April 23, 2004
Reason Rules
Michael J. Totten on why he's going to hold his nose and vote for Bush.
(If the display is weird, it's the archiving function. Go back to his main page [delete the word "archive" and everything after it on your browser window] and scroll down to "Bush's Ironic Bounce.")
Personally, I think our friends in the Old Media have been playing up the Iraq conflict, hoping they could Vietnamize it. Instead, they've reminded everyone that there's a war going on, and if we don't want to cut and run at the worst possible time we should re-elect the President.
Posted by: Attila at
10:37 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Personally, I think our friends in the Old Media have been playing up the Iraq conflict, hoping they could Vietnamize it. Instead, they've reminded everyone that there's a war going on, and if we don't want to cut and run at the worst possible time we should re-elect the President."
It is the worst mentality possible to assume that transfer of power is a destabilizing power during wartime. Let's take a cue from Spain and acknowledge that presidents aren't perfect and regime change is sometimes the only course toward healing.
Anyway, a blog based one one poll is shaky just on principle. It's a pretty risky source for information.
Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 25, 2004 08:06 PM (VTvXR)
2
I don't care to take a cue from Spain. As far as I'm concerned, they are only encouraging terrorism.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 25, 2004 11:20 PM (q85Vj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 18, 2004
Rantissi Fallout
The only good terrorist . . .
Per Laurence at TCP, Hamas leaders are irked about Rantissi's death, and are planning "earthquakes of revenge."
Apparently, they are mad enough that they might start killing innocent men, women, and children. Oh, wait . . .
If, every time there is a terrorist act in Israel, the Israelis take out another terrorist leader, we will shortly start to see fewer and fewer attacks. After all, these old guys don't want to die: they want to send young men (and women) out to die for them, with false promises of paradise after death.
That's the thing I admire about the Israelis: they don't fuck around. They aren't barbarians like a lot of their neighbors, but they do not fuck around when it comes to their survival. They will do what it takes to stay on the map.
Deal with it, boys and girls.
Posted by: Attila at
11:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
April 15, 2004
Off-the-Air America
I like
Will Collier's verbiage best, so I'll use his version (he's Stephen Green's partner in crime at VodkaPundit, you'll recall):
According to Drudge, Barking Moonbat Radio (aka "Air America") is going broke after just two weeks on the air, and has been pulled from affiliates in Chicago and LA.
You have to wonder if Drudge actually has the goods on this one. I figured it would flop, but I don't think anybody thought it could flop this fast. Still, given Al Franken's dismal record of failure in television and movies, nobody should really be surprised if the story pans out.
"Developing," as they say...
We've all heard about the bounced checks in the seven figures, and the stations that have switched over to "Mexican radio" in Chi-town and L.A.
I imagine all the stunned lefties out there: "but we're smarter. And funnier. It should have worked!" As my grandmother used to say: if wishes were horses, beggars could ride.
It was so futile, so sad. And I happen to know that the smartest and funniest man on the planet is a registered Republican. Stick that in your blender and puree it.
Posted by: Attila at
11:48 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think we all saw this coming. I guess left-wing blowhard radio does not pay
Posted by: dave at April 15, 2004 01:55 PM (lOlMB)
2
The problem, as man of us have observed, is that the left has become so isolated and so ossified and so used to having its ideas unquestioned that it's lost the ability to argue effectively or really even think hard about where it might be wrong on any of the big issues.
The thing is that this wont' be true forever. Eventually, the left will start to concede that the right is correct about some issues, and will start to find the right's weaknesses. I think it'll probably be some time but we'll start to see it again.
It may be too early to count Air America out though. Thely may recover from this. And just remember, Rush Limbaugh started as an obscure guy on one radio station.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at April 16, 2004 12:22 AM (LOj+R)
3
You're probably right. At present, they're stuck at the "oh, surely you wouldn't even consider voting for Bush" stage.
At some point, if they want to get any power back, they're going to have to engage. And that means putting forth a coherent vision for the two issues of the day: fighting terrorism and (a distant second) growing the economy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 16, 2004 01:15 AM (SYwua)
4
The problem with talk radio is that it is so much a domain of blowhard conservatives that there isn't even a competition. American discourse these days is all about who can scream the loudest and play upon fears the most severely. Will anyone ever touch the conservatives in this department? Not likely. Fortunately for conservatives, the average citizen is disengaged and apathetic and will believe any outrageous piece of stupidity that Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly utters.
I guess the liberals will have to remain on top of the bestseller lists, because they can read.
Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 19, 2004 05:04 PM (J50f+)
5
There are plenty of lefty editors in Manhattan who wish they'd bought some of the right-wing bestsellers when they had the chance:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-07-22-right_x.htm
After all, ideological purity is fine--but supposedly they are there to make money. Those are some tough breaks.
I guess I listen better than you read, my friend: there couldn't be three commentators more different than Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Hannity is a traditional con, and very socially conservative for my taste. I can only take him in small pieces. O'Reilly is *not* a conservative at all--he's a populist. He just sort of shrieks, and I can't watch him or listen to him, for his crimes are beyond ideology: he's rude. Rude people don't get my patronage, thank you very much. Rush is solid gold: always funny, always insightful. He's a conservative at heart, but often a legislative libertarian. His IQ is probably double that of the average person, and this fact alone drives the elites in LA, SF, and Manhattan nuts.
Thanks for stopping by and slinging your stereotypes my way, though.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 20, 2004 01:10 AM (q85Vj)
6
You should stop by my local public library sometime; liberal books fly off the shelf while several copies of books by Ann Coulter, Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity sit there unloved and unopened. And by the way, I live in the Deep South, where you wouldn't expect this to be the case. I don't know if anyone checks these books out but I do. Just for some sick laughs.
And yes, I do acknowledge the differences between the three commentators. And I agree with you entirely on O'Reilly. But Rush as solid gold? I doubt that. He's not even up to his own low standards these days. Additionally, I don't respect anyone who refuses to appear live on air with anyone but himself. If Rush has any intellect, it's that he knows where the real money lies: in playing on the anger and fear of half-informed people. The man didn't even register to vote until he was 35 years old!
More sterotypes from your newest old friend.
Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 21, 2004 08:41 PM (nkZMy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Not So Cunning After All
Laurence of ATS continues to
marvel at the wonder that is Noam Chomsky, remarking of the good professor's blog:
[he] has two more posts up . . . and--color me shocked and purple--still no sign of linguistics.
You would think, by now, he'd have accidentally posted something on linguistics. A spelling error here, a microstroke there . . . bam! You've got Linguistics, right? Maybe mixing up a post on the weblog and a note to a coed he wants to bang that he's giving directions to through e-mail:
"Meet me in the Linguistics Department at 10:00PM tonight. Wear a bathrobe, Mickey Mouse ears, and a glow-stick up your ass."
Read the whole thing, and follow the link back to Laurence's original Chomsky Challenge, which is definitely worth the price of admission.
Posted by: Attila at
09:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.
Some thoughts on Victimhood
From
Dorothy Rabinowitz and from
E-Claire. Rabinowitz discusses the antics of the four "Jersey girls," activist 9-11 widows who have taken it upon themselves to lecture our nation on what, exactly, we did wrong on and before 9-11, and to dictate how we should conduct ourselves in the future. Their conduct is egregious, and it's probably time that they STFU.
Rabinowitz link via James, wie immer.
Posted by: Attila at
09:19 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Far be it for 9/11 widows to actually have clear heads. They should be screaming incoherently for blood like Bill O'Reilly!
There's a double standard in conservatism: just like entertainers should shut up about politics unless they're Charlie Daniels or Ted Nugent, they want the 9/11 widows to shut up unless they're lock step with the GOP bloodthirsty revenge mantra.
I guess the conservatives are mad at these women because they aren't letting themselves get exploited.
Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 19, 2004 05:21 PM (J50f+)
2
Far be it for 9/11 widows to actually have clear heads. They should be screaming incoherently for blood like Bill O'Reilly!
Clear heads from the Jersey Girls? This, I haven't seen.
There's a double standard in conservatism: just like entertainers should shut up about politics unless they're Charlie Daniels or Ted Nugent, they want the 9/11 widows to shut up unless they're lock step with the GOP bloodthirsty revenge mantra.
Your comparison is a bit lopsided: in Hollywood, around 95% of the opinions one hears are Textbook Lefty Stuff, often not very well thought-out or clearly expressed. It's pretty reasonable for some of us to ask that those who want to speak out take the time to think before they open their mouths, and not assume Middle America hired them for their putative political analysis. For the most part, we'd like them to act and sing. Period.
The case of the 9/11 widows is more complex, in that there is a very vocal (lefty) minority, drowning out the voices of the (more centrist) majority, who--for the most part--are too tasteful to boss the rest of the country around.
There is a terrible precedent being set by how we treat the families of 9/11 victims, because 1) we paid them money, whereas no other widows/widowers of any other national tragedy--from Pearl Harbor to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole--got any kind of a buyout; 2) we are allowing some of these families to dictate how the Port Authority goes about rebuilding the World Trade Center (did the Cole families provide us with specs for ship design?); and 3) we are listening to a steady stream of anti-American invective from a small group of these people, who are exploiting their personal tragedies for political gain. It's a nauseating sight.
I guess the conservatives are mad at these women because they aren't letting themselves get exploited.
Hard to get exploited when you're busy exploiting.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 20, 2004 01:24 AM (q85Vj)
3
"In Hollywood, around 95% of the opinions one hears are Textbook Lefty Stuff, often not very well thought-out or clearly expressed."
Even if this was so, then why would it bother you?
"It's pretty reasonable for some of us to ask that those who want to speak out take the time to think before they open their mouths, and not assume Middle America hired them for their putative political analysis."
This comment reminds me of those jerks from middle school that, when you said something, immediately snapped back with "Who asked you?" This is a free country with freedom of speech. Besides, you didn't even counter my point.
"For the most part, we'd like them to act and sing. Period."
I like opinions and intelligence from anyone if it is insightful and informed. Are you saying, then that you are opposed to Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent speaking out for conservatism?
"The case of the 9/11 widows is more complex, in that there is a very vocal (lefty) minority, drowning out the voices of the (more centrist) majority, who--for the most part--are too tasteful to boss the rest of the country around."
How can you prove this? And would it matter anyway? Can't we agree that staging a presidential campaign on corpse footage(real and fake) is utterly tasteless? Or is tastelessness exclusively the realm of those who speak out against such exploitation?
"There is a terrible precedent being set by how we treat the families of 9/11 victims, because 1) we paid them money, whereas no other widows/widowers of any other national tragedy--from Pearl Harbor to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole--got any kind of a buyout;"
BUYOUT? Glad to see you care so much about human life. "Gee, Bush had my boys killed, but this paycheck is just dandy! Sorry, Evelyn, you can't have any. Your boys died at the wrong time." What a joke.
"2) we are allowing some of these families to dictate how the Port Authority goes about rebuilding the World Trade Center (did the Cole families provide us with specs for ship design?); and 3) we are listening to a steady stream of anti-American invective from a small group of these people, who are exploiting their personal tragedies for political gain. It's a nauseating sight."
Why do you pit the Cole victims against the WTC victims? They're ALL victims!
Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 22, 2004 10:04 PM (8kgO3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2004
Stephen Green on Kerry
The VodkaPundit
fisks a Kerry Op-Ed ("If I Ran the Iranian Circus"). Read the fisking, skip the comments.
Via James.
Posted by: Attila at
10:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
April 12, 2004
The Infamous PDB
Here it is.
The content basically vindicates Rice and Bush. It is a historical document. Certainly it's a "heads up" in a general way, but there isn't enough there to suggest any specific actions that could have been taken given what the administration knew (and didn't know) at the time.
No one who is being honest with himself/herself, and is not either using hindsight or blinded by hatred of Bush can conclude that this briefing was somehow being ignored, or that Taking It More Seriously would have prevented 9/11.
Posted by: Attila at
09:32 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
what a surprise, it reads pretty much like Condi characterized it. Thanks for linking to "Text of Released PDB" at The Command Post.
Posted by: Dan Spencer at April 12, 2004 11:00 AM (B/j8r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2004
I've Been Waiting a Long Time
. . . to see one of these fisked.
Blogo Slovo takes on one of those "let's wring our hands because we live in the Western/Developed World" letters.
Posted by: Attila at
10:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
April 09, 2004
Jeb Bush's Nightmare
Condi Rice appeared publicly before the 9/11 Commission today, presumably because Bob Kerrey (to some degree) and Richard Ben-Veniste (to an outrageous extent) hadn't humiliated themselves enough when she testified in private.
This afternoon I desperately flipped back and forth on the radio between Larry Elder and Hugh Hewitt, trying to hear more clips and get each man's perspective on the testimony. Both Hugh and Larry used the same phrasing to summarize the morning's events: "they didn't lay a glove on her." Partisan, sure. But it's also pretty accurate, since Ben-Veniste went at her with everything he had, and she never lost her composure.
Nor did she lower herself to the level of her would-be tormentors by blaming the Clinton Administration for their anemic responses to the various al Qaeda-spawned attacks on their watch. She acted like a grownup when no one around her would.
I understand this even more today. We could do a hell of a lot worse. (And have.)
Posted by: Attila at
10:44 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
1
'Warrior Princess' 2008!
Absolutely! And it would drive the Democrats completely nuts.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 10, 2004 06:26 AM (c8BHE)
2
I like the suggestions I've heard that it might be a two-woman race. It'd be fun to watch: Hillary could say whatever she liked, and Condi would kick her butt with a withering look.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 10, 2004 06:48 AM (SYwua)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And He Smells Bad, Too
Dean joins Evan Coyne Maloney in recommending that John Kerry in particular and the Democratic Party in general come up with a coherent vision for the future (e.g., Iraq, terrorism, the economy) other than "Bush bad. Us hatem Bush."
It's a thought.
Posted by: Attila at
08:49 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at April 09, 2004 01:35 PM (LOj+R)
2
Might take up too much of the free time they spend on Bush-hating. Then they'd have to "power Bush hate," squishing all their generalized hostility into five minutes there, three minutes here--concentrated nuggets of Bush hatred.
The upside is, it would give the Dems a chance in the upcoming election.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 09, 2004 05:55 PM (SYwua)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
49kb generated in CPU 0.0236, elapsed 0.1231 seconds.
212 queries taking 0.1112 seconds, 475 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
