The Occasional Observer

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS., MAY 29, 2009

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,526,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,474,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,009,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,871,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,834,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,787,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,298,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,029,000
CNNHN GRACE 915,000
CNN COOPER 852,000

ht: Drudge

So much for the campaign rhetoric being spewed by Obama and the liberal media that the ONLY possible reason for belligerence in the world was the "aggressive", "cowboy", "unilateral" policies of the Bush administration. If we would simply act like a good neighbor and talk to everyone, there would be no problems. Never mind that WTC '93, USS Cole, and 4 years of planning and training for 9/11 occurred while Clinton was in office. Dialogue is the answer.

Except for this - it doesn't work.

North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

So far, in the "new" regime of dialogue, what do we have? N. Korea performs their most powerful underground nuclear weapons test ever. They launch both short and long-range missiles. They now pull out of a 56-year-old armistice. They threaten military action against South Korea. Iran test fires missiles, kicks weapons inspectors out of the country, and continues to accelerate their uranium enrichment program. Pirates attack a ship flying under the American flag for the first time in over 200 years. Pakistan cedes a large swath of territory to extremist control. Israel and Palestine continue to draw harder lines.

Where's the change?

What could warm Obama's heart more than to see this headline from the wire services:


Right divided over court fight

Just how divided are we? I had to get all the way down to the first sentence to find out:

Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Wow. Wicked divided.

How can I not be concerned? Not when she is on record as saying that one's race, ethnicity, and gender does effect the way a judge rules:

I accept the proposition that, as...[a] former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.

Not when she flatly admitted that judges "make policy," before embarking on a half-hearted, wink/nod attempt to double-back.

Heck, this woman is on record as saying that a Latino woman should be expected to make better decisions than a white male, for no other reason, I suppose, than her gender and ethnic background.

Now, I'll give her the benefit on this one, b/c it almost sounds like a joke. I'd like to know the context before branding her a racist.

But that said, this is the type of governance we're apparently in line for. After all, there is virtually no chance of stopping this or any other Obama nominee until (and unless) we change the balance of power in the Senate.

By the way, I love how the Dems are so proud that they are nominating the first hispanic to Supreme Court! Never mind that it's an arguable point, as some consider Justice Cardozo the first hispanic justice.

But hello!!!???? Bush would have already nominated the clearly qualified Miguel Estrada to the Court had the Dems not torpedoed his nomination with a multi-year filibuster that was unprecedented. Never before had a Circuit Court nominee been filibustered (Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas had been filibustered, but it was clear he was going to be voted down by a wide margin had his nomination reached the Senate floor, unlike Estrada, who in all likelihood would have been confirmed).

Meanwhile, for all those Democrats whining about the need for a quick (read: rushed) hearing culminating in a prompt Senatorial rubber stamp, allow me to offer this list of Bush nominees who, in addition to the aforementioned Miguel Estrada, were denied an up or down vote for years before their nominations were ultimately confirmed, defeated, or withdrawn:

Terrence Boyle (nominee from 1991-1993 and 2001-2007 without a vote)
Priscilla Owen (5/01-5/05, confirmed)
Charles W. Pickering (5/01-1/04, recess appointment, not confirmed)
Carolyn Kuhl (6/01-12/04, withdrawn)
David W. McKeague (11/01-6/05, confirmed)
Henry Saad (11/01-3/06, withdrawn)
Susan Bieke Neilson (11/01-10/05, confirmed three months prior to her untimely death from cancer)
Richard Allen Griffin (6/02-6/05, confirmed)
William H. Pryor (4/03-6/05, confirmed)
William Gerry Myers III (5/03-1/07, withdrawn)
Janice Rogers Brown (7/03-6/05, confirmed)
Brett Kavanaugh (7/03-5/06, confirmed)
N. Randy Smith (12/05-2/07, confirmed)
Stephen Murphy III (6/06-4/09, withdrawn from Circuit nomination)
Raymond Kethledge (6/06-4/09, confirmed)
Peter Keisler (6/06-3/08, withdrawn)

Oh, and BTW, virtually all the above nominees were rated "well qualified" or "qualified" by the ABA.

I'm not suggesting, mind you, that Sotomayor's nomination be held up for years. That wouldn't be good for the Court, nor for the nation.

But the Dems are shameless hypocrites.

That's OK, Bill, I don't need the hat tip.

Just use your forum to spread the message: "in need of A-list rhetorician to credibly articulate a foreign policy alternative. New faces preferred."

Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues. Here’s an interesting question: Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him -- or her -- step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front? Is any of them enough of a risk-taker to defy the conventional wisdom that if you’re a mere senator or congressman or governor or aspirer to office, you should focus on domestic issues, that it’s hard (and it is) to take on a president on foreign policy? Will any of them seek to join Cheney and Gingrich in the foreign policy fray?

What if no younger political figure steps forward? If national security remains front and center over the next three years (a pretty safe bet), could the GOP nominee in 2012 be Gingrich...or even -- gasp! -- Cheney?

According to CNN, Obama said "he doesn’t feel 'weighed down' by race or gender in his decision."

Could you imagine if a GOP president--or worse yet--a white male GOP president, had issued this statement?

Where is Patricia Ireland? Gloria Steinem? Kweisi Mfume and Al Sharpton? And the rest of the identity politics cabal that is usually demanding, weeks in advance of the nomination, that eventual pick come from his or her respective grievance association? And that, if a female or minority nominee is not selected, it is de facto proof of the President's lack of compassion.

Mark Steyn has a long lecture in the recent edition of Hillsdale College's Imprimis newsletter that is a great read for all of you who are concerned by America's sudden lurch towards European socialism. It's a long, long read, but I highly recommend it.

Newt tells it how he sees it regarding Nancy Pelosi. It has to be one of the most honest and correct assessments I have ever heard of Speaker Pelosi. "She is either incompetent or dishonest ... those are her only two defenses ..."

Her time might be short ...

...as per Gallup (see here). This is the first time since Gallup began polling in 1995 that the percentage of people who self-identify as pro-life (rather than pro-choice) is higher than 50%.

Great interview with prominent earth scientist about problems with recent data claiming to support massive global warming.

Read about it here. Money quote:

When he had finished, the question in my mind was: who in American politics is better? The only name that came to mind was Bill Clinton, but thankfully he's retired.

"There's got to be more trouble ahead for the banks, but the government is behind them. So go long the banks and short your grandkids."

Great. I have no idea about the validity of the "long the banks" advice, but I'm pretty confident in the "short your grandkids." The national debt speaks for itself...

On the birth of your son Logan Adam! May God bless him and your family.

Glad to hear that mother and child are doing well!

w/r/t the Chrysler bankruptcy, and the toxic combination of politics, campaign contributions, and class warfare:

In the Chrysler deal, the [UAW]...were unsecured creditors and the Chrysler bondholders were secured creditors. The bondholders received 28 percent of the value of their $6.9 billion in bonds in cash; the Union will receive stock worth approximately $4.2 billion, and a note for an additional $4.58 billion, which represents 82 percent of the value of their claim. Either the government negotiators have dyslexia and have made a terrible mistake in their paperwork, or this is political payoff WRIT LARGE. Is this not the equivalent of financial water-boarding?

And thus we enter a brazen new era of government, when the White House is openly complicit in the theft of—as a matter of fact is directing the looting of—private property from investors. Welcome to the Rule of Man, or as the President calls it, change we can believe in!

SHK, this video goes out to you.

Liberals have a long history of trying to confuse the average person, who knows his own mind fairly well, with a game of semantics.

Sure, you may be against abortion (the killing of unborn children), but aren't you for "choice"?

Sure, you may be against socialism (the government takeover of the economy), but aren't you for a "new deal", a "fair deal", or a "great society"?

Sure, you may believe there's no such thing as a free lunch, but how can you argue with someone who says "health care is a right?" This country's all about "rights," right?

With the semantics of marketing liberalism in view, I bring you environmentalism's new playbook, courtesy of the NY Times:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”