Filed under: Funnies
This week has been light as I struggled to balance work with my wanting to post. Unfortunately, the need to complete several projects on time trumped any time I had to read the news, let alone the time to comment on it. Still, here’s the very light week in review:
- Thomas Sowell explains how our Democrat leaders don’t want to take responsibility
- Prayers for Tony
- Dobson questions Fred Thompson’s “being a real Christian”
Finally, the Friday funny. From Wikipedia:
American Gladiators was a TV show that ran between 1989 and 1996. It was a physical game show, in which the contestants (two male and two female) matched themselves against the program’s stable of athletes in a variety of feats of strength and agility. The champions at the end of each season won a prize package, which varied from items that included a new car, a trip, and money (usually over $100,000 total). The contests were often quite extravagant and elaborate, with challenges featuring things such as highwires, steel cages, swinging ropes, and other obstacle course fare.
I loved this show when I was little. Go to YouTube for more clips from the show, and enjoy the weekend!
I actually read this little tidbit from USNews.com yesterday, but when I returned to the Drudge reports this morning, the link was still at a prevalent position on that page, and so I felt compelled to read it again. Here are some clips from James Dobson’s views on Fred Thompson’s relgiousity:
“Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson said of Thompson. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression,” Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson’s characterization of the former Tennessee senator. “Thompson is indeed a Christian,” he said. “He was baptized into the Church of Christ.”
[...]
[A spokesperson from Thompson] said that, while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless “has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith.”
“We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,” Schneeberger added. “Dr. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ about such a possibility.”
I’m very disturbed by all this. What right does Dobson have to comment about whether or not Fred Thompson meets Dobson’s own definition of a Christian? “Christian” is not synonymous with “evangelical.” It means, instead, as I think most Christians know, one who has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. Does Dobson know whether Thompson has done this? No. He does not.
Dobson goes one, while not declaring support for him directly, to praise Newt Gingrich saying:
that Gingrich was the “brightest guy out there” and “the most articulate politician on the scene today.”
Gingrich recently appeared on Dobson’s daily Focus on the Family radio program, carried by upward of 2,000 American radio stations, where he made headlines by discussing an extramarital affair he was having even as he pursued impeachment against President Bill Clinton for his handling of the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair.
I’m not minimizing Gingrich, but Dobson, like the rest of us, knows about the affair that he had during the Clinton years. Does this diminish his Christianity? This whole article is enough to make somebody furious, and any Christian should critically examine what Dobson is saying before he or she buys into it. Dobson needs to remember that, “Though shalt not judge,” and that questioning–in a public forum at that!!–whether or not somebody is a “real Christian” is nothing more but casting judgment on said individual. Back of, Jim, and keep your nose out if it!
technorati tags: Religion, 2008Election, Fred Thompson, James Dobson
I heard yesterday on FoxNews radio on Sirius that Tony Snow’s colon cancer had returned. I have no relation to him whatsoever. I do not know the man personally. I’ve never met him. I’ve never even been in the same building as him. Still, though, my heart sunk on hearing the news.
The Washington Post has more:
Snow, 51, who beat colon cancer two years ago, disclosed that it has returned and spread to his liver, delivering a brutal blow to his family and friends and to a White House already reeling under a relentless barrage of bad news.
The development shattered some of his colleagues. Snow’s deputy, Dana Perino, broke into tears as she announced the news at an off-camera briefing yesterday morning. President Bush later told reporters in the Rose Garden that he was praying for his spokesman. White House telephones rang all day with messages of concern.
“It was a jolt for everybody, to say the least,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president.
[...]
But Snow vowed to attack the cancer aggressively and return to work. “It may take a while, but I’ll be back,” he told a colleague who recounted the exchange.
I’m sure he will. His power behind the podium as he has served under the Bush administration has shown that he doesn’t take crap from anybody. And I doubt he’d give up without fighting the cancer. Best wishes for Mr. Snow, our thoughts and prayers are with him.
technorati tags: Tony Snow, Cancer, White House, Bush
Thomas Sowell offers up a concise and poignant explanation of just way Grandmother Nancy and here little buddies have not, as they promised in the lead up to the ‘06 Midterm Elections, quickly and without guilt or feeling of betraying the troops, defunded and thus brought to a grinding halt the Iraq War, which recently “celebrated” (for lack of a better word) it’s 4th anniversary. Here’s what he has to say:
If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it...[Why? Because] to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences — and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.
Ah, and so there it is in black and white. The democrats cannot hold true to their promises because it could prevent them from winning the ‘08 election. Surprise! Who’s politicizing the war now?!?!
The bigger issue to me, though, is the fact that it is, in fact, their being faced with reality that is truly preventing the democrats from being so quick to sever the monies the troops need. Why, then, would the Dems continue to act as if it was so simple to pull the funding? Why not say (just like the Republicans have) that to end the war now will create a crisis that will likely draw as back into war in the future? Why? Because, as Sowell pointed out, that could cost them the election. All this talk of “bipartisanship” and “doing what’s best for America” that the Dems have been spewing since last August still has yet to show up. It’s sad and highly disturbing, but not at all surprising.
I suppose it can be summed like this: The Dems aren’t interested in achieving success in Iraq, they’re interested in achieving success in ‘08. And if that means continuing to make empty promises, then they’ll go that extra mile without batting an eye…
technorati tags: Democrats, War on Terror, War in Iraq, 2008 Election
Filed under: Uncategorized
Retroactive to March 19, 2007:
Shepherd is on spring break, and frankly I am simply too lazy to write anything. If the mood hits, I may be back during the week to post a little update. If not, I’ll be back Monday, March 26…All you Shepherd students: have a good spring break!
Filed under: 2008 Election
Fred Thompson has finally conceded that he is at least considering a run, or so his interview with Chris Wallace seemed to suggest. More from Townhall:
It is a major development because Thompson has so many undeniable qualifications for the nomination. First and foremost, he is a true-blue conservative, comfortable with all the positions on social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc.) that give Rudy Giuliani so much difficulty and that have inspired John McCain and Mitt Romney to “flip-flop” in recent years to curry favor with social conservatives. In the second place, he is (as his television career demonstrates) an immensely attractive personality at 64, with a rumpled and thoughtful charm. Thirdly, his service for eight years in the U.S. Senate (four times Barack Obama’s current tenure) attests to his success as a political leader. And finally, he hails from a border state — Tennessee — with all that implies for electability in the South and elsewhere.
Thompson’s biggest disadvantage may be that he is entering the race rather late, as things seem to be shaping up this year. Many of the big donors, and most of the knowledgeable campaign managers, have already been signed up by one or another of the candidates who have preceded him into the race.
This is good, good news! Especially when we consider a new CBS report that suggests what Republicans already know–we’re not happy with the current field of candidates:
Democratic voters are optimistic about their prospects — they like their candidates and they think their party will win the presidency in 2008. Not so for Republicans. Although there are many announced and yet-to-announce likely candidates for the Republican Party’s nomination for president, GOP voters aren’t happy: A majority — 57 percent — says they wish there were more choices.
While I have personally made the case for Rudy here and here, I still don’t care for him. I could accept him, but I can’t get excited about him…
For more on Fred, visit see here . Or, for a transcript of his interview with Chris Wallace, see Sister Toldjah
technorati tags: FredThompson, 2008Election
Hugo Chavez is at it again. Trying to out do America, this time by rivaling President Bush’s Latin America tour, Chavez gives us the following revalation:
“Those who want to go directly to hell, they can follow capitalism,” Mr Chavez said in the town of Trinidad in Bolivia. And those of us who want to build heaven here on earth, we will follow socialism,” he added
Thanks, Hugo, for that little nugget of joy. Somehow I feel like I’ve heard that before… Oh, oh, I remember now. Marx. Or was it Lenin? Trotsky? Could it have been Kruschev? Wait. Now I remember, it was Fidel Castro. Yet somehow this shinning utopian Never-Neverland has yet to be spawned, doesn’t it?
I think Regean aptly described ole Hugo’s Communist-Complex Disorder:
How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin? How do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands communism.
The rest of the article covering this story paints the picture (fact or not fact) that Comrade Hugo has helped those in need by more than “ten fold” the aid offered by Bush & Co.
One last little note: While searching for a snippet from one of the Fab. Five from above, I stumbled upon this. Click the link and scroll down a bit, you’ll see…Now really, a Lenin BBQ apron (see image above)? Doesn’t this whole display run counter to Lenin? I mean, if you’re a Leninite, do you BUY something from a capitalist company? Hmm. Points to ponder, no?
Filed under: Funnies
a ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope and our nice red uniforms…
But first, this very short Week in Review:
- Sens. Clinton and Obama served southern-style
- Townhall makes the case for Rudy
Finally, this week’s funny! Monty Python has appeared here before, but they’re just so good that they deserve at least one more visit:
Have a great weekend, I may be back with more later…
Townhall has an interesting piece comparing the Mayor to the General. That is, comparing Rudy Giuliani to Dwight Eisenhower.
In a normal time, a mayor of New York would be a Nelson Rockefeller-esque candidate: the man on the left of the party, with no broad appeal to the base. In a normal time, a mayor of New York who had been twice divorced, had carried on a rather public affair and had appeared on national television in drag would have no shot at the Republican Party nomination.
But this is no normal time, and Giuliani is no Rockefeller. Yes, he’s socially liberal. Yes, he’s anti-gun. But unlike Rockefeller — and like Eisenhower — Giuliani has cachet. He has an earned reputation for leadership. His conduct on 9/11 unified a city and a country. He talks tough on terror, and he has the credibility of experience.
Eisenhower was no hard-line Republican. Barry Goldwater rightly described him as “a dime store New Dealer.” Both Democrats and Republicans recruited him in the run-up to the 1952 election. But when it came to the general election, Eisenhower dominated.
Giuliani has similar potential. With northern states solidifying blue and southern states solidifying red, electoral gridlock has set in. 2006 was a reaction to the war in Iraq and a series of Republican corruption scandals; it did not end the stalemate that has been in place since the mid-1990s.
Indeed this seems to be the stance that many Rudy Republicans are taking. They’re framing the debate in terms of the War on Terror, rather than the War on Social Issues. It’s smart. It’s effective. It’s even working (somewhat) on me! But I, like so many other Republicans, seem to fall more solidly in this camp:
By and large, the 6,000-plus attendees [at CPAC] seemed lukewarm on the candidates — many of the attendees sported stickers condemning “Rudy McRomney,” a combination of Giuliani, Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts Governor and alleged flip-flopper Mitt Romney.
I like Rudy. But I don’t love him. He doesn’t bring out any sort of emotional response from me. Neither does McCain. Nor does Romney. I think Rudy could do a good job. But I don’t know that he’ll do a great job. Neither would McCain. Nor would Romney. To me, this isn’t a case of “which one do I like the best,” it is a case of “which one do I like the least.” Much like the Democrats had their “anybody but Bush” campaign in ‘04, I have an “anybody but a Democrat” mentality for ‘08.
A final blurb from that column:
For Republicans, it is more important that a Democrat stay out of the White House than that a Ronald Reagan conservative occupy it.
Even though I can understand–and somewhat even buy into–that policy, is it any different to elect a liberal Republican than it is to elect a conservative Democrat? If a Lieberman-esque Democrat ran, would there be any difference in supporting him over Rudy? I don’t really think so…
technorati tags: 2008Election,, RudyGiuliani, John, McCain, MittRomney,
The two front runners for the Democrat presidential nomination in ‘08 spent the weekend in Selma, Alabama this weekend. Vying for the “black vote,” the two campaigned throughout one of the foremost regions during the Civil Rights movement. The media coverage has been hot and heavy on this, and so I felt that I should say a few words…
First of all, I’d like to note the shift from “Northern Intellectual” to “down-home country girl that Senator Clinton underwent. Though perhaps not conveyed within her message, the delivery of that message clearly communicated this sort of shift. Take a listen:
“The Chosen One,” who, since elevating himself into the viable candidate realm has seen a surge in his support from the black community, underwent a similar change. From the very rigid, almost snooty sounding oratory of his past speaking engagements, including his 2004 address to the DNC, Obama shifted to a Southern ‘black-Baptist minister” sounding rhetoric of this weekend:
It almost makes me want to throw my hands in the air and shout hallelujah…
Don Surber, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite bloggers, compares quotes from the two candidates via the AP:
Let’s compare the quotes, courtesy of the Times and Nedra Pickler of AP:
Obama: “I’m here because somebody marched for our freedom. I’m here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants.”
Hillary: “After all the hard work getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes, we’ve got to stay awake because we’ve got a march to continue. How can we rest while poverty and inequality continue to rise?”
Obama: “How can it be that our voting rates dropped down to 30, 40, 50 percent when people shed their blood to allow us to vote?”
Hillary: “Today, it is giving Senator Obama the chance to run for president. And by its logic and spirit, it is giving the same chance to Gov. Bill Richardson to run as a Hispanic. And, yes, it is giving me that chance.”
Obama: “If it hasn’t been for Selma, I wouldn’t be here. This is the site of my conception. I am the fruits of your labor. I am the offspring of the movement. When people ask me if I’ve been to Selma before, I tell them I’m coming home.”
Hillary: “We’ve got to stay awake, we’ve got to stay awake because we have a march to finish, a march towards one America. Poverty and growing inequality matter. Health care matters! The people of the Gulf Coast matter! Our soldiers matter! Our future matters!”
Obama: “I know if cousin Pookie would vote, if brother Jethro would get off the couch and stop watching Sportscenter and go register some people and get them to the polls, we’d have a different kind of politics. Kick off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes!”
I’m sorry, but it really is no contest, based on those quotes. I’m sure Hillary was well received. But it was Obama’s day.
Certainly Hillary’s tactic of connecting the Civil Rights movement and the history of slavery in the United States to the Women’s Rights Movement is not unique. The two have historic links, and so her attempt to link the two as a means of linking herself and her ability to run was a smart, if not predictable, maneuver.
That said, Obama’s speech was certainly more rousing. As I noted above, it had that Southern-preacher feel. It made me want to shout out, even though I see him as full of, well, you know. He attempted to overcome the accusations that he’s “not-black-enough” (which, I think, would be more accurately assessed by saying he’s not “African-American enough” if by this we are trying to say that he didn’t live through the Civil Rights movement, that he doesn’t have a background cemented in slavery, etc. etc.) by totally reframing the debate. Let’s examine this further…
RealClearPolitics puts it this way:
Though of African descent via his Kenyan father, Obama is half white and is not descended of slaves. He doesn’t share that heritage, nor did he pay his dues in the civil rights movement.
But they continue:
Obama has made clear that he is a new generation of American black. He doesn’t have to genuflect to the civil rights period, nor is he tethered to a heritage that seems at times to hold others hostage.
It is precisely Obama’s ability to address America’s broader needs — black and white, red and blue — that makes him accessible and acceptable (and nonthreatening) to whites weary of the burden of the nation’s racist past.
He is, in other words, that next generation history has been waiting for.
It is precisely his ability to manipulate the debate that is seemingly responsible for Obama’s fast rise to political prominence. Whether he deserves it or not, Obama is the clear victor here. It is his ability to frame the debate which is allowing him to overcome Al Sharpton’s assessment that, “Just because you are our color doesn’t make you our kind.”
I’m often asked by my less-politically-inclined friends this hypothetical question who I think is going to take the Democrat primary (and then who would I vote for if forced to chose between Hillary/Obama). Up until this point, I was solid in my assessment that Hillary would, baring entry of some other candidate, easily cruise to a victory. Now, the Senator from New York seems to be in danger. If Hillary wants this nomination, she needs to find the same sort of fire that Obama seems to possess. That seems to be her only hope.
technorati tags: Clinton, Obama, 2008Election, RaceRelations, CivilRights
