Patriot Politics

"I like to see the people awake and alert." – Thomas Jefferson

Patriot Politics - "I like to see the people awake and alert." – Thomas Jefferson

New Respect for Mara Liasson

Mara Liasson regularly spars with the likes of Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer on Fox News panels.  Even though we happen to agree more with Bill and Charles, we’re usually impressed with Mara.  She argues her perspective with grace and eloquence, as one might expect others on the left side of the spectrum to do more frequently.

(Note to Jacob Weisberg:  Titling a column “Why Fox News is Un-American” is probably not going to staunch the hemorrhaging at Newsweak Newsweek, just sayin’.  A review here puts the smackdown on Weisberg:  “Commentator Jacob Weisberg assumes that Fox’s rightward tilt results from a disingenuous desire to boost ratings, when it more likely springs from a philosophical perspective that is so foreign to Weisberg that he takes refuge in cynicism.”)

Recently, Mara was under some pressure from the higher ups at NPR to “reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.”  Politico’s report on the matter cites an anonymous source as saying the White House’s recent campaign against Fox News as prompting the request.  Liasson declined.

Of course, now the little tiff between the WH and FNC is pretty much over, although I’m sure you won’t see Chris Wallace (who called the West Wing a bunch of “crybabies”) and Robert Gibbs having a beer together anytime soon.

” ‘NPR has its own issues in trying to convince people that, ‘Look, we’re down the middle,’ the source said.” You bet they do. Asking someone not to appear on Fox is just one of them.  Good on you, Mara, for telling the prigs at NPR where they can stuff it – in the nicest possible way, of course.

DiggFriendFeedDeliciousFacebookStumbleUponTwitterShare

The Constitution Requires Prosecutorial Failure as an Option in the case of KSM

Quick! Someone tell Constitutional scholars Holder and Obama!  In the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, failure is absolutely required as an option, despite their assertions to the contrary.

Krauthammer explains:

Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Thank you, Charles, for pointing out the parallel universe the Justice Department, presumably at the direction of the President, is inhabiting.  That’s what the people, in their collective wisdom, have been saying by a majority of two-thirds.

DiggFriendFeedDeliciousFacebookStumbleUponTwitterShare

If George Bush was such an idiot . . .

From our email:

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had miss-spelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed the biggest power grab by the executive branch EVER and upsetting the balance of powers in the guise of “Health Care Reform,” would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in just under a year — so you’ll have three more to come up with an answer.

DiggFriendFeedDeliciousFacebookStumbleUponTwitterShare

Lindsey Graham takes Eric Holder to the Woodshed (Video)

“If you’re gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn’t turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you’re saying he’s subject to criminal court in the United States and you’re confusing the people fighting this war.”
And later:  “This is a perversion.”
DiggFriendFeedDeliciousFacebookStumbleUponTwitterShare

NYT Finally Acknowledges Gore’s Climate Change Profiteering

The New York Times, fashionably late to the party as always when it comes to criticizing its anointed darlings, acknowledges on its front page today that Al Gore has raked in astronomical profits from promoting climate change hysteria and derangement:   Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

They can’t quite bring themselves to say it themselves, though.  Instead, they’re hiding behind the nebulous and skeptical right wing to finally point the finger:  But Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who until recently was a top aide to Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore’s alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal financial interests.

Noooooo!  He, Pelosi and Kennedy couldn’t possibly be in it for the money, could they?  What about the lofty ideals of science?

Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.

Imagine that!  Read the whole thing and then knock us over with a flying pig, would you?


DiggFriendFeedDeliciousFacebookStumbleUponTwitterShare