Disqus - Friends of VastVariety

Re: Romney Wins The Maine Caucus

The Pajama Pundit — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:30:09 -0000

I think that Republicans need to realize that the party is changing - and changing fast.

McCain, Romney, Ron Paul - none of these guys would have had a chance in 2000. Hell, look at Johnny Mac back then - TROUNCED by Gee Dubya Bee.

And Steve_O (from waaaay up the comment line), you are correct when you say "The Ron-ites are pretty much down to-'it's not about winning, it's about getting the message out.' Now, I'm no "Ron-ite"... Ron Paul may have questionable ties and publications in the past, but his message is definitely old-school conservative.

Just my thoughts.

Re: Barack Obama’s Yes We Can Music Video

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:09:57 -0000

After the tactics that the Clintons (note that I've pluralized the name) have used against the Obama campaign, I highly doubt that the senator from Illinois will sit on a presidential ticket with Hillary. Obama can run for president again in four/eight years if Clinton gets the nomination.

This video is indeed moving. I think that we will see a large surge of "Obamacans" should Barack get the Democratic nomination.

Oh, and Joe - I truly believe that we will see a McCain/Huckabee ticket on the GOP side of the aisle. Giuliani isn't conservative enough to rally the base, Condoleeza Rice is permanently tied to the Bush administration and Mitt Romney is... well... Mit Romney. Plus, McCain/Huckabee will look good on a poster/bumper sticker/t-shirt/yard sign.

Re: A Centrist’s Election Criteria

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:12:02 -0000

Indeed. I have the same fears about McCain. I too scratched Hillary off of my perfect ticket long ago. However, I fear that life-long Democrats - or better yet life-long Clinton supporters - will find it difficult to see the truth about their candidate: she is as polarizing (if not MORE) than George W. Bush. There are conservatives who strongly dislike her (that's putting it mildly), BUT there are also progressives who want someone new to represent their party.

Tomorrow will be very interesting.

Re: Is MS-NBC Biased? Are You Kidding?

The Pajama Pundit — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:03:01 -0000

I have to disagree with you Ed - and apparently the rest of the comments here as well.

Yes, David Shuster made a boo-boo. He should not have referred to anyone as being "pimped out". That much is clear.

However, I think that more is being made of this comment than needs to be. I could go into what the word "pimp" means these days - as it does not refer solely to the oldest profession in the world anymore. But to save time, I will spare you that lecture.

What I will say is that your idea of MSNBC being a biased network based on Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews is a flawed argument. That's akin to saying that Fox News is "fair & balanced" because they air Hannity & Colmes - and yet that is not a full representation of the network.

I'm not arguing that KO and CM are balanced programs (although I would argue that Matthews is more balanced than Olbermann), but you are forgetting programs like Morning Joe, wherein host Joe Scarborough lambastes just about everyone for being a "northeastern elitist liberal". Or, how about Tucker Carlson's show - that guy is FAR from being a lefty.

I simply believe that this extreme reaction to Shuster's comment is a ploy by the Clinton campaign to steal positive headlines from Barack Obama. The Clintons are trying to keep their names in another news cycle - no matter how trivial an issue it may be.

Re: Nothing To Fear But ....

The Pajama Pundit — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:54:39 -0000

I find it interesting that his inmate should be black...

Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind that point?

Re: Nothing To Fear But ....

The Pajama Pundit — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:56:35 -0000

On the contrary, it looks like Bill Clinton is FAR from the "savior" for his wife's campaign...

Re: Obamathieves Stealing Clinton Yard Signs?

The Pajama Pundit — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:39:07 -0000

Sign stealing? C'mon Holly In Cincinnati! BOO-FRIGGIN'-HOO!

You have no proof. Granted, this is a heated contest that has many Democrats pitted against each other in a ferocious battle for World Domination... okay, maybe that's overstating it a little bit. :)

Look, I wouldn't put it past a rabid Bush/Cheney supporter to stop and grab one of those signs to use in some right-wing ritual involving Rick Santorum chanting "man-on-dog, man-on-dog" and "MC Rove" gettin' jiggy to it. But I have no proof of that theory either.

I would also note that IF the culprits are indeed Obama SUPPORTERS, you can bet your sweet vote for Hillary that they are not officials from the "Obama campaign" (as YOU put it). That would be Just Plain Dumb.

Re: Obamathieves Stealing Clinton Yard Signs?

The Pajama Pundit — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:48:46 -0000

Thanks Macan - I think?

My comment was meant as sarcasm to show just how strange an accusation that Holly is making. Tim_in_Wisconsin had a similar tone:

"Is Hillary Clinton having an affair with Ron Paul? I mean, I can't prove that it happened, but if I write a provocative enough headline it's got to have at least a kernal of truth to it, right?"

I just made my "accusation" all that much more insane. :)

Re: Slutty Hillary, Promiscuous Rush & Dirty Dick: A Political Ménage à Trois Made In Heaven

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:38:29 -0000

vwcat has a good point: the Clintons are selling-out the Democratic party.

What does Hillary (and by default Bill) plan on gaining by aligning herself with the likes of Limbaugh. While it may not be an overt alignment, it still exists.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Rove Schools Obama

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:44:32 -0000

Sound counsel indeed.

I must admit that I'm SHOCKED to find myself not only reading something that Karl Rove wrote - but also agreeing with much (if not all) of it. My world is crashing down around me...

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Thanks for Trying, Senator Obama

The Pajama Pundit — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:56:37 -0000

Pete -

"And yes, far too many simple minds — minds that are either unable or unwilling to realize that, if we were all to be damned by our associations, then we would all be … well … damned."

Inspired writing. I whole-heartedly agree.

This whole idea of 'politics of association' troubles me for the simple reason that it makes future elections seemingly impossible. Am I to understand that we need to vet every candidate by researching every person that they have ever talked to? Done business with? Said 'hello' to on the street?

Ugh.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Obama’s line has been crossed

The Pajama Pundit — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:45:16 -0000

Obama did what he had to do... nay NEEDED to do.

Far too many on the fringe right-wing (as well as some in the left-wing) were using the Rev. Wright BS to paint Obama as some radical ideologue like Wright.

I think Obama is better for it but I fear that Joe may be correct - that it won't make much of a dent in the media talking-points.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: In Which I Join Barack Obama & Stanley Fish In Line For the Bill Ayers Guillotine

The Pajama Pundit — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:25:19 -0000

I think that everyone here has a great point (Shaun, tjproudamerican and Marlowecan).

The bottom-line (IMO) is this; while some may consider Rev. Wright (or Hagee, or Parsley, et al) as legitimate political issues - they are issues that PALE in importance when compared to some of the larger, more macro-issues like the war(s), the economy, education, terrorism, etc.

My largest complaint with the Rev. Wright 'issue' is that, while it may deserve SOME airtime on the news networks (and headlines in the blogosphere!), it has largely distracted the electorate from the debate over the larger issues.

Take the 'gas tax holiday' for example. Both Clinton (and McCain) and Obama (and GW Bush) have valid - and differing - viewpoints on the idea of the temporary suspension of a gas tax. Where is the media coverage of this debate? Where is the parsing of the differences in opinion on this (very) important issue?

Marlowecan says that, "It is illegitmate for folks on the Left...to suddenly turn around and declare this a 'non-story' when Obama has a 20-year association with the racist nutter Wright." Good point. But I also feel that tjproudamerican is spot-on by saying, "'Guilt by Association'...is the warp and woof of our political Tapestry."

However, the greater issue here (IMO) is that Obama addressed this whole kerfluffle WEEKS ago when he spoke in Philadelphia. After that speech, there was no question in my mind that Wright did and does not speak for Obama, his view, or his campaign. It was time to move on to more pressing issues (see: above).

The mere fact that we are still talking about this obvious narcissist (Wright) is simply going to continue to fuel his fire. My guess is that we'll see him rebut Obama's comments yesterday (yikes).

I'm off-track. My simple point is this: we (on the Left and the Right - and in the Center too) can argue back and forth about candidates' associations over the years - and we are bound to find more of them about which the media can prattle on - but these arguments are distractions from more pressing debates that should - nay - NEED to be had.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Obama And Wife Michelle Plan Major TV Appearance

The Pajama Pundit — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:54:57 -0000

While the situations look similar at first glance, I would disagree that this is 'Clintonesque' because the Obamas are not engaging in damage control for something that THEY did. They are continuing to engage in damage control for something that a former pastor/narcissistic demagogue did.

No infidelity here... 'as far as I know'...

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Stimulus? What stimulus?

The Pajama Pundit — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:01:47 -0000

Paying off debt indeed. That's where my "stimulus" is going to go. Creditors. I wish it weren't so.

Sadly, I believe that Joe is correct in his agreement with Mr. Ariely - the government should really test it's economic 'theories' before simply cutting millions of checks.

What I find humorous (in a sad kind of way) is that people think that this is 'free money'. Most folks that I have talked to don't realize that it's not free money - it's either their hard-earned taxes being re-returned to them, or it's a big-ass-loan from China or Dubai.

But, I would imagine that George W(ar). Bush will see an up tick in his approval numbers when so many Americans get their check and fill up their gas tank.

Ick.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Of Presidents, Politicians & Expectations

The Pajama Pundit — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:59:28 -0000

I agree with SD and Marlowecan to an extent... but hope is good too.

Hope is better than war. And by the looks of that new aircraft carrier headed toward Iran, we've got PLENTY of war and very little hope.

I'm hardly a lefty, but I will admit that I would rather have higher taxes than an EXPLODING debt and war in several countries.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Wanted: A Better Caption For This Photo

The Pajama Pundit — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:24:12 -0000

"Now that I've told you that 'In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed', please watch carefully as I shove this thumb directly into my a**."

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Death of ‘D.C. Madam’ A Suicide?

The Pajama Pundit — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:30:14 -0000

Wow, this story just went from being a laugh-fest to something more serious.

Yikes.

Re: A Martian Speaks on What Some Call “Whoredom”

The Pajama Pundit — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:11:40 -0000

Wow. It's WAY too early in the morning for me to be trying to digest this.

Very well thought out and written Dr. E. Runasim, you have great commentary here too.

I'm going to have to chew on this for a bit before I can make any thoughtful comments.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Clinton, Obama (And McCain?): “Enough Baggage To Fill A Plane”

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:54:22 -0000

I'm not sure if I completely agree with Necon (then again, with a name like Neocon, I'm not surprised that I might disagree *wink*).

While I DO agree that Hillary and McCain are more 'in-your-face' personalities and Obama has a more laid-back personality, it's not about getting people to agree with you because you are a 'nice guy'.

Barack Obama will likely NOT be able to get people to agree with him on a great host of issues (gay rights, abortion and Iraq just to name a few). However, I believe that there is much common ground to be had between Democrats and Republicans, between progressives and conservatives, on many of those hotly contested issues. I think that Obama will be able to have civilized discourse between the Right and the Left on many of these issues - whereas some of the more aggressive personalities (I'm looking at you McCain and Hillary) would take more of an 'I am right and you're wrong' stance making it much harder to s trike a balance between the arguments.

Having that civilized discourse makes it much more likely that BOTH SIDES can make some concession and come to that proverbial 'middle-ground' to get things done in Washington, D.C. And that is what this country needs right now - some restored faith in our leaders.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Clinton, Obama (And McCain?): “Enough Baggage To Fill A Plane”

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:02:22 -0000

Well said Greendreams.

Neocon, I guess I focused on the wrong aspect of your argument - but here is a short rebuttal for the subject which you have (re)mentioned.

While you are correct in the assessment of a veto/filibuster proof majority, one thing remains: the 'liberal' element in the Congress is nowhere close to the 'extreme liberal' element in our society.

EVEN IF the government becomes a bastion for progressive thought and policy, you will never see legalized marijuana, a disbanding of our military, or men marrying dogs. It just won't happen.

[side note: For the record, you will also never see truly universal health care. I know a lot of Democratic readers will likely lambaste me for saying that - but I believe it to be true. Our health care system is so hopelessly rooted in the 'free-market' that it would take a meltdown of our society, and a subsequent rebuild, to make that kind of radical change happen.]

But I digress...

Even the most liberal senators and congressmen/women have a constituency to answer to back home. They will always worry about re-election above all else. I will concede that you may see SOME progressive-leaning things get done (i.e. a national recognition of civil unions), but I don't believe that the entire country will don a collective mumu and break into a national rendition of 'Aquarius/Let The Sunshine In'.

Or I could be wrong. :)

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Clinton, Obama (And McCain?): “Enough Baggage To Fill A Plane”

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 05 May 2008 14:42:46 -0000

Correction Greendreams...

Had Bush had a filibuster-proof majority, we would now be governed by a theocracy with Bush as the supreme leader (with none of those pesky term-limitations) who is the one-and-only conduit to the Almighty.

We would also have a 'Gitmo' in every state - for those who would oppose the supreme leader.

Bleak.

As for health care - it's not that I disagree with you, I just think that our country is so entrenched in a system that 'breaking the habit' of market health care will be EXTREMELY difficult.

And Neocon, I still wholeheartedly disagree that Barack Obama (or ANY elected official for that matter) will 'rule to his (or her) base' because of the re-election ramifications. Like I said earlier, by design politicians have to play to the middle in order to gain re-election.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Clinton, Obama (And McCain?): “Enough Baggage To Fill A Plane”

The Pajama Pundit — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:41:48 -0000

A very interesting point-of-view runasim.

I will say for ALL commenters involved here - I truly appreciate the civility in our discussion. All to often bloggers and commenters in the blogosphere get way out-of-hand in their personal attacks at one and other. Just because I disagree with Neocon, for example, does not mean that I am judging them to be a bad person - I simply disagree with some of their views (incidentally, I'm sorry for the vague pronouns Neocon - I'm unsure of your gender).

That is the one thing that (regrettably) is still missing from political discourse in this country and ALL parties are guilty.

This is why I visit TMV so often and why I just composed a blog post about this very topic.. Kudos to all.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Re: Obama’s Speech In Germany

The Pajama Pundit — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:05:26 -0000

...who proudly say they don’t get their political news from biased newspapers anymore — but from talk-radio and from talking-head cable political shows`which they say keeps them well-informed.

You've just described my father-in-law. The guy smears every news outlet as 'liberal' and refuses to watch any coverage except for that of Fox News, which he describes as 'fair and balanced'.

When will people realize that you can't watch or read your news from only one source? When will people like my father-in-law come to terms with the fact that you need to be well-informed and well-read -- and you have to come to your own conclusions?

Re: Morning Joe Tanks

The Pajama Pundit — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:52:39 -0000

Jazz - I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. I like watching Joe, but this seemingly endless screed against bloggers is getting pretty old, pretty fast.

I do see his point about those who do not or cannot have an intelligent discussion of ideas being annoying as I hate it when someone would rather shout at you versus have a dialogue about differing viewpoints (a la O'Reilly). But that is not license to lump all of those who choose to log their thoughts online into one group of Cheeto-eating, knuckle-dragging ideologues.

Well said. Keep up the good work.