RELATED: At ABC News, "John F. Kennedy Assassination Still Intrigues, 47 Years Later: New JFK Documentary and Motion Picture Will Probe Grim Day in Dallas."
And at Memeorandum, "The Kennedy Assassination: 47 Years Later, What Do We Really Know?"
Monday, November 22, 2010
Today in History: John F. Kennedy Assassination, November 22, 1963
I just read this gripping account of that day, from Clint Hill, who was the Secret Service officer assigned to Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy.
And at Memeorandum, "The Kennedy Assassination: 47 Years Later, What Do We Really Know?"
And at Memeorandum, "The Kennedy Assassination: 47 Years Later, What Do We Really Know?"
Quinnipiac Poll: Voters Could Deny Obama Second Term — Sarah Palin Leads GOP for Nomination, Mitt Romney Runs Best Against President
At Quinnipiac, "American Voters Could Deny Obama Reelection, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; President Tied With Romney, Huckabee But Leads Palin":
And at The Hill, "Poll finds Obama, Romney deadlocked in 2012 matchup." (Via Memeorandum.)
President Barack Obama does not deserve a second term, American voters say 49 - 43 percent, and he is in a statistical dead heat with possible Republican challengers Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. President Obama leads Sarah Palin 48 - 40 percent.More at the link.
Romney, Huckabee, Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are bunched together when Republican voters are asked who they prefer for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds.
Democratic voters say 64 - 27 percent they do not want anyone to challenge President Obama for their party's nomination in 2012.
"The Democratic base remains squarely behind President Barack Obama when it comes to his re-election, but his weakness among independent voters at this point makes his 2012 election prospects uncertain," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"The demographic splits in the electorate when voters are asked whether the president deserves a second term is a roadmap for his re-election strategists on how they need to focus their appeal. Only 39 percent of men, 34 percent of whites, 35 percent of political independents and 38 percent of those over age 35 think he deserves four more years in the Oval Office."
In trial heats for 2012, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney receives 45 percent to 44 percent for Obama, while the president gets 46 percent to 44 percent for Mr. Huckabee. Matched against Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a virtual unknown to most voters, the president leads 45 - 36 percent.
"At this point, former Alaska Gov. Palin runs the worst against President Obama. Daniels is essentially a generic Republican because of his anonymity to most voters. Obama only gets 45 percent against him while he gets 48 percent against Ms. Palin," said Brown. "She is very unpopular among independents and although she recently said she thought she could defeat Obama, the data does not now necessarily support that assertion."
"Unlike Daniels, who is a political unknown to most Americans, virtually all voters have formed an opinion about Palin and that opinion is not encouraging for her candidacy."
And at The Hill, "Poll finds Obama, Romney deadlocked in 2012 matchup." (Via Memeorandum.)
Allen West on Meet the Press
Video at Mofo Politics, "'Meet the Press' Roundtable With Allen West - 11/21/10." And RealClearPolitcs, "'Meet The Press' Panel On Possible Palin Presidential Run."
The asshats at Think Progress are not pleased: "Meet The Press Uncritically Features Radical Rep.-Elect Allen West." West's not down on the progressive plantation.
PREVIOUSLY: "Allen West Wins Florida's 22nd District."
The asshats at Think Progress are not pleased: "Meet The Press Uncritically Features Radical Rep.-Elect Allen West." West's not down on the progressive plantation.
PREVIOUSLY: "Allen West Wins Florida's 22nd District."
The Road to Ruin? American Profligacy and American Power
I've mentioned this piece a number of times now, from Roger Altman and Richard Haass, "The Consequences of Fiscal Irresponsibility." The introduction provides the background to America's massive fiscal overhang, and then this:
My problem with this piece is that it's way too pessimistic, even for a problem of this magnitude. There's no discussion of how tax receipts rise dramatically during periods of robust economic growth. So should the administration agree to the extention of the Bush tax cuts from 2003, it's possible that a surge in GDP --- with a boom in individual and corporate profits --- could send a significant windfall of revenue to the treasury. This was indeed happening by the last couple of years of the Bush administration, and it's likely to happen over the next few years, now that the GOP has retaken the House. See the commentary at Wall Street Journal, "Liberal Tax Revolt."
And refer to my bullish comments from Saturday on the international aspects of coming growth domestically: "The World in China's Orbit?"
It is important to understand the impact of all this debt. As it grows, interest rates inevitably rise. As they do, the U.S. government's annual interest expense -- the cost of borrowing money -- will rise from one percent of GDP to four percent or more. At that point, interest expense would rival defense expenditures. And it would exceed all domestic discretionary spending, a category that includes spending on infrastructure, education, energy, and agriculture -- in effect, anything other than entitlements and national security. The U.S. Treasury would need to borrow a staggering $5 trillion every single year, both to finance deficits and to refinance maturing debt.More at the link.
Yet the real outlook for deficits and debt is much worse than these forecasts. For one thing, the debt that the United States effectively guarantees but that is not included in official totals is almost equal to the Treasury Department's stated $9 trillion total. In particular, the debt of government-sponsored enterprises is another $8 trillion. The biggest of these are the essentially bankrupt housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They have been placed into federal conservatorship, and for all practical purposes, their debt is equivalent to U.S. Treasury debt. The American taxpayer stands fully behind it.
State and local governments also owe huge amounts, on the order of $3 trillion. And again, Washington indirectly stands behind much or all of it. This sector is deeply distressed, with the largest state, California, recently issuing IOUs. Moreover, many state and municipal pension systems use an antiquated pay-as-you-go funding approach, which has left them underfunded by another $1 trillion.
The post-2020 fiscal outlook is downright apocalyptic, for two reasons. First, the aging of the U.S. population will drive sharp increases in health care costs (and at the same time, more Americans will be retired). Second, federal interest expense will rise exponentially, as the Treasury's borrowing costs grow with the debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that official federal debt (excluding government-sponsored enterprises) could hit 110 percent of GDP by 2025 and 180 percent by 2035. Adjusting these forecasts for the inevitably slower growth that would accompany such quickly rising debt levels means hitting those stratospheric ratios sooner.
Why is this scenario so dangerous? One reason is that a large amount of federal borrowing would eat up the stock of private capital that is available to finance investment. A higher and higher percentage of personal savings would be diverted to purchasing government debt and away from productivity-enhancing investments in equipment and technology. This would shrink the base of productive capital and flatten GDP and family incomes. As more and more debt piled up, growth would slow and Americans' standard of living would fall.
In addition, interest expense would become so large as to crowd out whole categories of federal spending. Budgets for research, education, and infrastructure, to name but three examples, would inevitably decline in inflation-adjusted terms. Washington's capacity to respond to domestic crises, such as the recent recession, would also fade. All of this would further undermine families' incomes.
My problem with this piece is that it's way too pessimistic, even for a problem of this magnitude. There's no discussion of how tax receipts rise dramatically during periods of robust economic growth. So should the administration agree to the extention of the Bush tax cuts from 2003, it's possible that a surge in GDP --- with a boom in individual and corporate profits --- could send a significant windfall of revenue to the treasury. This was indeed happening by the last couple of years of the Bush administration, and it's likely to happen over the next few years, now that the GOP has retaken the House. See the commentary at Wall Street Journal, "Liberal Tax Revolt."
And refer to my bullish comments from Saturday on the international aspects of coming growth domestically: "The World in China's Orbit?"
HazZzMat on Warren Buffett
"Simpleton":
You know, I've about had it up to here with the MSM worship of Warren Buffett. With all due respect to an arch-capitalist who's made a considerable pile with his investment philosophy, Buffett is yet another lifelong Democrat who blindly supports creeping socialism without a clue as to how destructive it is. He's sort of like George Soros in sheep's clothing.Via Memeorandum.
Watch Jennifer Grey Tonight on 'Dancing With the Stars'
I like Jennifer, but not everyone: "Bristol Palin Will Win Dancing With the Stars." Background at San Jose Mercury News, "'Dancing with the Stars' finalists ready for the last waltz."
And at Riehl World View: "Dancing with the Stars: 'If you've got a favorite couple, you've gotta pick up the phone'."
And at Riehl World View: "Dancing with the Stars: 'If you've got a favorite couple, you've gotta pick up the phone'."
More dancing, and beauties, at YankeePhil, "Well it is Sunday, so it is time for Rule 5 Shameless Plugging."
Sunday, November 21, 2010
American Music Awards Wrap at LAT
I'm still watching, but see Todd Martens at Los Angeles Times, "American Music Awards 2010: Rihanna, Katy Perry, Santana, Ke$ha and all the performances, graded": 
And at Entertainment Weekly, "AMAs '10: Best/Worst Performances," and ABC News, "Justin Bieber Sweeps American Music Awards."
Added: My wife said she was digging on Usher, so here's this at MTV, "Usher Shows Off Fancy Footwork At AMAs."
I enjoyed Taylor Swift --- and she's got a hot makeover --- but follow the link for the grade.Katy Perry, "Firework." Like the pyrotechnic toys the song takes its name from, Perry's AMA take is all bombast, no substance. All the cliches needed for a big-event moment were here. Gaggle of singing children? Check (Hey, she can be serious, too! It's not all skimpy outfits and giant fruit). String section? You betcha! At least she didn't sing that "Peacock" thing. D
And at Entertainment Weekly, "AMAs '10: Best/Worst Performances," and ABC News, "Justin Bieber Sweeps American Music Awards."
Added: My wife said she was digging on Usher, so here's this at MTV, "Usher Shows Off Fancy Footwork At AMAs."
Chalmers Johnson, 1931-2010
Professor Chalmers Johnson has died.
Steve Clemons has reflections (via Memeorandum), and see also the links at Google so far. Leftists lionize Johnson --- not to mention paleocon America-bashers --- for his research on the purported American empire. Much more important is Johnson's work in comparatitve political science.
Below I've re-posted an essay on Johnson from January 31, 2007, "Chalmers Johnson and America's Imperial Decline."
*****
Chalmers Johnson's one of the nation's foremost experts on Japanese politics and international economic competitiveness. A professor emeritus at UC San Diego, Johnson's book, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975, remains one of the most important selections on Japanese politics graduate syllabi. In recent years Johnson's been writing on trends in American foreign policy, particularly the consequences of America's clandestine intelligence operations and the "blowback" from U.S. strategic reach and ambition.
Johnson's got a new book out, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Empire, which looks at what Johnson sees are threats to the republic from the country's massive military industial complex, which emerged from our post-World War II foreign policy of containing threats to U.S. national security.
Nemesis received an outstanding review by Tim Rutten in today's Calendar at the Los Angeles Times:
(An interesting aside here is that Johnson's book shares its title, Nemesis, with the second edition of Ian Kershaw's authoritative biography of Adolph Hitler, Hitler: 1936-1945, Nemesis. I agree with Rutten, though, that comparing Bush to Hitler -- or U.S. foreign policy to Nazi foreign policy -- defies reason. The antiwar left, nonetheless, loves to denounce the Bush administration as fascist. Whether the shared title was deliberate or coincidental is an intriguing footnote to Johnson's scholarship.)
I've been reluctant to read Johnson's latest books. Upon skimming The Sorrows of Empire at Barnes and Noble, for example, I got the feeling the work was just a dressed-up, high-brow anitwar attack on the Bush administration war policies. Rutten's cool-handed review has convinced to give Johnson's writing a second look, however. There's a growing debate on America's continued leadership of the global system -- which I have discussed here and here, for example -- and Johnson's work certainly adds an important dimension to the discussion.
Steve Clemons has reflections (via Memeorandum), and see also the links at Google so far. Leftists lionize Johnson --- not to mention paleocon America-bashers --- for his research on the purported American empire. Much more important is Johnson's work in comparatitve political science.
Below I've re-posted an essay on Johnson from January 31, 2007, "Chalmers Johnson and America's Imperial Decline."
*****
Chalmers Johnson's one of the nation's foremost experts on Japanese politics and international economic competitiveness. A professor emeritus at UC San Diego, Johnson's book, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975, remains one of the most important selections on Japanese politics graduate syllabi. In recent years Johnson's been writing on trends in American foreign policy, particularly the consequences of America's clandestine intelligence operations and the "blowback" from U.S. strategic reach and ambition.
Johnson's got a new book out, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Empire, which looks at what Johnson sees are threats to the republic from the country's massive military industial complex, which emerged from our post-World War II foreign policy of containing threats to U.S. national security.
Nemesis received an outstanding review by Tim Rutten in today's Calendar at the Los Angeles Times:
The thesis proffered here is that, since the end of World War II, the United States has been undergoing a kind of creeping coup in which the growth of an imperial presidency, the development of the CIA as a secret presidential army, the bloating of an outsized military establishment, and a venal and derelict Congress have conspired to undermine the American republic — perhaps irremediably.Much of what Johnson denounces is the Bush administration's advocacy of executive branch supremacy in the realm of national security, manifest, for example, in the adminstration's early policies on the detention and torture of enemy combatants. But Johnson goes too far in making his case, essentially equating the Bush administration's excesses with the totalitarianism of Hitler's Nazi regime. Here's what Rutten says about that analytical overstretch:
Many of the conclusions Johnson teases from his shrewdly assembled and analyzed material are not so convincing. For example, appropriating Hannah Arendt's description of Adolf Eichmann — "desk murderer" — and applying it to Cheney, George W. Bush and Donald H. Rumsfeld isn't just histrionic, it's wrong on the merits, wrong in ways so fundamental that it renders moral judgment itself a uselessly blunt instrument. However horrific events in Iraq have been, they have nothing in common with Hitlerian Germany's "final solution," and it does violence to both reason and history to carelessly suggest otherwise for mere effect.That sounds pretty fair. Rutten goes on to give additional examples of the difficulties of Johnson's analysis. For example, even if the Bush administration succeeded in elevating White House power into an "imperial presidency," the election of a Democratic majority in the November midterms has already started the process of restoring the balance of power among the branches in the federal system. The democracy's not in jeopardy of succumbing to a military dictatorship any time soon, as Rutten ably points out.
On the other hand, when Johnson argues that America "will never again know peace, nor in all probability survive very long as a nation, unless we abolish the CIA, restore intelligence collecting to the State Department, and remove all but purely military functions from the Pentagon," he presents a case that demands consideration.
(An interesting aside here is that Johnson's book shares its title, Nemesis, with the second edition of Ian Kershaw's authoritative biography of Adolph Hitler, Hitler: 1936-1945, Nemesis. I agree with Rutten, though, that comparing Bush to Hitler -- or U.S. foreign policy to Nazi foreign policy -- defies reason. The antiwar left, nonetheless, loves to denounce the Bush administration as fascist. Whether the shared title was deliberate or coincidental is an intriguing footnote to Johnson's scholarship.)
I've been reluctant to read Johnson's latest books. Upon skimming The Sorrows of Empire at Barnes and Noble, for example, I got the feeling the work was just a dressed-up, high-brow anitwar attack on the Bush administration war policies. Rutten's cool-handed review has convinced to give Johnson's writing a second look, however. There's a growing debate on America's continued leadership of the global system -- which I have discussed here and here, for example -- and Johnson's work certainly adds an important dimension to the discussion.
Korean Air Rule 5 – Special Linkmaster Smith Farewell Edition!
Linkmaster Smith – a.k.a Smitty at The Other McCain and the conserva-sphere's babe-blog aggregator par excellence – will soon deploy to Afghanistan. Word has it that a new hipster, Wombat Socho, will be taking over the honors. Apparently the Wombat's still getting up to speed on the ways of the RSS feed, although Ruby Slippers indicates temporary workarounds are available for non-Wordpress bloggers – so as not to miss out on the festivities. (And no doubt Opus_6 will be pleased!)
Theo's been on fire lately, so don't miss that. And bonus blogging from Jimmy Bise, "Clearing the Browser Tabs – A Sunny Sunday Edition."
And drop your link in the comments to be added to the weekly bikini roundups!
And number of the Linkmaster's friends paid tribute:
- Common Sense Political Thought
- Cubachi
- DaTechguy
- Fishersville Mike
- Hillbilly Politics
- SI VIS PACEM
- Obi`s Sister
- Little Miss Attila
- The Lonely Conservative
- Mind Numbed Robot
- No Runny Eggs
- No Sheeples Here
- Point of a Gun
- Piece of Work in Progress
- Proof Positive
- The Prudence Paine Papers
- Red State Eclectic
- Right Wing News
- Stark Raving Love
- Suzy Rice
- SWACgirl
- That Mr. Guy
- theblogprof
- The Camp of the Saints
- Troglopundit really brought the love.
- The Conservative Pup
- Dustbury
- The Frugal Cafe
- Left Coast Rebel
- Parc Bench
- Red State
- The Minority Report
- Pirates Cove
- Uncoverage
- WyBlog
Theo's been on fire lately, so don't miss that. And bonus blogging from Jimmy Bise, "Clearing the Browser Tabs – A Sunny Sunday Edition."
**********
And be sure to visit some of the other friends of American Power:
BONUS: Don't forget Instapundit.* Another Black Conservative.
* Astute Bloggers (Honorary).
* Blazing Cat Fur.* The Blog Prof.
* Bob Belvedere.
* Classical Liberal.
* Daley Gator.
* Kathy Shaidle.* Mind Numbed Robot.
* Not a Sheep.* Pirate's Cove.
* POWIP.
* The Other McCain.
* Reaganite Republican (Honorary).
* Right Klik (Honorary).
* Saberpoint (Honorary).
* Serr8d (Honorary).
* Snooper's Report (Honorary).
* Stormbringer.
* Theo Spark.
* Washington Rebel.
* WyBlog.* YankeePhil.
And drop your link in the comments to be added to the weekly bikini roundups!
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Leading Through Civilian Power
I've been meaning to do this — and since I just posted "Hillary Clinton Says No White House Run - And No TSA Pat-Downs!" — what the heck?
From Foreign Affairs, "Leading Through Civilian Power: Redefining American Diplomacy and Development." The word "staid" comes to mind, but interesting nevertheless:
From Foreign Affairs, "Leading Through Civilian Power: Redefining American Diplomacy and Development." The word "staid" comes to mind, but interesting nevertheless:
Diplomacy has long been the backbone of U.S. foreign policy. It remains so today. The vast majority of my work at the State Department consists of engaging in diplomacy to address major global and regional challenges, such as confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions, facilitating negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, enhancing stability on the Korean Peninsula, and working with other governments to bring emergency relief to Haiti. And President Barack Obama and I certainly relied on old-fashioned diplomatic elbow grease to hammer out a last-minute accord at the Copenhagen conference on climate change last December.More at the link.
In annual strategic dialogues with a range of key partners -- including China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa -- the United States aims to deepen and broaden its relationships and to establish a stronger foundation for addressing shared problems, advancing shared interests, and managing differences. The United States is investing in strengthening global structures such as the G-20 and regional institutions such as the Organization of American States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. This is part of a commitment to building a new global architecture of cooperation that includes not only the East and the West but also the North and the South.
Although traditional diplomacy will always be critical to advancing the United States' agenda, it is not enough. The State Department must expand its engagement to reach and influence wider and more diverse groups using new skills, strategies, and tools. To that end, the department is broadening the way it conceives of diplomacy as well as the roles and responsibilities of its practitioners.
The original Foreign Service, as its name implies, consisted of people trained to manage U.S. relations with foreign states, principally through consultations with their counterparts in government. This has been the main function of U.S. ambassadors and embassies, as well as the staff at the State Department. But increasing global interconnectedness now necessitates reaching beyond governments to citizens directly and broadening the U.S. foreign policy portfolio to include issues once confined to the domestic sphere, such as economic and environmental regulation, drugs and disease, organized crime, and world hunger. As those issues spill across borders, the domestic agencies addressing them must now do more of their work overseas, operating out of embassies and consulates. A U.S. ambassador in 2010 is thus responsible not only for managing civilians from the State Department and USAID but also for operating as the CEO of a multiagency mission. And he or she must also be adept at connecting with audiences outside of government, such as the private sector and civil society.
Political Scientist Charles Franklin Slams Voters as 'Pretty Damn Stupid'
This is interesting.
I wrote the other day about Ohio State communications professors Erik Nisbet and Kelly Garrett. These two have published some shoddy research on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. The authors not only used junk "fact check" resources, but didn't report on the findings of experts on Islam. And I found the research at The Monkey Cage, widely considered one of the top political science blogs. And noted there at the comments:
Ann updates with a comment at the thread from Professor Franklin, who regrets shooting from the hip, and then distrances himself from the unwashed commentary at The Isthmus:
The voters voted correctly given their ideology preferences, but with their "lack of details" those ideological preferences are indeed "pretty damn stupid."
Of course, for political scientists, "facts" never get in the way of the approved academic narrative. Confer, for just one example: "Paula McClain and the 'Duke 88'."
I wrote the other day about Ohio State communications professors Erik Nisbet and Kelly Garrett. These two have published some shoddy research on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. The authors not only used junk "fact check" resources, but didn't report on the findings of experts on Islam. And I found the research at The Monkey Cage, widely considered one of the top political science blogs. And noted there at the comments:
No wonder many Americans are disinclined to believe the 'corrective' statements academics serve up, when so often such statements are inaccurate and slanted.That's pretty good — and apropos to my growing disenchantment with academic political science. And now Ann Althouse is directly over the target with a couple of posts on University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin, seen below (and at his faculty homepage):
Ann updates with a comment at the thread from Professor Franklin, who regrets shooting from the hip, and then distrances himself from the unwashed commentary at The Isthmus:
... I said it and have no complaint that it was quoted when I knew I was speaking to journalists.And that's an academic dodge.
But I wish what I said next had also been quoted. I went on to say that despite not knowing the details of Johnson's policy positions, the voters did NOT make a mistake in choosing Johnson as the more conservative candidate and certain to be more favorable to cutting government. That was indeed the correct connection by an angry electorate, even if the details were quite vague.
Voter's often act on little information and can be astonishingly unaware of things one might consider "facts". A post-election Pew poll finds less than half (46%) know the GOP won only the House but not the Senate. And at times voters appear to vote for candidates who are likely to take positions at odds with the voter's interests.
But in the Johnson-Feingold race, I think despite lack of details about Johnson, a majority of Wisconsin voter's picked the guy they wanted, and for basically the right reason. Dems may be astonished at the rejection of a favorite son, but in making this choice I think voter's properly expressed their preferences and matched them to the right candidate.
The voters voted correctly given their ideology preferences, but with their "lack of details" those ideological preferences are indeed "pretty damn stupid."
Of course, for political scientists, "facts" never get in the way of the approved academic narrative. Confer, for just one example: "Paula McClain and the 'Duke 88'."
You're Not Entitled to Your Own Facts
I wrote previously: "I think the folks at American Nihilist owe me an apology."
And I'm renewing the call.
And to be clear, I've been subject to enough racial slurs in my life to let a couple go. Indignities are part of living in a diverse society with real differences in race, class, and ideological persuasion. But when leftist go around calling people out as RAAAAACIST, I'd at least expect some consistency, honesty, and intellectual integrity. In the case of James Casper --- a.k.a. "Repsac3" --- that's obviously asking way too much. Some folks will remember that Repsac3 unveiled his bigoted race-centric view of the world during The Pale Scot controversy: "It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power." The comments left at BJ Keefe's blog were so bad that BJ Keefe himself disowned them, while nevertheless hypocritically citing a First Amendment principle to allow such hatred to remain in his comment thread.
In any case, I shouldn't be returning to this subject, but as Repsac3 is a stalking asshat and a liar who maintains a stalking website, and who has been the ringleader in a campaign of harassment, including the publication of my workplace information, I don't mind taking the time every now and then to point out what a pure bigot and demonologist prick he is.
The other day I posted on Dennis Prager, "TheLiberal Leftist Mind Rejects Sad Facts." Harasser and hate-sponsor Reppy responded. With regard to President Obama's endorsement of racist hip-hop mysogyny, RepRacist3 dismissed socal commentator Thomas Chatterton Williams as a "clown." (Chatterton is the author of Losing My Cool: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-Hop Culture.)
That's tyical of Repsac3, a progressive bigot who takes to attacking dignified, accomplished black men as "clowns." Clearly derogatory and offensive, this is what leftists love to do: infantilize and demean blacks, whipping them with epithets, keeping them down on the progressive plantation. Reppy's racist ally in that regard is TBogg:
These are bad people, progressive KKK henchmen. Repsac3's Twitter background provides an idea of the circle of secular demonologists this evil man follows --- and the hatred both he and they endorse:
And I'm renewing the call.
And to be clear, I've been subject to enough racial slurs in my life to let a couple go. Indignities are part of living in a diverse society with real differences in race, class, and ideological persuasion. But when leftist go around calling people out as RAAAAACIST, I'd at least expect some consistency, honesty, and intellectual integrity. In the case of James Casper --- a.k.a. "Repsac3" --- that's obviously asking way too much. Some folks will remember that Repsac3 unveiled his bigoted race-centric view of the world during The Pale Scot controversy: "It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power." The comments left at BJ Keefe's blog were so bad that BJ Keefe himself disowned them, while nevertheless hypocritically citing a First Amendment principle to allow such hatred to remain in his comment thread.
In any case, I shouldn't be returning to this subject, but as Repsac3 is a stalking asshat and a liar who maintains a stalking website, and who has been the ringleader in a campaign of harassment, including the publication of my workplace information, I don't mind taking the time every now and then to point out what a pure bigot and demonologist prick he is.
The other day I posted on Dennis Prager, "The
That's tyical of Repsac3, a progressive bigot who takes to attacking dignified, accomplished black men as "clowns." Clearly derogatory and offensive, this is what leftists love to do: infantilize and demean blacks, whipping them with epithets, keeping them down on the progressive plantation. Reppy's racist ally in that regard is TBogg:
And as for the facts, this is what Chatterton wrote --- in full context --- with regard to President Obama:
What's on President Obama's iPod? A wide range, he told Rolling Stone magazine last week, from the jazz of John Coltrane to the ballads of Maria Callas. And more: "My rap palate has greatly improved," Mr. Obama noted. "Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert."The president once spoke out for a strong black family. Indeed, Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention represented the finest traditions of black conservatism going back to Booker T. Washington. Now he's down with the minstrel-misogyny that continues to keep black youth in their place. And that racism of low expectations is enabled by leftists like James "Repsac3" Casper. These Kos-Kleagles apologize for the bigotry of their own ranks while constantly playing the race card to excoriate ideological enemies as bigots and "clowns."
Expert or not, that's the wrong message for the president to be sending black America.
Does Mr. Obama like Lil Wayne's "Lil Duffle Bag Boy"? In that song, the rapper implores young black men to "go and get their money" through round-the-clock drug hustling. And with Lil Wayne, it's not just an act: The rapper is currently serving a one-year term on Rikers Island after being caught in New York with drugs and guns stashed in his Louis Vuitton overnighter.
Lil Wayne is emblematic of a hip-hop culture that is ignorant, misogynistic, casually criminal and often violent. A self-described gangster, he is a modern-day minstrel who embodies the most virulent racist stereotypes that generations of blacks have fought to overcome. His music is a vigorous endorsement of the pathologies that still haunt and cripple far too many in the black underclass.
These are bad people, progressive KKK henchmen. Repsac3's Twitter background provides an idea of the circle of secular demonologists this evil man follows --- and the hatred both he and they endorse:
George W. Bush at Reagan Library
AT KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Bush Appears at Reagan Library Promoting Book."
But I have inside intel from my student, Barbara Efraim:
But I have inside intel from my student, Barbara Efraim:
It was so good! I wrote down two quotes that I really liked: "The only alternative to radical terrorists is the spread of democracy." "Democracies lay the foundation for freedom, and freedom is necessary for peace." He spent a lot of time answering questions on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he also addressed other things. Someone asked him advise on raising teenagers when the parent is so busy. He also joked around a lot, saying that when Laura asked him to wash the dishes after leaving the White House, she said that this was his new domestic agenda...
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Pope Lifts Church's Ban On Condoms to Fight Aids — UPDATED!!
At Telegraph UK: "The Pope has signalled a historic shift in the position of the Roman Catholic Church by saying condoms can be morally justified."
I thought I saw something on this earlier, at Twitter.
UPDATE: Kate O'Hare disagrees in the comments, and points to "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???"
But check LAT, "Pope Says Condom Use OK in Few Cases," and "Pope's Guarded Comments On Condoms Offer Hope for Believers in Middle of AIDS-Stricken Nations":
I thought I saw something on this earlier, at Twitter.
UPDATE: Kate O'Hare disagrees in the comments, and points to "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???"
But check LAT, "Pope Says Condom Use OK in Few Cases," and "Pope's Guarded Comments On Condoms Offer Hope for Believers in Middle of AIDS-Stricken Nations":
Roman Catholic believers and leaders in parts of the world most stricken by AIDS drew hope from Pope Benedict XVI's recent comments on condoms, even if the Vatican took pains to explain that nothing has changed about its policy on contraception.
For those focused on battling the scourge of AIDS, the Pope's message that condoms could be used in some limited cases came as a welcome surprise. Father Peter Makome, a Catholic priest in Zimbabwe, said he would spread the news.
"I've got brothers and sisters and friends who are suffering from HIV because they were not practicing safe sex," said Makome, who works in the capital Harare's Southerton Parish. "Now the message has come out that they can go ahead and do safe sex; it's much better for everyone."
Speaking to a German journalist whose book was excerpted in a Vatican newspaper Saturday, the pontiff reiterated that condoms are not a moral solution for stopping AIDS. But in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, he said their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
What If Bristol Wins 'Dancing With the Stars'?
I for one will be pissed. This baby is Jennifer Grey's all the way.
More from Courtney Friel:
RELATED: "Controversy Over Bristol Palin on 'Dancing With the Stars'."
More from Courtney Friel:
See also PopEater, "Insiders: If Bristol Palin Wins, 'Dancing' Is Ruined" (via Memeorandum). And at Death and Taxes, "White Powder, Threat Sent to Bristol Helps Palin Family." But see Cubach's response.
RELATED: "Controversy Over Bristol Palin on 'Dancing With the Stars'."
The National Post Embraces Twitter
I retweeted an article from The National Post the other day, and I got a thank you tweet back. I thought, hmm, that's pretty cool, if not unusual. So I'm not surprised to see this interview with Chris Boutet, the Senior Producer of Digital Media at the paper. From Mediabistro, "The National Post: How One Newspaper is Embracing Twitter [Interview]" (via Mediagazer). And here's this from the piece:
And from Rex Murphy, "University of Waterloo Ignoramuses Accomplish Their Doltish Goal":
And the Blatchford excerpts are here.
What are some of the goals the National Post has for its Twitter accounts?And clicking over to the homepage right now, here's the screencap:
We want people to engage with our content, first and foremost. We want people to share our stories, retweet our Tweets, and get involved with our reporting.
For example, we have a campaign where we send out @mentions thanking people for sharing our content or for mentioning us in their tweets. We want our readers to know that we appreciate their engagement, and we are actively using our Twitter account.
We also use Twitter as a way to build the personality of our brand. We are an irreverent newspaper, with a dry wit. We don’t take ourselves very seriously, and we encourage our readers to take everything with a grain of salt. Underneath this is a vaguely disguised optimism. All of this comes through on Twitter.
And from Rex Murphy, "University of Waterloo Ignoramuses Accomplish Their Doltish Goal":
The University of Waterloo is inadequately and belatedly trying to make up for the shabby treatment afforded Christie Blatchford at the renowned institution. It has apologized for the hijacking of her talk by self-ordained (they always are) “anti-racism” activists — five ignoramuses who took the stage before her, chanted “racist, racist, racist” at her, denied her right to speak and denied the audience who came to hear her their right to hear her.More at the link.
The apology at least recognizes the insult done to Blatchford, and to the people who came to hear her. A knot of intellectually vacant hooligans, whether united neck to neck with bike locks or not, should never be alloted the power to say who speaks and who does not speak at a university. (Or anywhere else for that matter.) Waterloo has also promised to reschedule the event. However, the apology only became necessary because the university — she was there at the invitation of its bookstore — didn’t toss the smug nuisances from the stage in the first place. Nor does the apology — which wears the whiff of “damage control” — quite measure up to a real acknowledgment of the ugliness Blatchford endured that evening. As the Post editorialized Thursday, the shutting down or abridgement of free speech at universities — especially by “progressive’ protesters” — is growing so commonplace that we fail to notice how aggressive and mean the actions and words of the protests leading to the shutdowns actually are.
The Waterloo clowns smeared Christie Blatchford horrendously: She is, by their description, a “hack” and a “bigot” who preaches “racism” and “hate.” She’s a “fascist”; she has “no right to speak”; she “dishonours” Waterloo by being invited to speak there. If you listen to or read the words of Don Kellar, the putative leader of the vile and petty coup, Christie Blatchford is all of these things — but wait ...
And the Blatchford excerpts are here.
Obama Evokes Reagan in Push for New Start Treaty
It's no surprise that President Obama pumped up the new START in his Saturday address:
Did you listen? It's interesting, since the president's main argument is that the new START is essential to verify the Russian arsenal. The president evokes Reagan's famous dictum, "trust, but verify." But if anyone's breaking Reagan's rule, it's Obama himself. The Russians don't follow the same strategic norms as we do, something I discussed earlier, "Trust Russia on START?" In fact, according to Keith Payne and Tom Scheber:
... compared to those of its predecessor, the 1991 START, New START’s verification measures are extremely weak. Among many problems, it abandons the mobile-missile verification regime of START I, including the provision for continuous monitoring at final-assembly plants for Russian mobile missiles. It virtually guarantees that we will not get useful performance data from Russian ballistic-missile flight tests, leaving us with limited insight into the performance characteristics of new Russian weapons — including such basic items as range and warhead payload. It shifts much of the burden of verification to aged National Technical Means satellites and other sensors, and allows Russia’s deployed mobile missiles to be concealed. Several Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee rightly concluded that “verification in this treaty is very weak.” Sen. Kit Bond (R., Mo.) observed, “This is one that turns President Reagan’s theory of trust but verify on its head. We will trust them even though we can’t verify it.”And that's not all. Obama is attempting to build an arms control legacy on the scale of Reagan's, and of course he's been playing politics with existing treaties in an effort to hammer through his own vision. As Heritage reported this week:
It is ironic that the Administration is citing the need for verification as justification for treaty ratification—after all, the present verification problem was created by the Administration. The White House did not take the advantage of a five-year extension possible under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At that time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon. The Senate considered the original START for nearly a year. The Moscow Treaty, which was far less complex than New START, was before the Senate for nearly nine months. The Obama Administration took more than 12 months to negotiate New START but has sought approval from the Senate in less than five. The rush to ratification undermines the important role of “advice and consent” that the Senate must exercise on any treaty of this magnitude.And, so, what the rush? Obama claims that it's been 11 months, 18 congressional hearings, and the administration's responded to over 1000 questions. Yeah. So what? Rushing the new START is Obama's method to ram home a flawed pact. And apparently he's calling out some age-old arms control veterans -- realists, such as Henry A. Kissinger, James A. Baker III and Brent Scowcroft --- to lend gravitas to a White House as inept as it is insipient.
The Administration’s claim for the urgent need to pass New START and initiate its verification provisions blatantly contradicts the Administration’s own public statements about the absence of any Russian military threat to the United States or U.S. allies. New START would increase U.S. reductions relative to Russia, and “concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty,” according to Ambassador James Woolsey.
Treaties such as New START, a major nuclear arms agreement, require more scrutiny than others. The Senate needs access to the negotiating record that includes all draft versions of New START, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. This record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and specifically, how the Russians interpret them. The Senate is constitutionally mandated to give due diligence in its consideration of New START. This responsibility is not consistent with the rushed process the White House is seeking.
Kristi Noem on Hannity
Discussing the GOP agenda:
Noem beat Blue Dog Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in a race I covered before the election: "Death to Blue Dogs Coming From Both Sides." Also, from Bob Belvedere, "Spotlight On Kristi Noem.
Why Sarah Palin Shouldn't Run — Or Why She Should
Mona Charen spoke at the Jewish Policy Forum panel in Los Angeles, along with David Horowitz. Michael Medved began the talk with a discussion of electoral politics, and at some point the panelists got to talkin' about their favorites for the 2012 presidential race. Ms. Charen endorsed Mitchell Daniels (not my favorite, for reasons some might recall). And that's interesting, since we find that Ms. Charen's not hip to a Sarah Palin presidential bid. See, "Why Sarah Palin Shouldn't Run" (at Memeorandum). And this passage is worth consideration:
Fair enough. But my sense, beyond this, is that Ms. Charen is looking at presidential politics a bit clinically. Extreme emotionalism devolved to a form of secular worship in 2008 and the election of "The One." Ms Charen's right to note the dangers of it forming on the right heading into 2012. But skimming over this a bit more, Ms. Charen yearns for a conservative politics almost entirely divorced from popular culture. I doubt we're ever going back to a time of Reagan, much less Goldwater. But check the comments at the post (Townhall has a well organized comments section). If the sentiment there gives any indication, the GOP nomination is Palin's for the taking. And why not? Sarah Palin is a force of nature. She embodies all the best of the American spirit, and her family emobodies all the best of the American citizen. We don't know if she'll be a good president. Leftists had no clue if Barack Obama would be a good president. Democrats picked Obama on faith. There's danger there, sure. My sense is that Palin's attuned to popular sensibilities in a way the Barack Obama has never been. She's anti-elitist. She stands against the elite-arugula entitlement that is the essence of the Democrat-Socialist hegemonic power agenda. And Sarah Palin learns. She's open to ideas and feedback. If President Obama had even an ounce of those qualities he'd have a much better chance of avoiding early retirement in 2012 --- quite possible at the hands of Sarah Palin herself.
RELATED: "Sarah Palin Rallies GOP at 'Victory 2010' in Anaheim."
She is wildly popular with a swath of the Republican electorate, it's true. And, as a conservative woman politician told me, the consultants (who get paid the big bucks win or lose) will doubtless descend upon her with game plans showing how she can win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. Maybe. But the general election would be a problem, since 53 percent of independent voters view Palin unfavorably, according to a recent Gallup poll, along with 81 percent of Democrats.RTWT.
Fair enough. But my sense, beyond this, is that Ms. Charen is looking at presidential politics a bit clinically. Extreme emotionalism devolved to a form of secular worship in 2008 and the election of "The One." Ms Charen's right to note the dangers of it forming on the right heading into 2012. But skimming over this a bit more, Ms. Charen yearns for a conservative politics almost entirely divorced from popular culture. I doubt we're ever going back to a time of Reagan, much less Goldwater. But check the comments at the post (Townhall has a well organized comments section). If the sentiment there gives any indication, the GOP nomination is Palin's for the taking. And why not? Sarah Palin is a force of nature. She embodies all the best of the American spirit, and her family emobodies all the best of the American citizen. We don't know if she'll be a good president. Leftists had no clue if Barack Obama would be a good president. Democrats picked Obama on faith. There's danger there, sure. My sense is that Palin's attuned to popular sensibilities in a way the Barack Obama has never been. She's anti-elitist. She stands against the elite-arugula entitlement that is the essence of the Democrat-Socialist hegemonic power agenda. And Sarah Palin learns. She's open to ideas and feedback. If President Obama had even an ounce of those qualities he'd have a much better chance of avoiding early retirement in 2012 --- quite possible at the hands of Sarah Palin herself.
RELATED: "Sarah Palin Rallies GOP at 'Victory 2010' in Anaheim."
The World in China's Orbit?
From Niall Ferguson, at Wall Street Journal, "In China's Orbit":
Ferguson's a phenomenal scholar. I really enjoyed his piece on U.S. decline earlier this year, at Foreign Affairs, "Complexity and Collapse: Empires on the Edge of Chaos." And up until recently I'd been mostly bullish on the duration of American preponderance, but with the long recession in the U.S., and the political intransigence that makes the tough decisions (massive reducdtions in federal spending) nearly impossible, I'm growing more skeptical on sustaining U.S. hegemony for much more than a generation. It's not like we can't turn things around at home, especially on fiscal policy (see, "How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget"), but that we've got a massive collective action problem, particularly on entitlement reform, which hinders progress.
One point not discussed is cyclical economic trends, domestically and internationally. I've consistently maintained that the U.S. will not only come roaring back, but that we're soon likely to experience another decade like the 1990s (which stifled talk of American decline after our last period of self-doubt). And who's to say that China will ineluctably continue its path to the tops of international power? Perhaps the secular trend toward parity is largely inevitable, but the U.S. has assets that other former hegemonic powers lacked (continued population dynamism at home, for one thing, set to increase the U.S. population to about 400 million by 2050, something even Joseph Nye neglected to mention in his recent piece, "The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective").
More on all of this going forward.
Today per capita GDP in China is 19% that of the U.S., compared with 4% when economic reform began just over 30 years ago. Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore were already there as early as 1950; Taiwan got there in 1970, and South Korea got there in 1975. According to the Conference Board, Singapore's per capita GDP is now 21% higher than that of the U.S., Hong Kong's is about the same, Japan's and Taiwan's are about 25% lower, and South Korea's 36% lower. Only a foolhardy man would bet against China's following the same trajectory in the decades ahead.Read the whole thing at the link.
China's has been the biggest and fastest of all the industrialization revolutions. In the space of 26 years, China's GDP grew by a factor of 10. It took the U.K. 70 years after 1830 to grow by a factor of four. According to the International Monetary Fund, China's share of global GDP (measured in current prices) will pass the 10% mark in 2013. Goldman Sachs continues to forecast that China will overtake the U.S. in terms of GDP in 2027, just as it recently overtook Japan.
But in some ways the Asian century has already arrived. China is on the brink of surpassing the American share of global manufacturing, having overtaken Germany and Japan in the past 10 years. China's biggest city, Shanghai, already sits atop the ranks of the world's megacities, with Mumbai right behind; no American city comes close.
Nothing is more certain to accelerate the shift of global economic power from West to East than the looming U.S. fiscal crisis. With a debt-to-revenue ratio of 312%, Greece is in dire straits already. But the debt-to-revenue ratio of the U.S. is 358%, according to Morgan Stanley. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that interest payments on the federal debt will rise from 9% of federal tax revenues to 20% in 2020, 36% in 2030 and 58% in 2040. Only America's "exorbitant privilege" of being able to print the world's premier reserve currency gives it breathing space. Yet this very privilege is under mounting attack from the Chinese government.
For many commentators, the resumption of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve has appeared to spark a currency war between the U.S. and China. If the "Chinese don't take actions" to end the manipulation of their currency, President Obama declared in New York in September, "we have other means of protecting U.S. interests." The Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was quick to respond: "Do not work to pressure us on the renminbi rate…. Many of our exporting companies would have to close down, migrant workers would have to return to their villages. If China saw social and economic turbulence, then it would be a disaster for the world."
Ferguson's a phenomenal scholar. I really enjoyed his piece on U.S. decline earlier this year, at Foreign Affairs, "Complexity and Collapse: Empires on the Edge of Chaos." And up until recently I'd been mostly bullish on the duration of American preponderance, but with the long recession in the U.S., and the political intransigence that makes the tough decisions (massive reducdtions in federal spending) nearly impossible, I'm growing more skeptical on sustaining U.S. hegemony for much more than a generation. It's not like we can't turn things around at home, especially on fiscal policy (see, "How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget"), but that we've got a massive collective action problem, particularly on entitlement reform, which hinders progress.
One point not discussed is cyclical economic trends, domestically and internationally. I've consistently maintained that the U.S. will not only come roaring back, but that we're soon likely to experience another decade like the 1990s (which stifled talk of American decline after our last period of self-doubt). And who's to say that China will ineluctably continue its path to the tops of international power? Perhaps the secular trend toward parity is largely inevitable, but the U.S. has assets that other former hegemonic powers lacked (continued population dynamism at home, for one thing, set to increase the U.S. population to about 400 million by 2050, something even Joseph Nye neglected to mention in his recent piece, "The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective").
More on all of this going forward.
Dems to Follow GOP Playbook?
At WaPo, "Democrats Strategists Ready to Take Page From GOP Playbook in 2012."
Folks can check the link.
There was a similar story at LAT yesterday, "Party's Survival Instinct Kicks In":
Folks can check the link.
There was a similar story at LAT yesterday, "Party's Survival Instinct Kicks In":
Frustrated by what they see as President Obama's weakness in battling Republicans, leading Democratic donors and tacticians have begun independently plotting their political recovery — including building a network of outside fundraising and campaign organizations to compete with those formed this year by Republicans.And it's no mystery why. The party's movers and shakers are unhappy, and with good reason. Obama and his inept political team completely squandered what was about as close to a political mandate as we've seen in decades. In two years the pendulum has swung back with a vengeance, and 2012 looks iffy for folks on the left.
This week, more than 100 wealthy Democrats gathered in a posh Washington hotel for a closed meeting in which participants repeatedly called for Obama be more aggressive in his agenda and tactical combat with the Republican right.
"I am used to fighting losing battles, but I don't like losing without a fight," said financier George Soros, a longtime donor to causes on the left, in a comment confirmed by his staff as part of a call to arms in private conversations at the postelection meeting of the Democracy Alliance, an organization of wealthy Democrats that provides funding to liberal groups.
In another sign of Democratic unrest, a dozen prominent Democrats — including longtime Bill Clinton advisor Harold Ickes, labor leader Andy Stern and representatives of influential interest groups — will meet Monday to discuss whether to form a new operation to combat the array of outside groups launched this year by Karl Rove and other Republican strategists, according to multiple participants.
Such a move by Democrats comes despite Obama's longstanding opposition to political spending by outside groups — particularly those that refuse to disclose their donors — and underscores the deep dissatisfaction with the White House's strategy on several fronts.
The White House declined to comment.
Catalan Socialist Party Does R-Rated Nora Ephron Send-Up
This reminded me of When Harry Met Sally...
The story's at BBC and Memeorandum:
The story's at BBC and Memeorandum:
But seriously, these cats went further, much further:
Apparently desperate to pique the interest of young voters ahead of local elections in Catalonia scheduled for later this month, political parties in the Spanish region are engaged in what is starting to seem like a race to see which of them can get their entire campaign banned for excessive use of sex, violence or porn film soundtracks.The first blow was struck by the new Catalan Solidarity for Independence Party, which recruited a porn star named MarÃa Lapiedra to appear at its campaign rallies.
Not to be outdone, the conservative Popular Party posted a video game on its Web site this week starring an animated version of its local leader, Alicia Sánchez-Camacho, flying through the air on a white seagull, bombing illegal immigrants and Catalan nationalists.
As the Spanish newspaper El PaÃs reported, on Tuesday afternoon, after the game was posted online, the Popular Party’s Web site crashed under the traffic of thousands of eager players. Hours later, the game was withdrawn and the party claimed that the game’s developer had deviated from instructions to have the candidate’s avatar attack not immigrants but the people-traffickers who smuggle them into Spain.
The same day, another candidate, Montse Nebrera, who leads her own party, appeared on camera wearing just a towel at the end of a highly suggestive ad that interspersed statistics about corruption and government waste with what looked and sounded like outtakes from a porn film.
By week’s end, though, politicians across the political spectrum were weighing in on another steamy ad that topped them all, in which a young actress was shown simulating an orgasm as she cast her vote for Spain’s Socialist Party. The ad, which was produced by the Young Socialists of Catalonia — to illustrate their slogan, “Voting is a pleasure” — would certainly earn an R-rating in the United States and makes a similar scene in the movie “When Harry Met Sally” look quite tame by comparison. So far it has been viewed on YouTube more than 70,000 times, which, for a local election video, comes close to qualifying as a viral hit.
Still more at the link, and also Memeorandum.
House Republican Leadership
Press Conference from the House Republican Leadership team for the 112th Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
