But is the book great? Not so much:
It is impossible to read Dirty, Sexy Politics and come away with the impression that you have read anything other than the completely unedited ramblings of an idiot. This being a professional website for which I have a great deal of respect, I searched for a more eloquent or gentle way to accurately phrase the previous sentence – but could not find one.
There’s a lot more.
Ten tips. I’d add that blogging helps with many of these tips.
For the first time in my political life, I am in agreement with the majority:
The numbers: Bank bailouts, 61 percent disapprove versus 37 percent approve; national health care, 56 percent disapprove versus 39 percent approve; auto bailouts, 56 percent disapprove versus 43 percent approve; stimulus, 52 percent disapprove versus 43 percent approve. Only financial reform, with 61 percent approve versus 37 percent disapprove, is a winner for the representatives and senators seeking re-election.
OK, not entirely. I think that the financial reform was a mess, and will prove disastrous as well.
What I can’t figure out from this article, and I don’t have time to dig into the underlying documents, is what they’re defining as “right wing” versus “left wing.” And where do radical (i.e., those who actually follow the Koran and submit to the dictates of Mohammed) Islamists fall?
As for the fools in comments who say that both the Islamists and the “right wingers” in America want a theocracy, where is the evidence? (And no, Glenn Beck doesn’t want a theocracy.)
Me, I’m a simple sort of guy. I think that people who like big and powerful government, for whatever purpose, whether running peoples’ economic or personal lives, are left wingers. Those who value the liberty of the individual are on the “right,” and by that definition (unlike the nutty ones that the leftists come up with) I’m happy to be called a “right winger,” and even a “wingnut.” If we can’t agree on that, then the whole concept of “left” versus “right” is pretty meaningless. The only issue is where to put the so-called anarchists? The reason I say “so called” is that they don’t believe in a limited government to protect the natural rights of individuals. They don’t seem to believe in much at all, other than violence.
I think that, at this point, the SPLC should be relegated to the historical dustbin of conspiracy loons. And they’ll probably be very disappointed when the people start to take the country back in a few weeks without a shot fired.
…and the left’s status-anxiety disorder.
…why do the perceptions of violent Islamists suddenly matter when it comes to the movement of the mosque but not to the original placement of the mosque?
Heads they win, tails we lose.
I’m in DC, sitting at a table between Iowahawk and Bill Whittle. Next to Bill is Stephen Green and Scott Ott. Also at the table is Jim Hoft.
Barack Obama has lost his sex appeal. Of course, I’ve always been immune to politicians’ supposed charisma, from Reagan to Clinton.
The president continues to fantasize that he’s a campaign asset this fall:
Obama himself has largely shucked his “postpartisan” ideal, and you can expect some sharp rhetorical elbows thrown at Republicans when he addresses a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee on Monday. That’s likely to escalate in coming weeks as Obama – and first lady Michelle Obama – go stumping for Democrats.
“They’ve forgotten I politick pretty good,” he told a crowd in Austin, Texas, last month.
Oh, yeah? Tell it to Creigh Deeds, John Corzine and Martha Coakley.
I continue to challenge the conventional wisdom that Barack Obama is either a good campaigner or a smart politician. He won the nomination because the Dems wanted an alternative to the arrogant and “inevitable” Hillary and he was black. He won the election because McCain was a horrible candidate and ran a horrible campaign, people were fed up with the mushy Bush-era Republicans, and because he was black.
People have gotten to know him now, and they don’t like it.