Itz News to Me

So everyone’s talking about the New Yorker cover to which I respond: it was an editorial cartoon, but - without making this a long and tiring post - I think there were some important things missing: like Obama standing on top of his grandmother, like a closet door with the likes of Rezko, Wright, et al trying to get out, and so on. In short, it was the sort of editorial cartoon that a liberal might think of, but it definitely wasn’t as hard-hitting as one which was drawn by an actual conservative would be.

But I digress…I was just reading the latest iteration of Obama’s response to this cover. Now he’s claiming it was discriminatory against Muslims. Are you effing kidding me? Of all the possible things to say about the cover, the best he and his campaign could come up with was parroting the now-discredited CAIR?

Hey, you jug-eared buffoon, let me help you out with this since you’re such a political neophyte and Class A idiot: Either laugh it off or take on the content of the cover head-on. Any other response is just weak-kneed nonsense. You’re just showing yourself to be incapable of taking a stand…even when they lampoon your wife as a gun-toting Angela Davis…You should be embarrassed…Not by the cartoon, but by your response….

Popularity: 3%

…not because of the color of their skin….

The next time someone decides to spout off about how our justice system is so horribly unfair to blacks as evidenced by the fact that they constitute such a high percentage of our prison population, point them to this editorial (replete with facts and everything) and tell them to have a nice big plate of “Shut your pie hole, you race-baiting jerk.”

Popularity: 7%

I said this a long time ago, and I’ll repeat it again: History will judge President Bush kindly.

For those of us old enough to remember Reagan’s time in office remember that many of the same criticisms being leveled at the Bush administration are simply retreads of the exact same criticisms - from many of the exact same people and institutions - that were made toward then President Reagan: arrogance, tyranny, insensitivity, stupidity, yada yada yada.

The reality is that many of those criticisms are not aimed at Bush’s ineffectiveness, but the fear that his policies actually are effective. I’m not going to waste my time arguing on behalf of his PR machine which has been woefully inadequate since Karen Hughes’ departure. The Medicare drug benefit for seniors which Democrats wanted to block rather than have seniors believe that the Republicans were anything but willing to euthanize the elderly, implementation of testing in schools over the objections of the teachers union which is offended by the prospect of actually forcing teachers to do their jobs rather than run social experiments on our children, and the prosecution of militant Islamists rather than continue the Democratic appeasement policies of Carter and Clinton will all be what is long remembered while the critics of those policies will be resigned to the “dustbin of history.”

Even now the Democrats are running scared of any perceived success of the surge in Iraq by attempting to continually move the goalposts away from success on the ground to avoid any hint of a victory against tyranny and Islamism in the Middle East because the truth of the matter is that Bush said one of the rationales for the war is a “draining of the swamp.” And it truly is doing that despite the protestations of war critics. Democrats want to either: a) run away from Iraq before it truly takes hold, or b) get into office themselves so they can take credit for the heavy lifting being done today.

History will tell a different story than today’s New York Times just as it does of the Reagan administration: and just like today, they’ll all “remember” how they supported those policies too…

Popularity: 17%