesn't make one dirty or a sinner. The alternative to having candidates who don't perfectly reflect our preferences is a multi-party parliamentary system. And if you want that, move to France.
But your eyes say no:
So, go support Mitt before it's too late.
Not Johnny Mac. Mitt. If McCain turns out to be the nominee, Rusty . . . we can talk then. I understand about laws, Chief Executives, and sausages . . . but I can only eat so many insect parts.
Posted by: Darrell at January 31, 2008 09:40 PM (wsT11)
2
Ann Coulter = media whore idiot. At least I tried to warn CPAC. Oh, you helped too, Attila. Thanks.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at January 31, 2008 10:06 PM (IpB84)
3
Yeah, well. I may not be a big Ann fan, but I think there are reasons to believe "Hildebeast" would prosecute the war on terror more vigorously than McCain--they both like to run counter to expectations. And Hillary, as The First Female President, might feel she had a lot to prove.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 31, 2008 10:21 PM (vuv+H)
4
I don't think Hillary can damage the country as much as McCain can. The Repubs on the Hill will end up in the weird position of objecting to McCain's legislative initiatives, even if he's nominally from the same party. For a lot of what McCain wants to do, the Dem's will line up behind him.
I don't think the Repubs have the testicular fortitude necessary to stand against his bad ideas. Expect to see McCain-Kennedy resurrected from the dustbin of history.
Hillary will be like Bill before here - she'll be ignored by Democrat majorities on the Hill, and have to partner with the Repubs and then hope to peel off enough Dems to get her agenda thru. There will be a limitation on what she can do. And if she does go too far, she'll end up with Repub majorities in the House and maybe the Senate in two years.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at February 01, 2008 06:45 AM (1hM1d)
5
I will not vote for nor endorse or campaign for the Hildabeest. But if Johnny Rotten is the alternative, I'd rather see a Republican Congress and the Hildebeest at the presidential helm. At least the Repubs will be inclined to oppose her more vigorously than they would Mr. Rotten.
As an example, you notice how Mr. "I never saw a piece of legislation I wanted to veto" has started vetoing stuff with the Dem's in charge of Congress? Recall how little Clinton I was able to get done in the 90's?
Gridlock = good!
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 01, 2008 09:36 AM (B2X7i)
6And Hillary, as The First Female President, might feel she had a lot to prove.
yeah right and the rest. She would govern as a Republican. All that you are scared of now you would wake up in Hillaryville and say "Well thats OK then".
Hillary Clinton is a Republican.
Posted by: dave bones at February 01, 2008 07:24 PM (P/R17)
7
"Hillary Clinton is a Republican"
Hillary was a budding Leninist, Menshevik, Bolshevik, Trotskyite ... What really mattered to Lenin - and what Saul Alinsky taught Hillary to value - was power.
Barbara Olsen, quoted in http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/hillarys_oedipal_problem.html
Tune out the Media for a moment and vote for Mitt Romney whenever you get the chance and we won't have to worry about McCain any more. Why are we letting the Left choose our candidate?
Posted by: Darrell at February 01, 2008 10:32 PM (WAbRb)
8
Oh, believe me: I adore Romney now. All the things that used to bother me about him make me starry-eyed at this point: bland?--no, no: he's staked out a consistent set of positions to which he will adhere! Unintellectual? No! He'll be a pragmatic leader! Mormon? Not really--just a representative of a fine, iconoclastic Western-states philosophy that promotes solid family values. Sexless? Heck, no!--just never fell out of love with his wife!
Hair too nice? Simply an accident of birth, no doubt.
Go, Mitt!
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 01, 2008 11:48 PM (vuv+H)
9Hillary was a budding Leninist, Menshevik, Bolshevik, Trotskyite
And where are the Trotskyites now but the neocon wing of the Republican Party?
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 02, 2008 10:19 PM (DIr0W)
Hackbarth on Romney, Part 2
I do wish we could all just shut up about the GOP frontrunners' real and imaginary shortcomings—at least until after we get trounced this coming fall. I mean, can't this all be done in post-mortem?
And don't give me that truth = beauty crap, either. Keats just had that one wrong. Truth is a thing one must face every now and then. Beauty is the snowfall along the Angeles Crest Mountains, and/or a PT Cruiser with fake-wood siding.
Even if his conservative conversion is genuine, Romney still hasnÂ’t had the time to develop that core, that conservative instinct. He may think and believe conservatism is the right set of ideas, but one must soaked in it to get to the point of defending it in a Presidential campaign. MittÂ’s not there yet.
I'm not so sure about this. Sean's thesis has to do with Romney not having read enough "books, magazines and weblogs" to really grasp the principles of the "conservative movement. (Whatever that is; am I a part of that? Can someone advise me, here?)
But if Romney's experiences in business and as governor of Massachusetts brought him to a genuine turnaround, based on solid experience, that's a great deal more important than any theoretical grounding or wonky intellect.
When I think about which is more important to me—having a reader in the White House, or an executive—I would have to go with the executive. The do-er.
Let Romney's advisors read books, and brief him. Let him get his own Cheney—some smart, hands-on VP (um . . . Fred? You listening?).
I do not want theory from my President. I want practice. I want someone who will take decisive action.
And I do not—do not, do not, do not—want John McCain. Unless at some point I become convinced that he has been converted to the cause of conservatism.
Excuse me: I need to go laugh bitterly into my mug of red table wine.
1
What if McCain offers the VP spot to his good friend John Kerry? Like JK did to him, of course, but McCain couldn't accept without forever foregoing his dream of being the POTUS.
Maybe then JK can explain his dishonorable discharge. The two Johns can arrive at the Republican National Convention in a Swift Boat and announce that they are reporting for duty. I'm sure Minneapolis has river access.
Posted by: Darrell at January 31, 2008 09:12 PM (wsT11)
2
A newcomer like Mitt who isn't immersed in conservatism and its arguments is at a disadvantage in a Republican debate. Someone like that won't know how to effectively deal with the rhetorical attacks. If Romney's conversion is genuine he's at a disadvantage to a McCain who has swam in Reganism for decades.
Romney can be a fine conservative do-er, but he needs to convince conservatives he's their guy. I don't think he's learned the vocabulary yet to bet talk to them.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at January 31, 2008 10:17 PM (IpB84)
3
On the other hand, the base might be more predisposed to turn out for Romney vs. McCain. There are people who work a lot of hours each week, and don't have time to delve into these issues in the depth you do, Sean--or even in the depth that I do.
If it's McCain, the base stays home. Of course, if he's opposing Hillary, hers does as well. So I suppose that might be interesting to watch . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 31, 2008 10:25 PM (vuv+H)
Posted by: Darrell at January 31, 2008 08:55 PM (wsT11)
2
The reason liberals are in denial about hating the Constitution is because none of the Constitution-violating programs they favor are in any danger of being thrown out by the federal courts. If the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments were as fully applied to federal law as the First Amendment, affirmative action, anti-monopoly legislation, gun control, the Endangered Species Act, and all federal welfare would be GONE. Our federal budget would be about twenty percent of its present value. They would riot until doomsday if the SCotUS started enforcing the whole Constitution.
Posted by: John at February 01, 2008 04:39 PM (IzgRL)
Those Freakazoid DVDs
. . . got the commentary recorded yesterday. More details on the session—which included Paul Rugg (the voice of Freakazoid), Tom Ruegger (the executive producer), and John P. McCann (the voice of Douglas Douglas, Dexter's father)—here.
Interesting tidbits: the character Cosgrove isn't just drawn to look like Ed Asner: it actually is Ed Asner. And the guy who looks and sounds like Ricardo Montalban really is him. Ditto Jonathan Harris, from Lost in Space.
Too bad the show was so short-lived: I always thought there was an anti-Freakazoid insurgency going somewhere in Warner Brothers at the time, and that's why the show started to get scheduled at odd times, began to lose resources, and was eventually killed.
So, you know: that time, "the terrorists won."
And then the WB network people moved in. And AOL took over. And soon enough, quality animation shows at Warner Brothers were a thing of the past. But if Paul, Tom, John and the rest of 'em from the 1990s—those who worked on the funny shows like Tiny Toons,Animaniacs, and Freakazoid!, as well as the serious ones like Batman Beyond—were to put all their Emmies into one room, they'd need a specially reinforced building just to hold 'em all.
And someday, another animation house will decide it wants to start making kick-ass television shows again. And these are the people they'll want to call: the veterans of the "golden age." (N.B.: not out-of-work sitcom writers. Animation writers. People who know the form.)
UPDATE: Post edited to reflect the fact that there was, indeed, a final episode. I should have remembered that: it cost Warner Brothers a fortune to use "We'll Meet Again."
And, you know—I guess they did meet again. Yesterday. Though I kind of wish they'd gotten paid for it.
1
All props & due respect to the Hub, but the "golden age" was that of Max and Dave Fleischer and Leon Schlesinger. Granted, TV series animation is a different animal than theatrical, but the art form rarely got better than what those guys were cranking out.
Posted by: yazoota at January 31, 2008 08:07 AM (ZET1q)
2
I never thought that Animaniacs or Tiny Toons were in the same league as Freakazoid. Freakazoid was zanier and less predictable and less formulaic. And far better.
Posted by: John at January 31, 2008 01:05 PM (zc2rp)
3
Yes. Because Normal people conceived Tiny Toons and Animaniacs.
Freakazoid! was put together by Paul Rugg and John P. McCann--just about from scratch. It's all them, with a dash of Tom Reugger thrown in, and Jean McCurdy keeping the suits off of all their backs.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 31, 2008 03:45 PM (larLB)
4
I've been rebuked, and informed that there was, indeed, a healthy dose of Reugger in the first season of Freakazoid. Apparently, the Paul & John show is Season II.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 31, 2008 06:18 PM (larLB)
I mean, I know what a "breakfast bar" is. I know about protein bars, and energy bars, and snack bars, and granola bars.
And I understand that there is no material difference between a bar, and that round thing that you call a "cookie."
But why emphasize the ugly truth we all know?—that the best breakfasts include not just protein, but also plenty of fat, carbs, and sugar? Do we have to be so vulgar as to call it a "cookie" in front of God and everyone?
I'm really upset about this, and I'm not going to be jollied out of it.
Please don't shorten people's names, particularly in your business correspondence. Also, be careful about whom you cc: your email to, especially when it's marked "private." You can always forward email to people separately, or use the blind-copy function.
Joy:
Dad,
I didn't mean to sound bitchy, there. I'm just in a hurry . . .
—J
Joy's Father:
My Baby,
Gosh—I never met a bitchy person.
Love,
Dad
Other than the three he married, and the one he produced. Whoops; did I say that out loud?
(My brother and my half-sister are nice people. I'm the black sheep.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
Dreamboat Green
. . . has been drunkblogging the GOP debate. A couple of the money quotes:
6:20pm You know what rocks about the 21st Century? I can drunkblog and order a pizza on the internet all at the same time. Of course, I have to rely on somewhat more primitive technology to get the pizza to me from the front door to the bedroom — but Melissa is used to that by now.
6:41pm TheyÂ’re letting Huck talk again. IsnÂ’t that cute?
7:19pm It’s the martinis talking, I know. But what I want is the Frankenstein Candidate — half Paul, to cover the domestic stuff, and half Nixon to bomb the crap out of anyone who needs it.
Works for me.
Via Insty, who remarks, "he's going to need a new liver before this election is over."
1
Mr. Blackwell complimented me, recently, on an ensemble
I was wearing; so though I don't agree with his positions, for the sake of peace amongst my fellow fashionistas, I must stand by him.
Posted by: Smarta#$ at February 01, 2008 06:09 AM (wksJa)
Advance Cause has a couple of candidate comparison charts. Unfortunately, they are broken down by party, which makes it less user-friendly if we end up with a choice between Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
Goldstein's talking about writing in "the ashes of Hunter S. Thompson" (or, alternatively, "the good part of Hunter S. Thompson's remains"). Personally, I'm going to write in Goldstein—and Burge, of course.
1
I took a more detailed quiz some months ago. I matched up best with Sam Brownback, followed by Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul.
Of the three, only Paul is left.
And McCain fared only barely better than the Dem candidates.
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 30, 2008 09:19 PM (DIr0W)
Jeff Is Back, Baby.
If you need me, I'll be at Protein Wisdom. I love his co-bloggers, but it just ain't the same.
Today, we have Goldstein's spirited response to those—including his own Craig C. who are willing to suck it up and vote for Johnny Mac:
Allow me to make the following suggestion to those whose entire political worldview is based around this amorphous (and purposely non-specific) desire for change: try crystal meth, or bang a tranny prostitute, or go pee-pee from an unfamiliar launching point. But please, please, donÂ’t chose your president based on the promise of something different.
That’s what gave us Jimmy Carter. And we’re still living with that nightmare — even if a certain giant river bunny who took a presidential oar to the skull may not be.
And he's probably right.
I'm still a National Security voter above all else. But I'm not convinced that Hillary would be any worse than McCain in that regard, despite the rhetorical differences between them. Hillary might, after all, have something to prove as the first female President. And that's what I want in the White House: a man or woman whom the Iranians, et al. don't exactly know what to make of. Someone whose actions they cannot necessarily predict.
White-haired bully, crazed female. All the same to me. I want our enemies (yes, we do have enemies) quaking in their boots. Once that's happening, I'm willing to move on to matters domestic.
The exception being speech: speech and guns. Without those two, the entire country loses itself. Johnny Mac's record on those first two Amendments remains troubling.
I may check around to see if I can simply have myself frozen until 2012. It's the most practical option.
1
"Troubling" is an understatement.
If you find a cryo place do me a favor and pass the info my way.
Posted by: Janette at January 30, 2008 04:40 PM (5R+zg)
2
I do find it interesting to see much of the right blogosphere coming around to the same level of frustration I was feeling a few weeks ago, now that it looks more and more like Johnny Rotten will be "our" candidate.
...urp...
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 31, 2008 11:58 AM (B2X7i)
Yeah, Concealed Carry Doesn't Mix with Alcohol.
Everyone knows that you ditch all your guns if you're going to a bar for more than, say, a single drink. Yes: even your church gun. All of 'em.
Actually, I love those cafes in Arizona that ask that "no weapons" be brought inside. What the hell do they expect me to do?—leave it in my fucking glove box? Now that's safe. Why don't I just leave 'em in the lost and found by the hostess' post, so they can be claimed by the local criminals?
I've got to get out shooting, soon. And remember: women need twice as much target practice as men do. It isn't an eye-hand coordination thing. It's the fact that we have to do the same drills wearing both flats and heels. More of a challenge. (I love shooting in heels; everyone asks if I'm a cop, and I get to act all excited, like, "oh, they've waived the height requirements, have they?" Men are so transparent; they might as well say, "I've seen you at this range before . . .")
1
If you have a CCW and keep it concealed except in the event of armed robbery, then no one's the wiser and you're safer. It's not like there's a metal detector at the door.
For myself I'm seriously thinking about a small handgun safe for my vehicle for just such circumstances.
There is a bill before the AZ legislature to legalize carry in restaurants as long as you're not drinking. Predictably the GFW's are all up in panty-bunching mode.
Speaking of shooting practice, time at the range is good, if that's all you have access to. But for a more realistic form of practice, you might want to look into whether there is a local IDPA* chapter near you. (*International Defensive Pistol Association). Typically a chapter will hold a once a month shooting match, where you get to practice your skills in a more dynamic environment than plugging a cardboard target while standing still (heels or no).
Now if you were to get involved in this, I would love to be there to video you running the course in heels. Heels and pearls and a cocktail dress.
*Whew*...getting hot thinking about it...
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 30, 2008 09:44 AM (B2X7i)
2
I did take one defensive shooting course; we had to run to create some stress before our final shooting stint. Run, shoot, run, shoot, run, shoot . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2008 02:31 PM (vuv+H)
3
I L-O-V-E this post! I'm linking it on my Headlines of Note section.
1) Wait for an earthquake, windstorm, riot, or terrorist attack.
2) Take another First Aid course. Put together emergency kits for car, desk at the office, home. Mentally given yourself a Merit Badge for preparedness.
3) Get bored. Get tired of lugging a backpack around in the car, and having to move hiking boots around under the desk at work. Begin to take stuff back home, stash it into the back of a closet, and forget where it is.
4) Misplace even the main flashlight that lives on each story at home. Eat the canned soup in the 72-hour kit, and fail to replace it. Throw away those little cans of Vienna sausage in a fit of pique.
5) Wait for next earthquake, windstorm, riot, or terrorist attack. Get annoyed at self when flashlight is nowhere to be found and the matches are miles away from the candles. Stare dolefully at the old gallon-sized plastic bottles of supermarket water in the garage, and wish they hadn't sprunk leaks and somehow achieved an interesting sort of rust-color on the inside. Wonder how thirsty one would have to be to actually drink that.
6) Repeat.
Who knew that those Cat Eyes had such great focus?
1
Anyway, his Mac's oversized to begin with. I have one of those bitty ones that they don't make anymore--the one with the 12-inch screen.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2008 12:21 AM (vuv+H)
2
The new MacBook Air has a 13.3 incher.
Lost in the buzz surrounding Mac's intro was Intel's Mobile Metro Notebook. . ."This one has it all. The slim, champagne-colored magnesium notebook—which is only a quarter of an inch thicker than a Motorola RAZR cellphone—will include a magnetically attached folder that will be available in different fashion colors. That folder will also be able to charge up the laptop wirelessly, and ladies (at whom this design is clearly aimed) can attach a strap to it and make it look just like a purse. Jeez, what else did they include in this beauty? It'll have always-on connectivity, using all Intel chips, of course, to connect via Wi-Fi, EV-DO and WiMax. It'll also have a flash memory hard drive, with an expected battery life of 14 hours. Check out the glow-in-the-dark, the screen on the outside of that folder, the beautiful gold accents, and the overall thinness of this thing. It's just astonishing. "
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notebook-supermodel/intel-unveils-worlds-thinnest-laptop-almost-skinny-as-a-razr-263359.php
Posted by: Darrell at January 30, 2008 10:53 AM (qF7xG)
I mean, it isn't like I had a hard-on for Romney anyway. (Pardon the genderfuck: I've never been able to find a good female analogy to that particular expression. "Romney never made me wet"?—sounds a bit slutty, no?)
It might be just as well for the Democratic establishment—Obama, Mrs. Clinton, McCain—to get aboard with the War on Terror anyway.
Congratulations, Mary Katherine!
Olberman's "worst person," based on his simplistic reading of a completely legitimate point she made about former President Bill Clinton's relationship with the mainstream media, back in the 1990s.
One of my readers has suggested that female beauty makes a lot of males into intellectual basket-cases; I can certainly see why this might be the case with MKH—one of the loveliest and most talented women I've ever met.
Good work, Keith! And congrats again, Mary Katherine.
Who looks worst in this picture? Not Mary Katherine! I believe it's okay of Fausta, and marginal of MKH—but I feel I'm the "worst" one here. Paging Keith Olbermann!
1
Why is it that everyone who promises 'change' always fails to mention what everything will be changed TO?
Todd/Lovett '08!
"How about a shave while we discuss this new treaty, Mr. Jong Il?"
I'm new. Nice site.
Posted by: TroyOunce at January 29, 2008 11:24 PM (vAIZm)
And Yet More Rape by the Patriarchal Democratic Establishment.Oy gevalt.
See, when I wrote this, I sort of thought I was, you know—joking.
But now that I've thought it through, I think there's a serious point to be made. Not the ridiculous notion that a failure to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic nominee in 2008 is a form of rape—but the irrefutable fact that not sending me money and/or expensive gifts is a form of rape.
I've only had a few responses so far to my CPAC fundraising appeal. You don't want to be thought of as a misogynist, do you? Or a cheapskate? Or a cheapskate misogynist? Please look into your heart: is your desire to keep me—a woman—out of the nation's capital based on an unconscious desire to perpetuate the "old boys' club" of traditional politics? Yes. Yes, it is. But there is a way to make up for it—my tip jar!
h/t for the Hot Air link: Ace, who—if he actually read my site—would be rolling his eyes around now . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:38 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"From each according to his ability, to each according to her or his needs. . ."
Barack Obama, Inaugural Address 2009.
Source: "Why We Invented Time Travel And Sent Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Louis Blanc, Henri de Saint Simon, Pierre Leroux, Marie Roch Louis Reybaud, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, Mohammad, And A Boat-Load Of Others To A Time Predating Oral Or Written Language," March 12, 2237, Simon & Schuster & Punky Brewster, NY, NY. All Lefts Reserved.
Posted by: Darrell at January 29, 2008 12:10 PM (x8hNj)