Remind Me Again Who Shills For Their Party?


During the last eight years, if a conservative blogger dared say anything in support of Bush or Congressional Republicans, we were accused of being shills, being paid to say/write what we said/wrote. Which explains why so many conservative bloggers are retired and living on their own private islands.

Turns out that was mere projection by the left:

Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.

It’s a development that’s creating tensions on the left and raises questions about the future role of the blogosphere at a time when a Dem is in the White House and liberalism could be headed for a period of sustained ascendancy.

A number of these top bloggers agreed to come on record with me after privately arguing to these groups that they deserved a share in the ad wealth and couldn’t be taken for granted any longer.

“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

In other words, they’re kissing Obama’s ass as much as a human being possibly can, yet they’re not even getting so much as a moist towelette to wipe themselves off with. And then they have the gall to go public and complain about it! Talk about prostituting yourself.

So now we know what makes these left-wing blogs tick: money. They’ll say and do anything you want them to say, all you have to do is meet their price.

The liberal blogosphere is just now discovering something we conservative bloggers learned years ago: when your party is in power, you’ll get very little, if any, support from said party. They don’t need to sign you up or convert you over to their side, you’re already a member of the team (whether you wanted to be or not). Why would they pay you to write about issue “X” if it’s something you’d most likely write about for free, anyway? Only an idiot would do that. They don’t call it “free publicity” for nothing, you know.

You know what’s REALLY ironic here? It’s taken their party getting into power for liberal bloggers to realize that having said liberals in charge hurts their bottom line. Go figure. Something we knew eight, ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, they just now get. lol

(cross-posted on Liberty Pundit)

When Is A Bow Not A Bow?


To answer my post’s title: obviously, when it’s B. Hussein Obama that does it:

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Whew…now that’s some spin. I knew it was coming (the spin)…

This guy, I have to tell you, is going to make the Clinton spin-machine look like child’s play.

…I just didn’t think they’d be this blatant about it. Like we can’t look it up and see for ourselves. Pfft.

Here’s the video, just in case you’re one of the three Americans in the world who hasn’t seen it (at about the :45 mark):

Now, I’m no expert on the subject (and, really, who is?), but that’s clearly a bow. It wasn’t someone bending over to shake another person’s hand. If we are to believe what they’re telling us, either Obama would have to be about ten feet tall or the King of Saudi Arabia would have to be about a foot tall…or both. Of course, people on the left think the average American is nothing but a huge boob that’s incapable of thinking for himself, so I guess they thought they could get away with this. They might have gotten someone to believe it wasn’t a bow if they said, I dunno, that he was comparing “sizes”, if you get my drift. At least that would have been both believable and plausible.

Which brings us to the age-old riddle: “How can you tell when a Democrat is lying? Their mouth is moving.”

Update: Hah!


(Cross-posted at Liberty Pundit.)

Democrats Do Two Things When In Power: Raise Taxes And Gut The Military


When it comes to Democrat administrations, you can count on them doing two things: raising taxes and gutting the military. Carter did it, Clinton did it, and now Obama is preparing to do it.

The New York Times thinks Obama isn’t going far enough (go figure) and should cut even more. The Wall Street Journal thinks the cuts go too far. Me? I’m inclined to fall somewhere in the middle on some items, but overall I think they go to far and sacrifice our defense in the name of pushing a socialist agenda.

The F-22 is expensive, but worth it. They should build several more until they at least get the newest plane (the Joint Strike Fighter) in production. The arguement from the left is that these planes don’t have an enemy, that they are so advanced that no other nation is capable of matching them. Well, that’s the idea. That’s why we build planes like this, for absolute air superiority. We don’t build planes like this, then sooner or later someone else will, and we’ll be behind.

The navy should not be allowed to fall below 12 carriers. This plan calls for them eventually falling to 10, and that’s only going to lead to longer deployments, less recruiting (who wants to stay out at sea for eight months or so?), and longer reaction times to a world crisis. The navy plans, or used to plan, for three carriers for every one patrol station: one actually on station, one in transit to or from the patrol station, and one ship in repair/refit. This will stretch our forces to the breaking point.

The DDX, I agree, should be terminated. They are way too expensive, there’s no real need for them (except perhaps a shore bombardament capability, but they may not fill that role properly), and their overall design is questionable. Far better to update the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke designs (or even the CG 47s) and continue to produce them. They’re a proven system.

Missile defense, both for homeland security and battlefield security, should remain a top priority. With nations like North Korea and Iran trying to build long range nukes it’s irresponsible not to do this. The left downplays the threat, that they would only be able to produce one or just a few such missiles. That may or may not be true, but it would only take one missile to end our way of life.

I could go on and on, but for the sake of brevity I’ll just say this: with a resurgent Russia, threats from rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, and a war on terrorism to fight — not to mention the numerous humanitarian missions of our forces perform when called — now is not the time to gut the military in this fashion. Yes, cuts can be made, and every program should be looked at under a microscope. But price tags should not be what determines what stays and what goes. That makes us vulnerable.

(Cross-posted at my blog, Liberty Pundit)

Well, he said he’d lower the oceans and cool the planet….


Obama thinks he may be able to control the weather. No, really.

The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

Did someone forget to tell Dr. Holdren and the President that the world has been cooling, not warming?

Are we sure The Brain didn’t get a job with the administration when no one was looking? And has he paid his taxes?

(Cross-posted at Public Secrets, my home on the Web)

Don’t blame Obama for Sarkozy’s petty jealousy


It’s hard for me to work up much if any anger over President Obama’s failure to visit the Normandy on his recent European trip. My first thought when I saw this headline:

Barack Obama rejects Normandy trip to avoid offending Germany

…was a hearty “WTF?” The President of the United States passed up touring one of our most sacred battlefields with the President of a close ally? What the frack was he thinking? “Here we go again,” I thought. “Another liberal-lefty with contempt for our military and our history.” I was all set to write a post clubbing PBO for yet again dissing the country he leads in order to placate others.

Then I read the rest of the article. The text makes it clear that France was trying to use the American president as part of a “prestige contest” with Britain and Germany. Sarkozy’s ego and French pride were the problems here, not Obama. Not this time:

“During this trip, we wanted to maintain a balance between the British, German and France”. A White House spokesman in London declined to comment. Last month, White House officials briefed that a Normandy visit had been considered but it had not been logistically possible.

Mr Obama will arrive in Strasbourg on Friday for the Nato summit. He will hold a meeting with Mr Sarkozy and a brief press appearance in Strasbourg and then fly to Baden-Baden to do exactly the same with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. He will then fly to Prague on Saturday.

Mr Sarkozy is said by French officials to be piqued that Gordon Brown became the first European leader to meet Mr Obama and was then lavished with praise by him at a 50-minute joint press conference in London on Wednesday.

The French president tried unsuccessfully to meet Mr Obama before he was sworn in after the G20 summit in Washington last November, even stationing a French military plane on 24-hour standby nearby to whisk him to Chicago should the then US president-elect change his mind.

He had also hoped Mr Obama would agree to a meeting before attending the G20 summit in London on April 3. The French had suggested that Mr Obama fly from London to Normandy on Friday morning for a stop before the Nato summit. Instead, he is going directly to Strasbourg.

The president’s objective for the summit on this trip was to gain support for his economic agenda (whether I like it or not), and getting into the middle of a junior-high clique-fight among jealous heads of government wouldn’t support that goal, nor would it be fitting the office of the President. There’s a much better time for Obama to visit Normandy and commemorate our sacrifices there, as the article itself points out: the 65th anniversary of the landings this upcoming June.

In the end, I think the Telegraph’s headline is gratuitous, meant to inflame Obama opponents, not enlighten. It doesn’t help the Right’s cause to work itself into a lather that will only make it look irrational to middle-of-the-road voters. Do I wish PBO and his staff had found some way to avoid getting mixed up in intra-EU games while making a quiet, dignified visit to Normandy? Yes, it would have been better. But I just don’t see this as the craven appeasement of the Germans that the Telegraph paints it to be.

I’ve said before that, while I’m quite willing and ready to criticize Obama and the Democrats when they merit it (which is often), I will not descend to the level the Democrats and the far Left hit with their incessant, irrational, and Copperheaded attacks on President Bush. Obama doesn’t deserve it, the nation doesn’t need it, and it does no one any good. We can and must be better than that. The Telegraph’s headline writer should have been.

LINKS: Jim Hoff and Dan Collins muster the outrage for me.

(Cross-posted at Public Secrets, my home on the Web)