Not that I'd defend Liz Cheney for one mili-second, but I'd wager a small amount that she was taken by surprise that Mary and her wife Heather responded via Facebook to her maundering on Fox last Sunday.
After all, Mary remained tight-lipped and above the fray for years when her father was Vice President. She could be counted on to maintain silence no matter what was said about her and her lover or about the rocky road to LGBT rights.
Why wouldn't Liz expect the same in her quixotic try for the U.S. Senate? After all, La Liz is in a teensy bit of trouble (she's not doing well in the polls), and a pandering bit of disparaging marriage equality would play well with the base (Quite a loaded word, that!) and would possibly give her a poll bump or two up. Right?
Ooops.
Mama bear growled back this time.
And it's about time she did.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
The Mary and Liz Show
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Dowd’s virtual fib.
The New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd recently pulled a boner in her column. Here’s what was printed in the on-line piece:
[Obama’s] own chuckleheaded remark: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
And here’s the context of the quote from the President’s remarks (from the Huffington Post):
"Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own," Obama said then. "I'm always struck by people who think, `Well, it must be because I was just so smart.' There are a lot of smart people out there. `It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.' Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help."
Obama cited teachers and mentors who helped "create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges."
Then, Obama teed up the line that left Republicans giddy. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet," Obama said, returning to his thesis.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
So, Dowd, like the Republican talking points took 14 words out of more than 100 and left her Sunday readers with the impression, the same impression the Republicans want people to have, that the President was disrespecting business entrepreneurs throughout the country.
Shame on you Ms Dowd. You work with words; you know better.
Trust, Dear Reader, but verify. Otherwise you might be telling a virtual lie.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday, July 25, 2012
Deliberate misinterpretation?
Jonathan V. Last, writing in a newsletter for The Weekly Standard, makes a strange case for the false claim that Mr. Obama is somehow against American entrepreneurs. (I reproduce much of the emailed newsletter below.)
Last includes a paragraph from Mr. Obama’s speech, and then goes on to, what?, deliberately misinterpret his words?
In essence, Mr. Obama states that successful people’s success depends in some measure on help others have given, or infrastructure which has been provided by the body politic. How can his words, taken in context be misconstrued?
Yet Last does misconstrue. He writes that there is a “…mountain of people who do succeed on their own merits.” And he goes on to laud Steve Jobs as one of those persons.
I wonder if Mr. Jobs would agree with the President or with Mr. Last. Did Jobs invent the internet? Did Jobs acquire the skills needed to produce his first working computer through auto-didactic means? Did he build the garage in which he worked? Did he string the wiring for the electricity he used?
One could go on. Doubtless Last doesn’t care; if he did he wouldn’t have posted this piece in the first place.
Not your finest moment of intellectual integrity, Mr. Last.
Trust, but verify, Dear Gentle Reader(s).
The capture:
Sphere: Related Content
July 25, 2012
By Jonathan V. Last
COLD OPEN
It's been over a week, so I want to remind you of President Obama's amazing riff on entrepreneurialism at an event in Roanoke, Virginia. Relive the glory:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn't—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.It's astonishing, isn't it? I'm on record for being an enormous squish on the question of capitalism, but when I heard this rant, I snapped my head back and thought, Jeez, he doesn’t really believe this? Does he?
It's undeniably true that lots of successful people didn't get rich on their own or through good and valuable work. Plenty of people are born to money, prestige, and power—through no efforts of their own. Plenty of people get rich adding no value—moral or economic—to society. Think about all of the people who've gotten wealthy by trucking in "green energy" over the last few years. Or made killings in finance by working with the derivatives that brought our economy to the brink of collapse. In capitalism, the market is usually efficient and wise in the long term, but market failures happen all the time in the short term. And because of those market failures, plenty of people get rich by accident.
But here's the thing: Those outliers are dwarfed by the mountain of people who do succeed on their own merits. And their success in turn creates the opportunities for others to succeed, too.
Steve Jobs is a popular example of the genius entrepreneur—a guy who succeeded in a crowded space because he had particular talents that no one else did. But whenever I go into an Apple Store, what strikes me is how many opportunities Jobs created for other entrepreneurs. The iPhone and iPad created entire ecosystems where other companies stepped in and prospered along with Apple—cases and cords and apps.
President Obama looks at the Apple Store and sees companies that needed the help of others to succeed.
I look at the Apple Store and see companies whose success helps others succeed as well.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Sap, indeed
David Brooks, over at The New York Times, has unloaded on President Obama.
Brooks claims to have been “a sap” for believing just about anything Mr. Obama has said over the past 2 1/2 years because of the specifics in the President’s new plan to cut some taxes and raise some others.
But Mr. Brooks’ sappiness really becomes obvious when, towards the end of his column he writes: “at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think.”
Oh, Dave, Dave, Dave.
If you believe Republicans respect the average American, you’re such a sap.
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday, May 18, 2011
Frum-a-dumb-dumb
There isn’t much from David Frum with which I agree; this quote, lifted from Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish, is one.
Writing about the Gingrich-vs-Ryan-Medicare-suggestion kerfuffle, Frum pens:
[T]he American public will not accept this kind of reform and will smash any politician who tries to force it upon them. There are ways to reduce the fiscal burden of Medicare, but telling seniors to buy their own damn healthcare is not going to be one of them. I wish it were somebody other than the Kenyan-anticolonialism-sharia law candidate making that argument, but it’s an important argument from any source.
Of course this proposal of Ryan’s is right wing social engineering. How can anyone not see that?
For once in his strange little life, Gingrich gets it right and has to apologize. Where’s the justice?
And I’m loving it.
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related ContentTuesday, December 7, 2010
Would you buy a used car from…
Mitch McConnell?
If you would, why?
In a New York Times article discussing the President’s concession to the Senatorial Republicans’ holding middle class tax cuts hostage, McConnell is quoted as saying nice things about Mr. Obama’s “openness to preventing tax hikes.”
The package will reportedly cost $900 billion dollars which will have to be borrowed. At some point the $900 billion will have to be repaid—with interest. That’ll push the total cost of this package quite near the trillion dollar mark.
Does McConnell think the re-payment will be made without raising taxes?
“Borrow and spend” makes much less sense than “tax and spend.”
Nothing implies a failure of the American education system more than the fact that the Republicans continue to get the public to vote against its own best interest.
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, December 2, 2010
Frustration
How’s this, Dear Gentle Reader(s), for frustration: the U.S. Senate is on track to fail to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the 111th Congress.
What has the lip service of the President done to prevent this? Not much.
It would be nice if Senator Reid would give something other than a sleep-inducing speech about Republican intransigence. It would also be nice if chocolate covered cherries grew on trees.
No single-payer health plan. No movement towards more favorable policies for the middle class.
Surviving the 8 years of G.W. (Bring on the torturers!) Bush’s administration wasn’t pleasant. It was probably a good exercise for 10 years of Republican obsequiousness to the super wealthy (Obama’s last two and Romney’s eight) which are about to descend upon us.
22 months of frustration.
Sigh.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, September 4, 2008
About that "connection"...
Not, Dear Gentle Reader(s), that it matters, but before one takes the Republican National Committee's claim about how much or how well its candidates relate to "Americans," let's look at some specifics as reported on NPR's "All Things Considered." The recording is entitled, "Diversity at GOP, Democratic Conventions Examined."
At the Democratic convention:
44% minorities
24% Black
12% Hispanic
Slightly more women than men
At the Republican convention:
At both conventions the average age was 57.36 total Black delegates; 1.5%, lowest in 40 years,
highest ever 7% in 20045% Hispanic
68% Men
32% women
Now, which party's convention better reflected the demographics of the population at large?
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, March 21, 2008
Buckley v Vidal: The last word?
Of course, Dear Gentle Reader(s), it was to be expected that Gore Vidal would eventually find a conduit for his own "obituary" of William F Buckley, Jr., and it is via Truthdig, an award-winning blog edited by Robert Scheer. It's an amusing column, as are nearly all of Vidal's efforts.
Admired quote: Buckley was a world-class American liar on the far right who would tell any lie he thought he could get away with. Years of ass-kissing famous people in the press and elsewhere had given him, he felt, a sort of license to libelously slander those hated liberals who, from time to time, smoked him out as I did in Chicago, when I defended the young people in Grant Park by denying that they were Nazis and that the only “pro- or crypto-Nazi” I could think of was himself.
How could one, DGR(s), not admire such audacity? It is to be hoped that someone will send Andrew Sullivan, an admirer of Buckley's who should know better, a link to this post.
Buckley admirers, trust, but verify.
"Andrew Sullivan"
Buckley
Gore Vidal
Andrew Sullivan
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Muckroom Follies 3.13.08 Historical Accuracy?
Over at the Muckroom, one William Rusher offers another paean to William F. Buckiley, Jr., and the mid-20th century rise of "conservatism."
That's OK. One expects, Dear Gentle Reader(s), that such would appear upon the occasion of the passing of Buckley and that such will continue for some time. After all, given the current public regard for the conservative movement as exemplified by the Bush administration, they're going to resurrect whatever shining moments they can for as long as they need.
One wonders, though, why they don't include President Lyndon Johnson as a major player in the rise of conservatism. After all, Mr. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to some, gave the conservatives the opportunity to capitalize on the festering social unrest of the day: America was a segregated country when LBJ came to power. It wasn't when he left. From his very first hours in office, he would move to combat it on a broad front. But he also knew not an inch would be won cheaply. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to many of us a watershed in American history. It was one of the most exhilarating triumphs of the Johnson years. Yet, late on the night of signing the bill, I found the President in a melancholy mood. I asked what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come," he said. Even as his own popularity soared in that heady year, the President saw the gathering storm of a backlash.
Senator Goldwater's "Southern Strategy" enabled the Republican party to gain a foothold in the South, and the rest is, as they say, history.
Buckley's intellectual foundation making aside, the conservatives of 2008 would not have been so successful without the progressive vision and determination to do the right thing of Lyndon B. Johnson.
Don't, though, expect too many conservative water carriers to acknowledge LBJ's contribution. They're ashamed of what it made them do.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, March 6, 2008
Muckroom Follies 3.06.08 Another Pearl!
Who, Dear Gentle Reader(s), would've thought it possible? Over at the Townhall muckroom, another voice of reason has emerged!
Hie thee, then, over to Steve Chapman's "McCain's Consistent Folly on Iraq," where you will find a litany of Senator McCain's errors about the Iraqi situation.
Chapman ends his piece with this: McCain says the current "strategy is succeeding in Iraq."His apparent definition of success is that American forces will stay on in huge numbers as long as necessary to keep violence within acceptable limits. We were told we had to increase our numbers so we could leave. Turns out we had to increase our numbers so we could stay.
Five years after the Iraq invasion, we've suffered more than 30,000 dead and wounded troops, incurred trillions in costs and found that Iraqis are unwilling to overcome their most basic divisions. And no end is in sight. If you're grateful for that, thank John McCain.
Prior to that finale, Chapman recites the Republican nominee's flips with regards to the president's war policies.
Thank, also, Mr.Chapman. Why should we give another blinkered Republican the power to keep us in Iraq?
Trust, but verify.
Friday, May 25, 2007
It's a tearful croc (crock?)
So, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) gives a tearful speech on the House floor during the debate yesterday (May 24, 2007) over funding the military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Believing Boehner's sincerity would be easier if dadgummed history and certain facts didn't get in the way. Boehner was part of the Republican Congressional leadership which kow-towed to the Bush administration's planning for the invasion of Iraq--which was a success, and the post-planning for Iraq after Hussein had been deposed--which, kindly, has not been a success.
Go back and read Robert Novak's column from March 13, 2003.
Here's a quote which calls into question the validity of all this current Republican mantra of listening to generals instead of politicians: "[Secretary of the Army, Thomas] White last week did not join the Pentagon's civilian leadership in contradicting Shinseki's estimate but endorsed the general's credentials. Not only did this undermine Rumsfeld's efforts to gain control of the officer corps that he felt ran wild during the Clinton days, but it raised the specter of a long and difficult occupation of Iraq."
We know who won that debate.
In 2003, Mr. Bush listened to his political appointees and not the general in charge.
In 2007, Mr. Boehner weeps for the position in which our troops have been placed, and encourages his House colleagues to listen to the general and not the politician.
Too little. Too late.
Crocodile tears.
Trust, but verify.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
"...It's a long, long time...
...from May to December..." but it's a longer time from May to April, forget about September.
Salon.com is reporting (actually, the source is the Washington Post) that Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who "runs" Iraq on a day-to-day basis, wants to continue the surge until April, 2008.
So, when all these congressional members of the Republican party, senators and representatives, talk about a re-evaluation of the surge and of Iraqi policies in September, 2007, what do they mean?
More of the same?
Is the May talk about a September hard look merely a red herring dragged across the trail of continued carnage until next April?
Trust, but verify.