You are currently browsing the daily archive for December 19, 2010.
The WTF was brought on by this tweet
Following the link, I got to actually enjoy some of the Will snark
Often in the year before the year before the year divisible by four, a few political people theatrically recoil from partisanship. Recently, this ritual has involved speculation about whether New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might squander a few of his billions to improve America by failing to be elected president.
But Bloomberg, addressing the No Labels confabulation, spoke truth to powerlessness:
Well, any time someone will take on Bloomberg is going to make my day – and with the amount of media he owns, it’s not happening to often. But this is the first time I write about the No Labels idiocy – if you discount their attempt to derail Hillary in 2008 (“If Ds nominate her, Bloomberg will run).
I find it ironic that I am so annoyed by this effort in a time when the two traditional parties have erased all difference between them and some alternative is needed. But not this. Back to George Will
The perpetrators of this mush purport to speak for people who want to instruct everyone else about how to speak about politics. Granted, there always are people who speak extravagantly, and modern technologies – television, the Internet – have multiplied their megaphones. But blowhards, although unattractive, are easy to avoid. And speaking of the unattractive:
Although the people promising to make No Labels into a national scold are dissatisfied with the tone of politics, they are pleased as punch with themselves.
Well, if this generic party ever gets of the ground, they’d be able to legitimately claim Obama as their first President. Remember “postpartisanship”? It’s what he ran on.
In fact, the thick hypocrisy has been rammed in our heads by the media for decades now.
Especially when there is a legitimate public interest (such as defending social security, opposing tax cuts to the rich or the war), pollsters and the media always pulled out the mythical center to paper all over the subversive ideas – most recently with Obama’s heinous tax deal. George Will again
If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread. They might cover the country with sanctimony as they “overthrow the tyranny of hyper-partisanship.”
To think Obama called the progressives “sanctimonious”.
No Labels is nothing but a bunch of plutocrats layering a new talking point over the realities of the country.
The only truth in what they say – there is no longer a D party, so only one talking point should be propagandized.
So maybe I don’t buy Will’s title
If there’s money behind it, it will spread.
In the vacuum of representation for anyone on the left, they’ll eventually gravitate towards the new lesser evil after the clear demise of the Ds. In the illustration by Ted Rall, No Labels will be the “moderate Right Wing Rs”. The black part will just get a little larger.
And many of the Os who are already hailing Obama’s trickle down will fit in perfectly.
The repeal of DADT is getting some coverage – although not as much as the tax cut to the rich – this is the media, after all.
Best headline: GO AHEAD AND TELL
and NYT – along with a story of SCOTUS favoring business – (doesn’t bode well for the insurer mandates in the HCR) Read the rest of this entry »
I was happy about the repeal of DADT. Much as I don’t really want gay people – or straight ones to get killed in wars – discrimination is discrimination.
Then the political posturing hit me over the head
I saw this right as DADT repeal happened, but it just hit me
I remember at the time someone objected that the gay wallets don’t flutter, but make a manly sound.
While I celebrate the civil rights moment, I can’t stop being awed by the cynicism of the Journolist brigade coupled with the chutzpa of those dragged kicking and screaming to finally get on with the repeal.
As for Os, after years of telling the gays that there are more important things to accomplish than their selfish agenda, they are finally able to tell the difference between Obama and McCain!
that DADT was repealed.
And in the meanwhile as a result
Some top universities moved quickly Saturday to respond to the vote repealing the ban on gays in the military, and those who don’t restore their ROTC programs in the wake of the vote are likely to face immediate pressure on the issue.
Which send me to the wisdom of this tweet
dadt is just to get more people in Army. O.o—
Syed Sajid Nizami (@sajidnizami) December 19, 2010
And for those ragging on Clinton for instituting DADT: before that gays were not allowed to serve at all. This was as far as Clinton could push things in the right direction then.
Key words – to distinguish from Obama’s tax deal: “right direction”