It is Hard to a Liberal

It is hard to be liberal.   This blogger recently got noticed by the blog Whiskey Fire:

May 26, 2009

We Have a Wiener!

WINNER! The first wingnut to go for the ethnic slur over the Sotomayor nomination is… BitsBlog!

Not surprisingly, Obama appears to be focusing demographics and not judicial factors. Obama isn’t looking for a liberal Scalia.  He looking for a spic chic. Enter Sonia Sotomayor….

That didn’t take very long at all, now, did it? Congratulations

Sadly, I must decline the honor.  My quoted article, was not in in response, to Sotomayor’s nomination of yesterday, 26 May this.   Rather, it was posted on 5 May:

Say what you will about George (Forty-Three) Bush.  He had but two Supreme Court opening and he nailed both of them.   Both of Bush’s nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito had impeccable  records and were conceded to judicial  intellects.

With the pending retirement of David Souter, the one now has his opportunity to leave his mark on the court.   Given that Souter is the very epitome of mediocre, Obama has a  great opportunity to upgrade the court and put a liberal intellect on the court to match the power of say Anton Scalia.  

Not surprisingly, Obama appears to be focusing demographics  and not judicial factors.    Obama isn’t looking for a liberal Scalia.   He looking for a spic chic.   Enter Sonia Sotomayor, from Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic:

Say what you will, Stotomayor is no Scalia.    With such neo-conservative stalwarts as Jeffrey Rosen and Stuart Taylor, Jr.  how can I go wrong.    David Souter wasn’t much of a justice, but Sotomayor appears offer even less than Souter.    Doesn’t say much for the one’s vaunted judgment, does it?

Addendum: (Eric)

 Doesn’t say much for the judgement of his kool-aid drinking supporters at WhsikeyFire,  either, I’m afraid, who were so quick to jump on David’s peice they didn’t notice they were being dragged into the teeth of their own double standards, and also, that their reading ability was being challanged by virtue of the byline. (As in, they didn’t notice who wrote the bloody thing.) 

Still you can understand their problem; In Sotomayor, we have somone who is able to do something I thought impossible; Come down to the left of Souter. That, I suppose would be enough to wet the diapers of any liberal, blotting out all other input.

As to the resident morons at WhiskeyFire, It’s  undeniably fun kicking morons around, but it only entertains for so long.  Eventually you have to go back to beings with more than one working braincell.

Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.

Stuart Taylor, Jr. National Journal.

Welcome, one and all tot he most intense nightly read anywhere on the ‘sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble.

This is the “All this and a hat, too” Edition

• More Base!! To start with, today, we see a comment from Glenn Reynolds:
  

  FUNNY THAT THEY KEPT HIM SO QUIET FOR EIGHT YEARS, THEN: Poll: The more Dick Cheney talks, the more Americans seem to like him..

  Well, no. It’s not odd at all.   To my mind this reinforces what I’ve been saying about the Republicans and their elections future… the way forward is to go to the Republican base, which Cheney seems to have grabbed ahold of bigtime. And that’s the one cure the undeniably withering Republican party refuses.  For all of Powell’s whining about inclusiveness, a look at Cheney’s approval numbers, and the people those numbers are coming from, looks like he’s got the brand of inclusiveness needed to win, identified.  The leadership won’t take the cure.

  (I think at some future point I need to write an essay on the subject of what Powell considers inclusiveness. It’s worth a look, and I’m not seeing many others even touching that subject, possibly for fear of being called ‘racist’ or whatever. )

  Frankly, I think there is very little which demonstrates the disconnect from reality that the GOP has been subjected to better than the ‘back of the us’ treatment Cheney’s been getting, vs the approval ratings he’s getting from the GOP rank and file. The GOP leadership has been missing the message all this time…and it cost them the 08 election.

• Political Payback: Doug Ross wonders if  anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered. I think he’s onto something, myself.
• Out of money: So, Obama is now admitting we’re out of money. But why?  Because we  don’t have government healthcare. Doubtess this is one more crisis they’d rather not waste. I mean, the Democrat party aganda wouldn’t be well served by admitting the bigtime debt Obama has racked up since assuming office is why we’re out of money. Better to blame it on a totally unconnected issue.
• Is this Russia? Obama figures to create another”‘Czar”… an unelected power, to oversee the Internet? Gee, what could possibly go wrong, here?  Ed Timperlake explores some of this at American Thinker. Before we go off on a misunderstanding, here, I don’t doubt for a moment that there are folks out there waging war in this manner on us. But if we take the inept and totally inappropriate way Obama has been dealing with physical wars, and acts of war, I have no faith whatever that he or any of his appointees will have a clue how to deal with the security issues of the Internet.  In the end, this position will be used as would anything else this administration has set up… as a political tool against Americans who disagree with Obama.
• Will the Left apologize to John Bolton? Legal Insurection asks that question, now that Bolton’s predictions of more Korean Nuke Testing has proven true.  They rather unfailingly disparaged him over his prediction, less than a moth ago, as BitsBlog readers will recall.
  

  John Bolton

• The War on Talk Radio: Dick Morris seems to think Obama’s got a war going against Talk radio. I think he’s correct in this.  Figures. We’ve got enemies with Nuclear weapons all over the world, and The Chosen One thinks Talk radio the bigger threat.
• The coercive power of government: The aptly surnamed Ray LaHood says he wants to  “coerce people out of their cars.” Even George Will, who has been of limited use of late, already has LaHood pegged.
  

  Furthermore, the new transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, was until January a Republican congressman practicing militant middle-of-the-roadism. He knows what plays in Peoria, and not just figuratively: He is from there. Peoria is a meatloaf, macaroni-and-cheese, down-to-earth place, home of Caterpillar, the maker of earthmoving machines for building roads, runways, dams and things.LaHood, however, has been transformed. Indeed, about three bites into lunch, the T word lands with a thump: He says he has joined a “transformational” administration: “I think we can change people’s behavior.” Government “promoted driving” by building the Interstate Highway System—”you talk about changing behavior.” He says, “People are getting out of their cars, they are biking to work.” High-speed intercity rail, such as the proposed bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, is “the wave of the future.” And then, predictably, comes the P word: Look, he says, at Portland, Ore.

  

  George Will

  Riding the aforementioned wave to Portland, which liberals hope is a harbinger of America’s future, has long been their aerobic activity of choice. But LaHood is a Republican, for Pete’s sake, the party (before it lost its bearings) of “No, we can’t” and “Actually, we shouldn’t” and “Not so fast” and “Let’s think this through.” Now he is in full “Yes we can!” mode. Et tu, Ray?

  Where to start? Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program “promoted” driving?

  Will goes on from there, of course and it’s well worth the read. But, here then is yet another example of a ‘Republican’ gone to the dark side in the mold of Colin Powell, and John McCain.  And the Republicans wonder why they’re losing elections?

  Oh… importantly, Will identifies that this auto-phobia has it’s roots in something other than the false meme of ‘global warming’…

  And long before climate change became another excuse for disparaging America’s “automobile culture,” many liberal intellectuals were bothered by the automobile. It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people’s lives. Drivers moving around where and when they please? Without government supervision? Depriving themselves and others of communitarian moments on mass transit? No good could come of this.

  That’s really what all this is about. Power over other people’s lives. It’s time we stand up against this nonsense, and push ourselves back to a time as Will says when government’s purpose was to deliver the mail, defend the shores and let citizens get on with their lives. It’s a measure of how things are going that we have “Republicans’ who don’t understand that.

• Gun crime drops, post-Heller: Say Uncle has the details. Not like I didn’t say this would happen… it always does…  but nice to see the confirmation, anyway.
• Great interview:  Right Wing News has a great interview with Mike Adams, today.
• More NORK: I commented on the NORK testing over the weekend, so I won’t get itno it very much here. I will, however, mention a great point made by Mario Loyola at The Corner:
  

  Policy decisions are often a matter of choosing between different sets of problems.

  

  Mario Loyola

  The reason Clinton decided not to react to North Korea’s removal of plutonium-laden fuel rods from the Yongbyon reactor in 1994 — the last point in time at which the North Korean program could have been interdicted with confidence — was the fear of a North Korean conventional retaliation. In terms of pure strategic analysis, it’s inconceivable that North Korea would have reacted to the destruction of a single building by launching a suicidal attack on the South, but the 12,000 North Korean conventional missiles trained on Seoul were able to focus the attention of U.S. commanders and of the White House. So Clinton, as was his fashion, decided that it was better to let his successors deal with a big mess than risk dealing with one himself.

  Well, look at the mess. North Korea has nuclear weapons, and can detonate them at will just a few hours’ drive from an international border, and there isn’t a thing we can do about it. Even if we were willing to risk the chance of a North Korean nuclear retaliation against the South or against Japan (which we aren’t) we don’t know anything about the location of their stockpile of fissile material and warheads, so the program can no longer be interdicted. The window for effective self-defense against the North Korea nuclear threat opened and closed in 1994, on Clinton’s watch.

  Exactly. And I submit that knowing Obama to be of similar mind about negotiation being the only available tool, The North is playing a brand of hardball they’d never have played with Bush, and certainly not any conservative.  Similarly, Iran:

  When Clinton allowed North Korea to break out of the nonproliferation regime, the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle. Iran saw what North Korea had been able to accomplish armed with little more than crazy talk, and lunged for nuclear weapons of its own. It only backed off this gambit briefly in 2003, when it seemed like a secret nuclear program was not the smartest thing for a terror-sponsor to be pursuing, but 2003 turned out to be a temporary blip in the long decline of America’s effective strategic deterrent. In 1994, the appearance of a single U.S. aircraft carrier 12 miles off your coast might have been a terrifying sight. Today, we cruise three aircraft carriers in plain sight off the Iranian coast — each of them much more powerful than the carriers of the Cold War, because of precision-strike — and the Iranians basically laugh at us.

  Correct. And this kind of nonsense goes on every time we put a Democrat in the WHite House. You’d think someone would get the message by now. Aside from our sworn emenies, I mean.

• More on Sotomayor: Rick Moran,who I’ve been spanking rather a lot of late, gets it exectly right on Obama’s USSC pick. ?
  

  

  Rick Moran

  It’s a miserable choice for conservatives as Roger Kimball points out in his PJM post on the announcement. But beyond questions of qualifications, temperament, and intellectual heft, Sotomayor is the perfect political choice for the president. Playing identity politics to the hilt, he has chosen a liberal woman and a member of an important minority group — Hispanics.

  Exactly. Now, given she was picked because she was part of a favored group, do you supopse there’s a hope in hell of her rulings not reflecting the reason behind that choice? Me, neither. And for all the screaming going on in some quarters, that’s exactly what’s what. The leftards can scream and bitch about racism all they like, but when they’re confronted with racism in their new found heroes, the sudden silence is of itself revealing of their true motives. As an example… do you supopse any of them will have the courage to face the blatant racism exhinited in this quote?

  Sotomayor: ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male’…

  As I say… Me, neither.

We’ve gotten word of  Obama’s first USSC appointment this morning. The SCOTUSBLOG said this morning it’ll be Sonia Sotomayor. 

 I’ve not read enough about Sotomayor’s rulings to get a clear picture on what she’s about, but I think it a lead pipe cinch she’s going to be trying to redefine the constitution, instead of upholding it.  That’s made most clear when she comes up with lines suggesting the courts are where policy is made. Of course, being appointed by the stone cold socialist that is Obama would be a fair clue, as well.

Of all places, The New Republic, on the 4th of this month in an article by Jeff Rosen, suggested,

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”

Gee, one can almost understand what Obama likes about her.

Update: Michelle confirms my read and goes specific.

From the Palm Treo:

I’m sitting in the back yard, watching over some steaks and a little corn on the cob.

I have a question that I dare say will make some of you rather uncomfortable.

To set this up, I’ll take you back to last evening. I noticed a good deal of traffic coming into the site linking an Obit I posted last November the 2nd, on the passing of Brigadier-General Paul Tibbets. The traffic was incidental to a news article, which talked about the Enola Gay and the display of same, which doesn’t really enter into this post.

I was struck, however, by a thought, on reading the post. In it, I captured some of the left-wing moonbat comments about Tibbits. I warn you, the comments are At the very least despicable. Stay with me, here, however , because I have a serious point to make about current events.

Kay in Maine comments on the death of Paul Tibbetts, the man who flew the Enola Gay:

Paul Tibbetts did not die a hero to America. I’m sorry, but it does not take a brave person to strap a bomb to a plane, fly high above a sleeping city, and then drop an atomic bomb on it! Only a coward could be proud of himself after doing something like that. You can argue that he was taking commands from his higher ups. That would be one thing…if he felt a shred of compassion as to what this one act on humanity did. Nope. All we got to hear over the years is ‘people were going to die anyways’, so dropping a bomb on this city killing 80-150,000 at once was the only way to save America. Oh please! Coward!

Not only was a he a typical reich winger throughout his life, meaning he had zero compassion for the people of our planet, but he managed to be the typical reich winger upon his death by being a coward. Why? He told his loved ones that he didn’t want a stone or a marker for his grave. Why? Well, apparently this “big brave reich winger” didn’t want Americans to stand around his grave protesting what he had done in WWII! Wow! If you’re a big brave hero who saved America, wouldn’t you think that you would want Americans TO USE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT YA FOUGHT FOR IN WORLD WAR II for the opportunity to dissent against your own barbarianism? Nope! Typical reich wing coward ole Tibbetts was.

Not surprised. Rest in peace if you can Paul! Spit. Good riddance.

As I say despicable. Disgusting. Completely detached from reality.
But it got me to thinking, about the left and their spittle laced tirades over ‘torture’,  and over jailing people without due process, supposedly never knowing their guilt or innocence. We are repeatedly told about the number of people who have died in American attacks, who also were supposedly innocent because they were never proven in a court of law to be guilty. All ignoring, of course, that such are a a part of war.

Now, certainly, there is a legal point as regards bombing supposedly innocent civilians. In terms of the left’s definition of the law, from strictly a legal perspective,  there is a certain similarity between  the civilians killed incidental to the two bomb drops on Japan are similar to those “civilians” captured and imprisoned incidental to the Iraq war. There is undeniably a certain kind of mindset that can call either situation criminal. One that doesn’t think in terms of anything but legalities.  The principles behind those legalities, somehow seem to go wanting every time.

As an example; might it be said that there is some doubt as to the culpability of the civilians who died in those attacks, to the Japanese war effort? I could even see someone arguing that the suffering imposed on the Japanese people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in fact “torture”.

I’ve raised this point in a couple of different conversations on line within last 48 hours. I will say up front that I hold neither situation to be criminal, nor do I hold either situation to be immoral.  Given the circumstances of the times and what we faced both were within the realm of western morality.

I see a good number of people who (properly) hold General Tibbits in honor, and properly so for doing the job that he had to do and doing it well .  The actions of dropping those bombs saved literally millions more than were killed incidental to the actual bomb drops.  Most of them, American lives.  There is no question in my mind that it was the right thing to do.  Yet some of the same people  start playing a moral and legal  “gotcha’  when it comes to our conduct in Iraq.  It’s that disconnect that concerns me.

That argument has been used rather widely to make political points as regards Iraq. But on what basis?

(Note the words employed in this last line, please….)

On what principle are the two situations different?

Addendum:  (David L)

War is Hell, Sarge.

The leftards obsession with Hiroshima both baffles and amuses me.    As  I wrote on 10 May, the atomic raid on Hiroshima was not the deadliest air raid of the war, only the most protested.   The deadliest raid of the war was Toyko.

So shall repeat the questioon.   Should be disinter FDR so we cna hang him as a war criminal?

From the personal perspective, I support the atomic raids on Japan.  I am here.  My father was World War Two veteran, and had we not dropped the bombs, I might never have been.  And you?

From The Wall Street Journal, today:

Korea made its second test of a nuclear explosive on Monday and declared it was more destructive than the first, an advance that is likely to embolden Kim Jong Il’s regime in rebuffing calls by the U.S. and others to halt its weapons program.

The country also launched three short-range missiles, including one from the same site from which it fired a long-range missile over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean seven weeks ago.

The actions show that the U.S. and other countries that for years have tried to persuade North Korea to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons remain unable to get Pyongyang to bend to their will.

At issue now, it is whether or not a meeting will be held for the purpose of issuing a strongly worded memo, so that all of the leaderships of the various neighbor countries and the United States can all point to the fact that they have “done something” about the problem.

Have you ever been to Arlington ?

It’s a place like very few others on the planet.  It’s true enough; the world would be a better place if  places such as Arlington weren’t required to be a part of it, but man is fallible.  Our freedoms that so many of us take for granted , come at a very high price.  What you see in front of you is but a small part of that price.

Something there is about humans that causes us not to want to be indebted to anyone.  It’s perhaps why some are so anti-military.   Yet we are indebted to these individuals, and millions more like them, buried on battlefields all around the world.  We are indebted in a way that is wholly unique.  This is not just about that they died.  It’s what they died for, and whom.

It’s been a long time since most of them were among us.  Yet even in the relative safety of the time that is passed between their life and death, and now , you can still feel it….  Our debt to these people.

I’ve said this many times before, in these spaces, and the import of it does not diminish in the telling; These people’s lives, and their sacrifices, should still count for something to us.  Every single one of them that died at Normandy at Pearl, at Gettysburg, and any one of the thousands of places where are people in uniform have fought and died, and are buried,  every one of those individuals should hold special meaning for us .

It’s easier to do, perhaps when you consider that they had their lives just as we have ours.  These people loved, they laughed, they cried. They had a favorite food, a favorite color, a particular bit of music, or of poetry stirred their souls, like none other, just like we, ourselves. Every bit as much as you and I love our lives, they loved theirs. Their lives were as precious to them, as yours is to you. Their loss was as keenly felt by their loved ones as yours would yours. And yet, they gave their lives up, for something bigger.

I’m willing to bet that you have friends and loved ones that you would be willing to sacrifice for.

Well, now think; How much more noble is a sacrifice of one’s life for people that one will never meet? Well, the people we honor today, those in uniform particularly, but some who were not, gave of themselves for the benefit of people they would never know…. you and I, and countless others from many nations.  If not for their sacrifices, you’d have very different lives, indeed. Lives not nearly as good.

Look upon those actions, those sacrifices, and know what you’re seeing is strength, courage, and nobility in measures that should not… can not, be ignored.  Such sacrifice must be honored by us all; it was made, after all for our benefit.

Think about that as we deal with the solemn proceedings for their day.

• @mattklewis RTCNN Poll: 72% of Americans Want Moderate or Conservative for the Supreme Court – http://bit.ly/rZ39s (do the math…) #tcot # #
• @pinkelephantpun Yeah… candy makes me SICK.  #
• I’m in Buffalo doing some railroad photos @ Broadway #

Joe Sudbay, America Blog, must be one of all of three people that think Colin Powell is a republican:

There may be some fireworks on this Memorial Day weekend — intra-GOP fireworks.

Colin Powell may have been a successful military leader, but he’s fighting a futile battle here. Cheney and Limbaugh are the leaders of the GOP now. And, those two are who the dwindling number of Republicans actually want to lead them.

Powell is a democrat.   Hint, he endorsed Barack Obama for president.   If Powell wants to rejoin the republicans, he is more than welcome.   All  he need to do is to explain why he left,  and why anybody on earth should take him at this word.

Addendum:

As for as I can see, Powell is still a democrat.   In fact I has sdopted his idol, Barack Obama pet tactic, attacking straw dogs, Fox News:

“You know, neither (Cheney) nor Rush Limbaugh are members of the membership committee of the Republican Party. I get to make my decision on that,” Powell said. “And so I will continue to work in a way that I think is helpful to the country and helpful to the party.” 

Of course, there is no membership committee, for any party    As for why Powell endorsed Obama over his own alleged party:

He said the reason he endorsed Barack Obama for president last fall — a decision that prompted a wave of conservative discontent with Powell — was he believed Obama was “best-qualified” to lead.

So where is this delusional leadership quality Obama was supposed to have, and why has be failed to demonstrate any of it to date?    The MSM is catching on to one lame leadership style. Helene Cooper, New York Times:

Now that there is a new team at the White House, guess who is knocking down straw men left and right? To listen to President Obama, a veritable army of naysayers has invaded Washington, urging him to sit on his hands at the White House and do nothing to address any of the economic or national security problems facing the country.

 Bye Colin.

(CNN) — Pennsylvania Republican Tom Ridge is taking direct aim at Rush Limbaugh, telling CNN’s John King the conservative talk radio host can be “shrill” and uses language in a way “that offend very many.”

“Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million people. A lot of people listen daily to him and live by every word. But words mean things and how you use words is very important,” Ridge, the former Homeland Security Secretary under President Bush, said during an interview airing Sunday on CNN’s State of The Union.

“It does get the base all fired up and he’s got a strong following,” Ridge continued. “But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourself but let’s respect others opinions and let’s not be divisive.”

..

“For the Republican Party to restore itself as not its original party, but as a national party, we have to be far less judgmental about disagreements within the party and far more judgmental about our disagreement with our friends on the other side of the aisle,” he said.

The context of this statement by Ridge can be found in lesser and better smelling amounts on any stable floor.

First,   He campaigned with McCain in the primary, and then he starts in on Dick Cheney, essentially calling the man a liar, then attacks Rush Limbaugh, will not back Toomey in his home state… despite having his backside kicked among the grassrootsts by Toomey…  he has come out in support of Arlen Specter, after Specter turned away from the GOP… and of course the GOP is supposed to take him seriously?

After all that I’m forced to ask of Ridge something none of the press dare ask:  Where are your disagreements with the Democrat party? What are the GOP principles that you will not compromise on? Do you even have any? Any at all? At what point might we expect you to take a stand against the Democrat Party, and it’s values, as opposed to those speaking forcefully of the values of the party you claim membership in?

I am starting at the end, but you should read this piece from the very beginning, from Lords86, Red State:

Unless and until President Obama quits playing games with national security, he will give Dick Cheney ample reason to keep calling his bluff. Cheney knows that Obama’s charm won’t protect our shores from the scourge of terrorism – a point that the liberal media wants to disregard. Cheney knows that Obama’s apologies for past American transgression won’t make the terrorists like us anymore. He says what Washington pundits know, but won’t – Obama’s appeasement of terrorists is reckless childplay with American national security.

And, thankfully, as long as that childplay continues, Dick Cheney will do all he needs to do to stay in Obama’s kitchen

To change analogies, Dick Cheney has gotten inside of Barack Obams’s OODA loop.    Former vice presidents are not expected to be able to yank the chain of sitting president.   As hard as Al Gore tired to rile Dubya, the Bush White House never played Algore’s game.    In contrast, the Obama White House is playing Cheney’s game, on Cheney’s home field.

With no due respect, Mr. President,  Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama saluted veterans and urged his countrymen to do the same this Memorial Day weekend, saying the nation has not always paid them proper respect.

In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama said people can honor veterans by sending a letter or care package to troops overseas, volunteering at health clinics or taking supplies to a homeless veterans center. He said it could also mean something as simple as saying “thank you” to a veteran walking by on the street.

Memorial Day is not to honor, us the living veterans.    Rather Memorial Day is meant to honor our fallen dead

Mr. President, the honors ares their’s.

Hat tips:  Jammie Wearing Fool; and Gateway Pundit.

Addendum:

Michelle asks, rhetorically:

More to the point: Does Obama know the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day?

Nor does the one care.

Andie Collier, Politio, wants us to believe:

She’s the 69-year-old speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the line of succession and the most powerful woman in U.S. history.

But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think “Pussy Galore

[…]

The wisdom of equating the first woman speaker of the House with a character whose first name also happens to be among the most vulgar terms for a part of the female anatomy might be debated – if the RNC were willing to do so, which it was not. An RNC spokesperson refused repeated requests by POLITICO to explain the point of the video, or the intended connection between Pelosi and Galore

No sale!   Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a/k/a  Speaker Tablecloth is lying about the Central Intelligence Agency.   She accuses the CIA of lying to the Congesss of the Untied States, but refuses to investigate her own allegations.

As for the word pussy itself.    I note that is possible to use the word is totally acceptable context,  Yourdictonary.    There other words for the same subject area not nearly so acceptable. 

 Blog reax, Mac Ranger, Macsmind:

No we don’t always have to be so crass, but we don’t have to walk around like we have our tails between our legs either. Why I don’t relish the idea of a Botox-Incrusted 69 year old hag as “Pussy-Galore”, the comparison in action is quite accurate.

Bravo to the RNC.

About the only conservative female blogger I found, Darleen Click, Protien Wisdom:

First off, we can probably question why little Ms. Andie’s editorial is listed in the “news” section of Politico. Secondly, we can then wonder where Ms. Andie was when Her Lord and Savior Obama was (using her metric of OUTRAGE over teh sexism) much less subtle in calling Sarah Palin a pig and flipping the bird to Hillary Clinton.

The male, but snide, Robert Stacy McCain, Other MaCain:

Note that when feminists are promoting The Vagina Monologues, it’s “empowering” to shout this from the rooftops. Only when Republicans try it does the Left suddenly become as prudish as a Victorian schoolmarm.)

The video which has Collier’s knicker is a twist,vodeo:

Hat tip: Allah Pundit, Hot Air.

I know Bond girls, and believe me, Mrs. Pelosi is no Bond girl.   I have been seeing Bond fliiks since 1964, Goldfinger.    Bond girls, for the most part, have to be cute and smart.  Mrs. Pelosi is neither.

I suppose everything is easy, if your biggest worry in only political viability, video:

Hat tip: Allah Pundit, Hot Air.

I am not sure anybody can be this dumb, but Barack Obama has proven that he is no ordinary fool.   American Thinker, among others, is suggesting the the Moron-in-Chief, is planning on apologizing to Germany for liberating Europe:

The message Obama intends to send by visiting both sites is clear; while the Germans did bad things during World War II, they were also victims of Allied atrocities.

Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs, offers 104,366   reasons why no American President should ever apologize for liberating Europe,  here are 3,812  of the reasons:

All we asked for our liberation of Europe was a place to bury our dead.    These hnored dead did nothing for which any American President should apologize.