Is Chris Wallace's latest Fox News Sunday stunt the meat in a controversy sandwich that he's building?
Well is she? Did Wallace miss her debate performance in New Hampshire?
Unless she's his lab rat for some psychology thesis, what purpose does the question serve? She's not going to say yes.
While Wallace did apologize, what makes Michele Bachmann the lucky recipient of such a question when the left itself is a bunch of flakes...
Here's a snowflake (one of a kind that melts under heat).
Here's a cornflake (no explanation needed here).
and then we have...
At the time this was, somehow, supposed to be a compliment because "THEY'RE GRRRRRRRREAT!" Which is something crack addicts say about what they use to frost their flakes, so it's a good thing President Obama didn't endorse Kellogs's "kindness" in any way
....I guess it's a thing us flake-haters can't understand.
In any case, take these flakes deep fry and cheese stuff them, and you have completed your recipe for liberalism.
That's why the country falls for them so much, they look tasty enough to binge on. After a short while your ass explodes, your depth perception gets screwed up because your second chin blocks your view of the floor, your appetite for anything healthy starts to fade.
Michele Bachmann isn't a flake, like any other conservative that sticks to their principles she would be more like the fat-burning workout the country needs to shed itself of its disgusting habits and feel good about itself again.
Oh geez Michele, why do you have to make the limb so wobbly? The MSM is going to bust her pretty hard for this. I sure do hope they don't ask her when Iowa became one of the 57 states, or if she owns any television sets from the 1920's. In other words, this is a much easier "mistake" to make than ones made by the frosted flakes (in fairness her campaign still contends it's not mistake and does justify that position).
But still...help a conservative brother out Michele!Add a comment
It's always entertaining to watch liberals like Maureen Dowd in her latest column trip over their own brilliance. Starting off with...
HE was born this way.
Not bisexual. Not even bipartisan. Just binary.
Our president likes to be on both sides at once.....
...and conclude with...
With each equivocation, the man in the Oval Office shields his identity and cloaks who the real Barack Obama is.
He should draw inspiration from the gay community: one thing gays have to do, after all, is declare who they are at all costs.
On some of the most important issues facing this nation, it is time for the president to come out of the closet.
Wasn't that SO clever how it wasn't about being gay.....and then it was? Is there any wonder why liberals get out of their leaders what their ideology puts into our system?
All they ever are is a confused hot mess of indecision, so of course the president they propagandize for would be too.
That's because liberalism at its core is something that doesn't sell well to most of the country. Obama's "obviously Christian" views on gay marriage are "evolving" because most of the country disagrees with his actual support for it.
He commits our military to action in Libya so he can point to at least one instance where America doesn't have a timid wilting flower of a President, and riding Bush's coattails on Afghanistan and Iraq isn't cutting it.....so he flexes this manhood while hiding behind the NATO skirt being worn by France.
He likes to lead from behind because it's not in liberalism's DNA to lead for real. Now we're stuck with President Buttsniffer. That's why his unofficial tag line when he bows before foreign leaders is "turn around."
When you think about it, it does kind of make sense that "leading from behind" is the only way to really guide gay marriage policy, or force rich people to "spread the wealth."
"Leading from behind" is actually the perfect way to nutshell liberalism's effect on America.
I guess the point is that "bi" means "gay in denial" and Obama should just join the side they're on already. So he should heed Dowd's advice and...
Trade in the blue ties for pink ones
Stimulate the economy by signaling it's time to buy stock in the company that owns Virginia Slims.
Hatch a deficit reduction scheme that includes participation in a special edition of some Home and Garden show with a "partner" as they work with a real estate agent to sell the White House. (not sell out, he's already done that)
He needs to just be himself, then the rest of the nation can finally join conservatives in realizing that we have leadership we can believe in...changing.Add a comment
The key issue at this point becomes the fact that hitting the debt ceiling doesn't force an automatic default or a government shutdown. Revenue continues to come in to the federal government. There's simply a gap between how much comes in and how much the government is supposed to spend....From Stink Progress
I never realized that government is SUPPOSED to spend the money it "budgets." Silly little me, I always thought it was choosing to overspend.
So imagine my surprise when I tried this out in the real world. I went to my unemployed neighbor and informed him that I'm supposed to be driving a car that has 4 hubcaps. So I needed him to fork over one of his. Nevermind he only had four, and if I made myself "whole" then he wouldn't be.
All I know is he better hope I don't lose one three more times....because then his ass is supposed to be grass.
What would I do without 40 watt bulbs of liberal brilliance like the one provided above by Matthew Yglesias? Every business I've ever worked for developed budgets based on the money that is available from revenue.
This must be why Obama keeps chiding the private sector to "step up" and just hire people already, because there are people out there that they're SUPPOSED to employ!
If government is SUPPOSED to spend what it budgets, guess what liberals think you're SUPPOSED to do...
Tax increases, particularly if targeted at the wealthy, show themselves again and again to be among the most popular ways to reduce the budget deficit.....
If you've gotten lost, the first thing to do is try and go back to way you came. After a decade of spending increases and tax cuts, that's what a package of spending cuts and tax increases would do. There's nothing radical about that notion, nothing that should force a halt to discussions and the sort of rhetoric we're hearing from the Republican side.
More from Ezra Klein here
Oh, is popularity a determinant factor of good policy now? How worried were liberals about popularity polls when they jammed down ObamaCare?
For a political party that prides themselves on nuance this is fantasitically two-dimensional rationale for tax hikes in a down economy. This is the end of the fiscal rope, and if debt were a foreign country that doesn't rhyme with "China," liberals would've spent stimulus money on white flags from France already.
Like I mentioned before this is more about Democrats futile effort to procure increasingly scare oxygen to keep their big government pipe dream on life support. Liberals are asking the country to accept the idea that the America we were raised with is over and done. Therefore government should, like the fat lady it is, be allowed to belt out a rendition of "Let Freedom Ring" while she sits on taxpayers.
Klein can site studies (in his column linked above) about "stabilizing" the debt (not prevention of it increasing, and definitely not reducing it...psssh!) by expiring the Bush tax cuts put out from groups funded by...........George Soros........all he wants, but no amount of liberal number dropping will hide the inescapable fact that the structure of govnerment must change, because even in the estimation of Soros's flying monkeys our debt still would've risen by trillions.
Fiddling with tax increases, even when it's in front of a backdrop of spending cuts (which was around $200 billion/year or just under 20% of the deficit, when talks stalled), is mathematically impossible to end our current deficits, much less bring down the debt.....even if the economy was rocking out like a Weiner Twitter party this would never be a feasible approach to solving the problem....
Liberals need the tax increases because they need to continue justifying their existence in American politics. Like any private sector business that can't sustain its size, government can't just cut spending, it has to shrink down to a size it can manage, period, end of story. This is government by and for the people, not by and for the ego of an increasingly defiant, arrogant and desperate liberal ideology.Add a comment
Republicans, including Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, made a "strategic blunder" by making a joke of Barack Obama's work as a community organizer, Newt Gingrich says in a new book about the radical ACORN group.
It was "not helpful" for Palin and Giuliani to mock community organizing in their speeches at the 2008 Republican National ConventionMore at The American Spectator
Gingrich is right. I don't KNOW that he's right, but I'm taking his word for it. If anyone knows STRATEGIC BLUNDERS it's this guy....
It was a STRATEGIC BLUNDER to go on a cruise while his campaign was still trying to find its sea legs after his other STRATEGIC BLUNDER of criticizing the only serious attempt by Paul Ryan to deal with entitlement reform.
If we really want to go there, it was also a STRATEGIC BLUNDER to leave your wife for another woman.....TWICE. Unless you're a Democrat, then it's a litmus test.
Newt is getting by on the fact he is one of the smartest Republicans out there today, but he's obviously not that smart, or this post wouldn't exist.
But what about the merit of his assertion?
"It would have been better if Republican leaders "had gotten up and said, here is what [Obama] was teaching, and they had taken the audience through the five principles of [radical organizer Saul] Alinsky."
Yes, that would've been entirely appropriate for Sarah Palin's nomination speech, to turn it into a history lesson on "commieunity" organizing.
I don't disagree that's what the McCain campaign should've done, which would've provided the air power needed to bolster conservative media hitting Obama on his past...but the presidential debates, and general election campaign speeches are better forums for that. Unfortunately for Gingrich, he wont know what it will be like to participate in either.Add a comment
The conventional wisdom they are trying to establish is that deficit reduction will never happen without hiking taxes and nobody in the GOP wants to be that kamikaze pilot.
Cantor specifically is being painted as selfishly putting his power first. Even if we wanted to grant that may be true, it's only 1% of the story. They are ALL putting their power first.
This is a crisis that may take the nation to fiscal armageddon, and President Obama is throwing Biden under the bus by putting him in charge of the negotiations while he plays the part of a mere spectator watching Congressional Republicans participate in an episode of "Dancing with the Tard."
After decades of govenrment growth they championed finally collapsing under it's own weight, Democrats expect the Republican to be the Atlases to shrug the weight they piled on by accepting a solution that is no solution at all – tax hikes that suck what oxygen is left out of the economy.
Neither side wants to make the tough choices for fear of political suicide, and they can't count to 3 before jumping off together because Biden is in charge, and nobody wants to teach him how to count.
The Democrats problem is they're like the bosses who refuse to go on vacation for fear of the company realizing they'd get along fine with out them. The tough choice for them is giving up the heart of their platform of dependency they use against the country to build up their power base.
For the GOP, it's how much they want compromise so the Old Yellers live to see another day.
That's what this epic battle is really about – do we shut down the only space program liberals still support by finally bringing the size of the government back to earth, or do we let them continue tricking the American public into thinking the country needs their "help."
The 9% of Americans who are unemployed – and the scores of people who aren't because they gave up – don't need the government to raise taxes to balance their books, they need it to foster economic growth so they can become taxpayers again, and the government can balance their books on that money instead.
This concept, as with most of what conservatives stand for, is so frighteningly simple that it makes sense how "the smartest people in the room" can't see it. They think it's so "progressive" to turn 1+1 into equations only they understand so the public will depend solely on them for the answer.
Elections have consequences, and giving a political party of narcissists total power over our purse strings in 2008, and letting them continue to have a seat at the table in 2010, is why we have to accept hiking the mother all debt ceilings even higher to make room for trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
Ezra Klein has it wrong. The Democrats are the ones selfishly insisting on protecting their New Deal/Great Society sand castles from getting knocked over by throwing taxpayers under the bus so they can build a wall of dollars to keep the default high tide at bay. They are unwilling to accept the reality that the day is fast approaching where they have totally run out of raw material to continue building that wall higher.Add a comment
Rich Lowry and many other pundits are starting to remark how the current crop of GOP presidential candidates are running from the memory Bush has burned in our national brain...
The backlash against Bush has long been brewing. Compassionate conservatism was a product of the moment when Bush began to run for president in the late 1990s. The congressional wing of the party had immolated itself in the government-shutdown fights and then the impeachment of Bill Clinton. A rebranding was in order, and Bush wanted to signal to general-election voters that they needn't fear him.
Bush-style conservatism never really took with the broader party, although it gained acquiescence.
He still has throngs of fans, and he should receive a great level of appreciation (especially from Obama) for many of the efforts he made in fighting the war on terrorism. Also, until Obama came along the alternatives the Democrats offered to America made choosing Bush easy. Even then Al Gore and John Kerry weren't really the top choices for liberals to execute the Democratic party platform, but Jack Kevorkian was stuck in prison so...
Why are Republican's disowning the Bush legacy? Is it because it was an abject failure? Sort of. Bush's quest to establish a permanent GOP majority only serviced the Republican Party. What's worse was that conservatism, which is more concerned with preserving what makes this nation work so well, was thrown under the bus in order to co-opt certain issues away from the Democrats.
Republicans figured out that doing this was a great strategy if they wanted to become Democrats. Many of them were jackasses to begin with so this made sense to at least them.
Democrats thought this was a great strategy if they wanted to become full blown leftists. They knew the country would be ready for it the same way it would be ready for Barry White music, ten shots of tequila and Nancy Pelosi telling you Victoria's secret.
Thats right kids, as far as domestic policy is concerned that is the real Bush legacy....the right lurched to the left, and the left went over the cliff, but their entire philosophy is so cartoonish to begin with that as long as they didn't look down they won't actually fall.
It's working too. Their president is a golf-a-holic who has led the Democrats to jamming down the nations throat, by their own loose admission a new trillion dollar entitlement that nobody actually wanted on top of tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities. They're calling proposed cuts to the deficit by 3% "unworkable."
They - are - not - looking - down.
Bush tried to make the GOP into liberal light on domestic issues, because that is much easier than making the case for liberalism doesn't work and sends us over the cliff. When the strategy failed Democrats called it "conservativism" while conveniently leaving out the fact that their way, which is what Bush was doing, but more unbridled than Biden playing Scrabble without a dictionary, was the alternative.
Rather than putting on the brakes when they took power, liberals floored it, and things have only (and predicably) gotten worse. So why on earth would any Republican look to Bush as a model for governing success?
Unfortunately for fans of President Bush, if the GOP wants to beat Obama they'll have to put their guy's domestic legacy right where it belongs.....
...next to President Obama's.Add a comment
Dozens of new designs were made, but a winner has been chosen!
All kidding aside, I mentioned last November that large labels like the one above are coming...
Beginning September 2012, FDA will require larger, more prominent cigarette health warnings on all cigarette packaging and advertisements in the United States. These warnings mark the first change in cigarette warnings in more than 25 years and are a significant advancement in communicating the dangers of smoking.
From the FDA
"These warnings mark the first change in cigarette warnings in more than 25 years." It would be frightening if boredom with the old warnings was a motivating factor making the change....it wouldn't be shocking though.Add a comment