Please provide evidence of the n-word incident.
I think they were just race baiting. They were deliberately trolling the crowd to get them to do it, and when they couldn’t, they just lied about it. It’s all they have.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Andrew Breitbart says they’re not going to take any more of this.
That’s what Pulitzer-Prize-winning authoritarian-government admirer Tom Friedman thinks the Tea Partiers should form. I always love this:
I’ve been trying to understand the Tea Party Movement. Sounds like a lot of angry people who want to get the government out of their lives and cut both taxes and the deficit. Nothing wrong with that — although one does wonder where they were in the Bush years.
They were there all along, and few of them were very happy about the spending, but they weren’t idiotic enough to think that the Democrats would be better. And sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
Anyway, I think that what Beijing Tom really wants is a watermelon tea party.
A Reuters editor defends Rush Limbaugh. With Joan Walsh making a fool of herself (again) as a bonus.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Speaking of Joan, she doesn’t understand what a bailout is, either, and accuses those who do of being “liars.”
…with a US National Security Advisor like this.
[Monday morning update]
Today, we are all Israelis. Well, OK, maybe not the National Security Advisor.
Liberals, to put it mildly, are not dealing well with their declining political fortunes. For some reason, liberals seem surprised that Americans have not warmed to the Obama administration’s policies, like government takeover of health care; bailouts and government ownership in multiple industries; wasteful and ineffective “stimulus” spending; unheard of deficits; massive tax increases slated for next year; and a foreign policy that perversely alienates our allies and caters to our enemies. There has never been a time in our history when most Americans would have approved of such policies, yet liberals are somehow convinced that today’s manifestation of longstanding voter attitudes represents a unique and sinister animus against Barack Obama and his administration.
As he goes on, Joe Klein is a poster boy for this.
Thoughts on Bill Clinton and Comedy Central, from Mark Steyn:
Bill Clinton energetically on the stump, summoning all his elder statesman’s dignity (please, no giggling) in the cause of comparing tea partiers to Timothy McVeigh. Oh, c’mon, they’ve got everything in common. They both want to reduce the size of government, the late Mr. McVeigh through the use of fertilizer bombs, the tea partiers through control of federal spending, but these are mere nuanced differences of means, not ends. Also, both “Tim” and “Tea” are three-letter words beginning with “T”: Picture him upon your knee, just Tea for Tim and Tim for Tea, you’re for him and he’s for thee, completely interchangeable. To lend the point more gravitas, President Clinton packed his reading glasses and affected his scholarly look, with the spectacles pushed down toward the end of his nose, as if he’s trying to determine whether that’s his 10 a.m. intern shuffling toward him across the broadloom or a rabid armadillo Al Gore brought along for the Earth Day photo op.
Will it work? For a long time, tea partiers were racists. Everybody knows that when you say “I’m becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending,” that’s old Jim Crow code for “Let’s get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson.” Frank Rich of the New York Times attempted to diversify the tea-party racism into homophobia by arguing that Obamacare’s opponents were uncomfortable with Barney Frank’s sexuality. I yield to no one in my discomfort with Barney Frank’s sexuality, but, with the best will in the world, I find it hard to blame it for more than the first 4 or 5 trillion dollars of federal overspending. Eschewing such cheap slurs, Time’s Joe Klein said opposition to Obama was “seditious,” because nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately for Klein, thanks to “educator” William Ayers’s education reforms, nobody knows what “seditious” means anymore.
It’s all like that. Few people can write so entertainingly about such serious subjects (though Lileks can give him a run for his money).
It’s less than a month until “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”
[Update a few minutes later]
Mark Steyn explains.
I have a rule of thumb: when a writer, especially a good one, excessively uses evasive or convoluted rhetoric, he is hiding something. Let’s try this: Obama, a very liberal politician, was smart enough to know he couldn’t win the presidency as a hard leftist. He posed as a moderate. New York Times columnists sung his praises. Pundits assured us that he was beyond ideology, a sort of philosopher-king with very neat pants. He got into office. He governed from the far Left. The president signed bill after bill, spending money we didn’t have and running up the debt. Obama insisted on a mammoth health-care bill the country hated. He egged Congress on to pass it. Meanwhile, the country recoiled. They hired a moderate on advice of pundits and media mavens and got a far-Left liberal, a ton of debt, an expanded federal government, and a slew of new taxes.
How’s that?
What’s amazing is that anyone takes David Brooks seriously, especially after this. Even more amazing that he’s still trotted out by the MSM as one of those “respectable,” “thoughtful” “conservatives.”
You will be as shocked as I am to learn that ObamaCare is going to cost more than advertised.
Well, as Queen Nancy said, we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. It’s a shame that there couldn’t have been a cheaper way. I wonder if my ObamaCare defenders in comments really believed those CBO numbers, or they were just lying leftists? Speaking of which, Matt Welch notes that, as with health care, the president is lying about financial regulation as well. All while being on the take from the industry.
As the old saying goes, the problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Speaking of which, thoughts on cronyism and the left.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some House Democrats who were stupid enough to believe the CBO estimates (if they really were) are hearing a snapping sound.
Next time a senator lectures him about Newsweak’s “invention of the year” (that doesn’t exist yet) and how Ares I-X proved that Ares I will be safe and work great, he should point out that it damaged the part of the rocket that was supposed to be reusable due to a parachute failure, that we still don’t know if we can do parachutes of this size that operate reliably, that it caused severe damage to the launch pad from scorching, and that it contained no elements of an actual Ares I.
[Update a few minutes later]
A depressing thought from Clark Lindsey:
NASA should at least have some sort of fact sheet that lays out the basics and is presented and discussed with the committee members and/or staff beforehand, especially those like Mikulski who are still open to new input. The written testimony from Bolden is clearly not doing the trick.
Of course, a fact sheet can never be long enough to inform a Senator on an appropriations committee, of all places, who doesn’t know the difference between marginal cost and recurring cost.
It’s sobering to realize that the state of confusion and superficiality displayed so vividly in these hearings on NASA, which involves funding in the mere nineteen billion dollar range, must certainly occur with most every item in the budget, including those that involve “real money”.
I think we saw this on full display with both the failed “stimulus” and health care, in which we had to “pass the bill to find out what was in it.”