ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [341] -- Jeb Bush, Hispanic?

[ Posted Friday, April 10th, 2015 – 16:31 PDT ]

So, apparently, Jeb Bush used to think he was Hispanic. At least, that's the box he checked when he registered to vote, a few years back. While immediately created much online amusement (my favorite: "It's pronounced 'Heb' Bush"), it does raise an interesting but tangential question -- and not just for Bush -- in the upcoming presidential primary process: Do Republican ballots in all states require full legal names for candidates?

This question is bigger than it first may seem. Because at least three candidates on the Republican side will be running their campaigns using nothing more than nicknames. And only one of them is even a common nickname for any of their given names. To put this another way, will Republican primary voters be offered the choice between John Ellis Bush, Rafael Edward Cruz, and Piyush Jindal? Those are the legal names of "Jeb," "Ted," and "Bobby," respectively. As noted, "Ted" is the only one of these that is easily-understood (replacing "Edward"). So how will these names actually appear to the voters? Has any one of the three actually changed their full legal name?

You can tell it's been a slow week in politics, when we're wasting paragraphs on such trivia. But that's life here at the meager beginnings of the 2016 campaign trail. It's April, after all, and we've only got two announced candidacies, officially. But by early next week, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will reportedly be joined by Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio as official presidential candidates, so things are starting to pick up a little bit.

At least we're not as silly as Britain. Yet, that is. I'm sure that, with time, the American press will come up with something just as silly to obsess over, but for the moment Britain's press is castigating their prime minister for being photographed eating a hot dog -- with a knife and fork. Well, OK, we guess it's kind of understandable why scorn would be heaped on a politician so out of touch he couldn't pick up a hot dog, but this follows a previous scandal where a politician was photographed eating a bacon sandwich. We've checked the photos, and while any picture of anyone eating a massive sandwich can be seen as kind of embarrassing, we just can't figure out what is so bad about the bacon sandwich photos. Daintily eating a hot dog -- that's an understandable target of ridicule (imagine if Mitt Romney had been photographed eating a hot dog with utensils, for instance). But the bacon sandwich one was beyond us, sorry. Thankfully, the American "politicians forced to eat foods strange to them" season has not quite begun yet, so we'll all have to wait for Iowa to heat up before our race gets as silly as Britain's currently seems to be.

Moving right along, we have two items from the intersection of politics and prostitution. No, that wasn't a lead-in to campaign finance scandal stories, although it's easy to see how the two could be mistaken. An aide to Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte had to resign hastily this week after getting caught in a prostitution sting. Whoops! Over at the Justice Department, things have gotten so bad that a department-wide memo was necessary to inform employees that consorting with prostitutes -- on or off duty -- was a no-no. This follows the revelation that Drug Enforcement Agency personnel were treated to hookers and lavish presents (of fancy weapons, no less) by drug cartels down in Mexico. Which followed the whole scandal about Secret Service agents having some kinky fun in Colombia, of course. So, if you want to work for the Justice Department, you'll now have to abide by the "no hookers" policy. Fair warning!

Speaking of the Secret Service, it was also in the news several times this week, and not in a good way. First a supervisor was accused of sexually harassing a fellow employee, and then at the end of the week yet another agent was arrested after allegedly kicking in his girlfriend's front door. So it looks like there's a whole lot of cleaning up left to be done before the Secret Service ever regains its position of honor again.

President Obama was away this week, continuing his push to reopen Cuba. The anti-Cuba policy America has been clinging to for the past 50 years is now seen as nothing more than a Cold War hangover by most Americans, and Obama continues to make history and build his legacy by heading down the path to normalized relations with the country.

Of course, there are two Cuban-American Republican candidates for president (Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) who can be counted on to make the case against Obama's moves on Cuba, but this hardliner position is losing steam even among Republican voters. Even among Cuban-American voters, if truth be told. Younger Cuban-American voters simply aren't as anti-Castro as their parents and grandparents. So it's got a sort of built-in law of diminishing returns for Republican candidates.

And, to wrap up the week, President Obama was seen visiting a Bob Marley museum in Jamaica, in what has to be a first for any United States president. How cool is that? Ras Tafari!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Even a visit to a Bob Marley museum, however, doesn't elevate Obama to the level of Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, however. He may be eligible next week, depending on how impressive the Americas summit turns out, but that'll have to wait for now.

This week, it wasn't Obama's new Cuba policy that was under attack, but rather Obama's new Iran policy. After John Kerry announced the breakthrough framework agreement, the pushback in Congress reached fever pitch. Republicans hope to entice enough Democrats to vote for a plan to seriously restrict Obama's ability to negotiate, and from what they say they're nearing a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

The White House has been lobbying furiously behind the scenes to convince Democrats that the deal is better than its opponents are making it out to be, and that Obama deserves some elbow room now and that Congress can vote later on the question of relaxing the sanctions.

Senator Barbara Boxer has emerged as the leader of Senate Democrats who are standing with the president. She has been working her colleagues in an effort to get them to vote against the bill, although nobody can yet say how much success she's had.

Still, for having the presidents' back and leading the effort to either modify or kill outright the bill which would tie Obama's hands, Senator Barbara Boxer is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Senator Barbara Boxer on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

On the other side of the issue, we have to be somewhat consistent here and award Senator Chuck Schumer the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, for jumping into the fray and vocally supporting the bill to derail the negotiations.

Schumer's announcement was a weighty one, since the main Democrat in opposition to the White House had to step down from his committee position after being federally indicted last week. Since Bob Menendez faded into the background, it left a void on the opposition side.

Chuck Schumer stepped into that void, in a big way. Before he had even been given a classified briefing on the Iran deal from the White House, Schumer announced he'd be supporting the bill. Schumer's stance is indeed a prominent one, since he is widely expected to take over the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate when Harry Reid steps down next year. We're not quite sure how "torpedoing a foreign policy deal from a Democratic president" helps Schumer become an effective leader in the Senate after Reid retires, personally.

For leading his fellow Democrats away from President Obama's position, and helping Republicans put together a possible veto-proof majority, Senator Chuck Schumer is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Contact Senator Charles Schumer on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 341 (4/10/15)

We've got a mixed bag this week, with no real theme winding through our talking points. In fact, we even got a bit lazy at the end and left the last one open-ended, for you all to participate in, as a sort of mini-contest. As always, these are provided for everyone's fun, to suggest how Democrats should be talking this weekend, whether around the workplace water cooler or being interviewed on a Sunday morning television politics chatfest. Use responsibly!

 

1
   Ballots instead of bullets

Get out and vote if you want to change things!

"An election just took place in Ferguson, Missouri, and the number of African-Americans on the board running the town will be increasing from one out of six to three out of six. This is only the first election since all the problems boiled over, and not every council seat was up for election. What this shows is that the power of the ballot box is alive and well. Want change? Then you've got to get out and demand change, at the ballot box. That's the way democracy is supposed to work."

 

2
   2.6 trillion less

Now, while proving a cause-and-effect relationship is a bridge too far, it shouldn't stop anyone from pointing out the facts as they are now known.

"In 2010, the federal government predicted total national health spending for a five-year period beginning in 2014. Now that Obamacare has actually been implemented, it gives us some better data about the changing health care marketplace. What the most recent figures show is that health care spending in this country will actually be $2.6 trillion less than expected during this period. That is a whopping big difference -- that's trillion with a 'T,' folks. Once again, the doom-and-gloom predictions of Obamacare foes have just not come to pass. In fact, the country will be $2.6 trillion better off."

 

3
   Not going to war with Iran wildly popular

This news might help sway wavering Democrats a bit.

"President Obama's Iran deal is proving to be pretty popular with the general public. When polled, 61 percent approved the deal and 65 percent of voters don't want Congress to block the deal. By roughly a two-to-one margin, the American public support President Obama's negotiations and reject the position that Congress should block his efforts at diplomacy. That's a pretty healthy margin, don't you think?"

 

4
   Cuba policy popular too

Something else to point out from current polling.

"Obama's policy of opening up Cuba and moving towards normal diplomatic relations is also pretty popular. A clear majority of 59 percent of Americans think it's the right thing to do. This includes 56 percent of all Latinos in America, it's also worth noting. Contrary to the tired old policy Marco Rubio favors -- the one that's failed for 50 years now -- most Americans are looking forward to ending this last vestige of the Cold War."

 

5
   Out of sight, out of mind

This is just downright Orwellian.

"I see Republicans have a new strategy on climate change -- throw it down the memory hole. Wisconsin is now following Florida in this novel approach to the climate change problem: banning state officials from ever using the term or speaking about the issue. When asked to comment, an ostrich with its head in the sand replied: 'Mmmph-brumph-wumpf' (sadly, his mouth was too full of sand to be intelligible). I mean, you just can't make this stuff up, folks!"

 

6
   Rand Paul, mansplainer-in-chief

One of the Republican candidates seems to have a problem being interviewed by certain people.

"I see that Rand Paul is, once again, 'mansplaining' things to a female interviewer. Is this really the person we want in the Oval Office? Someone who is this condescending towards any woman who dares to question him? Can you even imagine what a debate between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton would sound like?"

 

7
   Make your own "Hispanic Jeb" talking point

We do this every so often, here, just for fun. Put together your own amusing talking point from Jeb Bush's Hispanic gaffe! It's pretty easy to do, you could just finish the sentence "If Jeb Bush is Hispanic, then I'm...." You could go traditional ("...a monkey's uncle") or get creatively specific ("...Queen Isabella of Spain"). Or come up with your own take on it -- I still think "It's pronounced Heb" is the funniest I've heard yet. Post your entries in the comments, as always, and let's see who can come up with the funniest response to Jeb's voter registration! Here we go:

"If Jeb Bush is Hispanic, then I'm...."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

59 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [341] -- Jeb Bush, Hispanic?”

  1. [1] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Britain is behind us in the silly eating with a knife and fork story department. Remember Palin and Trump in the New York pizza joint? Though both cases do deserve some derision...

  2. [2] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I agree with you BashiBazouk! In addition to Palin and Trump eating pizza with a knife and fork, there's also the photo of Michele Bachmann's wide mouth wrapped around an Iowa corndog which made a splash in the media in 2012. I'd happily embed the photo but this site doesn't seem to allow it.

  3. [3] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    On another note....

    The "Heb" segment has caused my brain to keep thinking of a little dog saying " Yo quiero Heb Bush?".....It pretty much makes me go JAJAJAJAJAJAJA!

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mopshell -

    Here you go:

    http://www.drvino.com/2011/08/17/bachmann-perry-corn-dog-wine-pairing/

    Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry, in full phallic glory...

    :-)

    BashiBazouk -

    See, I thought that was Romney. Glad I didn't add a mention of it to the article!

    goode trickle -

    My recurring image is the "What is a logarithm?" Jeopardy! answer from the dog...

    Heh.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    General note:

    OK, folks, I've caught up for the past week!

    I've gone through all the comments from all the articles back to this Monday's, and have added my own reactions to the comments. So if you posted something this week, I heartily encourage you to go back and read my reactions. And, as always, my apologies for the delay. To be absolutely honest, I've been binge-watching Father Ted episodes, to decompress from my recent trip to Ireland.

    Heh. "Drink!"

    :-)

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "President Obama was seen visiting a Bob Marley museum in Jamaica, in what has to be a first for any United States president. How cool is that?"

    Not very. Seeing our pothead president celebrate his favorite pothead musician while Jamaica reforms their pot laws and USA doesn't is just another ugly reminder of his War On Some Drugs hypocrisy. It's way past time for a schedule change.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If Jeb Bush is Hispanic, then I'm...."

    Native American Elizabeth Warren..... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Obama's Iran deal is proving to be pretty popular with the general public. When polled, 61 percent approved the deal and 65 percent of voters don't want Congress to block the deal. By roughly a two-to-one margin, the American public support President Obama's negotiations and reject the position that Congress should block his efforts at diplomacy. That's a pretty healthy margin, don't you think?"

    Like I said, it's all in how you ask the question..

    For example

    "Do you favor Iran possessing Nuclear Weapons?"

    I bet the response would approach 98% that says "NO!!" or "HELL NO!!"

    Another example..

    "Do you favor dropping ALL sanctions against Iran immediately after a deal is signed without Iran having to do anything at all??"

    Betcha the NO on that would approach 85%....

    Ironically enough, THAT is the deal that Obama is trying to sell to the American People...

    Still think it's a good one???

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    John M wrote:

    Another example

    "Do you favor an Iraq or Afghanistan style war as the alternative to Obama's deal with Iran?"

    I bet the response would also be "HELL NO!"

    Or

    "Do you favor continuing sanctions against Iran as our only policy, even though that will not prevent Iran either from getting a nuclear weapon or leading to regime change in Iran, given the example of 50 years of sanctions against Cuba not being able to dislodge the Castro regime?"

    I bet the response would also be "Let's try something else as an alternative."

  10. [10] 
    John M wrote:

    Hmmm. how about....

    "If Jeb Bush is Hispanic, then I'm ..."

    A cellular peptide cake with mint frosting!

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    I bet the response would also be "Let's try something else as an alternative."

    Hokay...

    What's the alternative that guarantees the security of our allies in the region and ensures there is no nuclear arms race in the region...

    Obama's deal was supposed to PREVENT nuclear proliferation, not instigate it...

    Michale

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    The original reason for the deal was to PREVENT Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Obama's "Red Line".. Iran would NOT get nuclear weapons..

    In the here and now, Obama himself admitted that his deal only delays Iran from getting nuclear weapons..

    Another Obama "red line" crossed with impunity..

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    A cellular peptide cake with mint frosting!

    Oh gods, what is that from!!!??? It's driving me crazy!!!

    Wait!!

    STAR TREK!!! NEXT GENERATION!!!

    Data's dreams... Right??

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    A cellular peptide cake with mint frosting!

    Oh gods, what is that from!!!??? It's driving me crazy!!!

    Wait!!

    STAR TREK!!! NEXT GENERATION!!!

    Data's dreams... Right??

    PICARD AND GEORDI PREFER ANDROID
    http://grismar.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/animate_geordi_picard_android.gif

    :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, getting back to Iran..

    Let's see if we can agree on the facts....

    FACT #1
    According to Obama this deal will only delay, not prevent, Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons..

    Fact #2
    This deal was supposed to PREVENT a nuclear arms race in the Middle East..

    Fact #3
    This deal actually PRECIPITATES a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

    Fact #4
    According to Iran, this deal will require that all sanctions are immediately ended, not suspended but completely ENDED, at the signing of the deal.

    Does anyone here dispute these facts?

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, ole pal of mine ...

    Answer me this ...

    Do you think President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry hate America or are they just idiots?

    And, do you believe everything the Supreme Leader of Iran says?

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I thought there was a Blue Jay game tonight but, apparently, I was wrong.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry hate America or are they just idiots?

    I think they have their eye on their own legacy and their own Nobel Peace Prize more than they have their eye on America's interests..

    And, do you believe everything the Supreme Leader of Iran says?

    As much as I believe everything President If-You-Like-Your-HealthCare-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-HealthCare-Plan Obama says

    But, it's not a question of who to believe.. Each leader will put their spin on the plan..

    My only question to you, to ALL of you is this.

    IF the deal is that all sanctions are to be completely dropped immediately, as Iran says the deal is....

    Do ya'all still support the deal??

    Do ya'all still think it's a good deal??

    Personally, I think it's as good a deal as the Berghdal deal was...

    It's a deal that helps Obama's ego and interests and hurts America's interests...

    What do you think??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you think President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry hate America or are they just idiots?

    I think they have their eye on their own legacy and their own Nobel Peace Prize more than they have their eye on America's interests..

    So, no... They are not idiots and they don't hate America..

    They are simply uber ego-centric and self-centered and put THEIR wants and THEIR desires before what's best for the country..

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely un-related note...

    So What Really Did Happen to Harry Reid?
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/29/so-what-really-did-happen-to-harry-reid/

    I have always had a problem with the "elastic exercise malfunction" story...

    I mean, seriously.. Looking at the way Reid was trashed?? How is it possible that a huge rubber band could do so much damage??

    And he said it happened in his bathroom.. I have seen pictures of Reid's bathroom.. There is NO WAY he could have been using band exercise equipment in his bathroom...

    I had always thought it was a drunk driving accident.. But the mobster theory in the above article makes a lot more sense...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    IF the deal is that all sanctions are to be completely dropped immediately, as Iran says the deal is....

    Of course, not.

    But, that won't be what the deal is or there won't be a deal, Michale. And, that's been the P5+1 plan all along, in case you haven't noticed.

    In other words, your question is a silly one.

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    Are you seriously suggesting that the Iranians understand how negotiation works and are asking for more than they actually expect to get?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, not.

    But, that won't be what the deal is or there won't be a deal, Michale. And, that's been the P5+1 plan all along, in case you haven't noticed.

    In other words, your question is a silly one.

    So, you and I are in complete agreement..

    If the deal states that all sanctions must be completely ended immediately upon signing the deal, then it's a BAD deal and should not be accepted by Obama..

    Does that sum things up??

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you seriously suggesting that the Iranians understand how negotiation works and are asking for more than they actually expect to get?

    OK, good. Now we're getting somewhere..

    So, you agree as well that having the deal include the immediate cessation of all sanctions at the signing of the deal is a BAD deal and should not be accepted by Obama..

    I am glad I am getting this on record.. :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Ya know, if the Iranians stay true to form and stick with their IMMEDIATE END TO SANCTIONS OR NO DEAL position, ya might have to reverse the MDDOTW and MIDOTW awards.. :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, you and I are in complete agreement..If the deal states that all sanctions must be completely ended immediately upon signing the deal, then it's a BAD deal and should not be accepted by Obama..Does that sum things up??

    The bad deal that you imagine will not materialize because the negotiating process will collapse before that happens. This is what you don't seem to understand.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The bad deal that you imagine will not materialize because the negotiating process will collapse before that happens.

    Toe-May-Toe, Toe-MAA-Toe

    It will collapse because it's a bad deal...

    I am not asking for you to renounce your Leftist ideals/ideology..

    I am simply asking you to concede that ANY deal that has sanctions unilaterally lifted at the signing of the deal is a BAD deal...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I'm saying that there will be no deal of the kind you imagine.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We're currently on a course that can only be described as circular."
    "And, at Warp 5, we're going nowhere mighty fast"

    -STAR TREK, LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLFIELD

    :D

    Let me put it another way..

    If that's the only deal that the Iranians will sign, then you agree with me that Obama should walk away....

    Right??

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny that no one can even contemplate how Obama's grand bargain might not be the manna from heaven that the Left wishes it to be.. :D

    It's as if it's treasonous to the fealty of Barack The First that the masses won't even articulate how this deal could possibly go sideways...

    It's a simple question...

    Should Obama walk away from his grand deal if the Iranians insist that all sanctions be immediately ended at the signing of the deal??

    I dunno what scares ya'all more....

    Disagreeing with Obama....

    or

    Agreeing with me...

    :D heh

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I am wont to do....

    I was wrong.... Hillary Clinton IS running for POTUS...

    Her campaign slogan??

    "I deserve this... It's MY turn!!"

    The Democrat Party Slogan??

    "She's the best we can do..."

    It's gonna be a fun election...

    :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the FUN begins!! :D

    "Hillary fought children and families all her career"
    -Hillary Clinton Campaign Announcement

    If this is an example of the "professional" campaign that Hillary plans to run, maybe the Democrat Party can just concede right now...

    :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do fret too much, my fellow Weigantians..

    I am sure ya'all will have MANY gaffes to point out with all the GOP'ers getting into the POTUS race... :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's a simple question...Should Obama walk away from his grand deal if the Iranians insist that all sanctions be immediately ended at the signing of the deal??

    It's also a moot point, Michale, as I have already explained.

    But, let me put it another way ... Obama WILL walk away from an Iranian nuclear "deal" if all sanctions are to be ended at the signing ceremony.

    You really have to listen more carefully to what Obama and Kerry and the rest of the P5+1 are saying about any potential deal and then you wouldn't have to waste your time and mine asking silly questions.

  35. [35] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Rand Paul opened up his Freedompalooza Tour with an event this week in Louisville, Kentucky at the Galt House Hotel. The party was emceed by former Rep J. C. Watts (R-OK)who said "This is the start of a cause. The cause to elect Rand Paul as the next United States of America."

    So ambitious. You can smell the tyranny. And twice as weird as Rmoney!

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    Are you seriously suggesting that the Iranians understand how negotiation works and are asking for more than they actually expect to get?

    Perhaps.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, let me put it another way ... Obama WILL walk away from an Iranian nuclear "deal" if all sanctions are to be ended at the signing ceremony.

    Fair enough. So we agree that he SHOULD...

    I honestly doubt he will, however. He NEEDS the deal...

    You really have to listen more carefully to what Obama and Kerry and the rest of the P5+1 are saying about any potential deal and then you wouldn't have to waste your time and mine asking silly questions.

    I listened to Obama when he said the deal was designed to PREVENT Iran from getting nukes.. Turns out it is just designed to DELAY Iran from getting nukes..

    I listened to Obama when he said that if people like their healthcare plan they can KEEP their healthcare plan..

    Obama has no credibility...

    Kerry just says what Obama tells him to say..

    Listening to either is dangerous..

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    and the rest of the P5+1 are saying about any potential deal

    I actually trust the P5 (- the US) more than I trust the Khamini or Obama...

    I know that France was surprised that the US gave away so much and demanded so little in return..

    If Obama walks away from the deal, I am sure it will be because the P4 will FORCE him to walk away...

    As I said, Obama needs this deal way WAY too much..

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    there's also the photo of Michele Bachmann's wide mouth wrapped around an Iowa corndog which made a splash in the media in 2012

    One has to wonder what the reaction from the Left would be if the Right made a "splash" of Hillary eating a corn dog in such a manner..

    No, one really doesn't have to wonder at all.. Her campaign has already set up a list of "code words" that equate to sexism and misogyny..

    Note to the masses.. If you have to rely on "code words" to make your case......

    You have no case...

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, one really doesn't have to wonder at all.. Her campaign has already set up a list of "code words" that equate to sexism and misogyny..

    For example..

    If you say "Hillary Clinton is ambitious" you are a sexist..

    If you say "Hillary Clinton is secretive" you are a misogynist...

    Here's a list put out by the Clinton Campaign that are "code words" for sexism and misogyny..

    "polarizing"

    "calculating"

    "disingenuous"

    "insincere"

    "ambitious"

    "inevitable"

    "entitled"

    "over-confident"

    "secretive"

    "will do anything to win"

    "represents the past"

    "out of touch"

    Oh, and if you call Clinton by her first name, you are also sexist..

    All reporters have been "warned" that Hillary's.....

    "Ooops, I did it again..."
    -Britney Spears :D

    ...... minions will be watching to see if any of these "code words" pop up in media reports..

    Nothing like threats and coercion and extortion to enhance freedom of speech and spur debate, eh?? :^/

    Seriously, people...

    THIS is the best candidate that Democrats can come up with???

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But getting back to Iran...

    Iran has built its foreign policy around the goal of “Death to America” for the last 36 years. It continues, unabashed, to be the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terrorism — in particular, anti-American terrorism. It has killed and abetted the killing of Americans throughout the current regime’s existence. It is a totalitarian sharia state that, at this moment, is imprisoning at least three Americans. One of them, Saeed Abedini, has been sentenced to eight years’ incarceration for establishing Christian houses of worship, which the regime says is a threat to national security. The regime, further, has repeatedly vowed to exterminate Israel, our close ally and the only true democracy in the region. With such a rogue state, there is only one negotiation a sensible nation — particularly the world’s most powerful nation — can have. You tell them that until they convincingly disavow their anti-American stance, cease their support for terrorism, release American prisoners, and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, that there is no point in discussing anything else.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416796/obamas-iran-framework-chimera-andrew-c-mccarthy

    That says all the needs to be said about any "deal" with Iran...

    No civilized nation should deal with Iran any more than a civilized nation would deal with Nazi Germany in the aftermath of The Holocaust...

    That's the point that no one seems to want to address...

    Yes, sometimes we have to deal with bad people in order to accomplish good things... Even the lowliest street cop on the beat knows that one cultivates CIs who do petty crap that is overlooked in order to catch bigger fish..

    But there is no "petty crap" with Iran... Brutally murdering innocent Americans is as NOT petty as it gets... Threatening to wipe a country off the face of the map is even MORE "not petty".. It's genocide...

    And, in dealing with Iran, there are no "bigger fish"... Dealing with Iran won't help the US take down Russia or China...

    But dealing with Saudi Arabia (the CI) WILL help the US take down Iran (Big Fish)....

    No matter which way you slice it, no matter how you want to spin it, the US should NOT be "dealing" with Iran..

    The US should be dictating to Iran....

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    Can ya check the NNL filter..

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Obama kicked Biden to the curb...

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-kicked-to-the-side-left-to-pitch-donors-for-obama/article/2562947

    A shame...

    Biden's got a LOT more going for him than Hillary does...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The weakest point in President Obama’s defense of his deal with Iran is his claim that “it is a good deal even if Iran doesn’t change at all.”

    Let’s consider that scenario. An Iran that does not change will reap hundreds of billions of dollars in fresh revenue from the lifting of sanctions, and it will surely use much of that to fund its ongoing military adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. It will supply more weapons to Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups, and invest more in its long-range missiles, cyberweapons and other military technologies not covered by the agreement. It will continue developing advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment and after a decade will begin installing them.

    By Obama’s own account, in 13 or 14 years Iran will reemerge as a threshold nuclear state with a breakout time “almost down to zero.” It will still seek domination of the Middle East and the elimination of Israel, but with far greater resources and the capability to build a nuclear weapon at any time of its choosing. A future president, administration officials concede, will have to go back to the same strategy — sanctions, sabotage and the threat of force — that Obama now proposes to set aside, but the odds of preventing a nuclear Iran will be considerably worse than they are now.

    To say the least, that future president is unlikely to agree that Obama made a good deal.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-gamble-on-iran/2015/04/12/4799faec-ded6-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iowa students preparing for Hillary's first 'listening' session think she's a 'control freak' who will be 'talking s**t' and only wants immigration reform because the Democratic party needs voters

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037460/Iowa-students-preparing-Hillary-s-listening-session-think-s-control-freak-talking-s-t-wants-immigration-reform-Democratic-party-needs-voters.html

    HA!!!!

    Someone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together... :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    A million quatloos says these kids get bumped from the Hillary Clinton Q&A... :D

    Any takers??

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, before I begin, a plea from me for feedback from all you newfangled folks:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/04/08/a-hard-look-at-the-big-blue-wall/#comment-58680

    Just wanted to post that, so it didn't get overlooked...

    I'll work on answering these now...

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK... [cracks knuckles behind head before attacking the keyboard...]

    So are we all here to revel in Michale's admittal that he called Hillary's intentions wrong?

    Heh.

    Sorry, that was snarky... let me start over... ahem...

    John From Censornati [6] -

    Oh, you're preaching to the choir, here. I keep hoping Eric Holder will sign a reschedule on his last day in office... it'd be perfectly legal of him to do so...

    Heh.

    Michale [7] -

    OK, points for both amusement and an apt line from the other side. I tip my satirical hat to you...

    :-)

    John M [9] -

    I have to say, both of those were excellent questions! Well done!

    Michale [13] -

    Somebody snuck a Star Trek reference almost completely by you? Man, you must be slipping or something...

    Heh.

    LizM [17] -

    How's Toronto doing this year? Orioles started kind of OK, win some lose some...

    The Giants... um... you'd have to ask my wife on that one... but the Orioles looked OK!

    :-)

    Michale [18] -

    OK, here's my take on the framework agreement:

    (1) It's a "framework agreement" it's not a deal. Several corollaries follow from this. One is that we don't know what the final details are yet. Nobody knows -- not Kerry, not the Irianians, nobody.

    (2) What happened at the end of the framework time period was there were several things both sides couldn't agree upon. So they cobbled together some fudge/vague language on the issues, and put the framework out to prove to the world that both sides (actually, all SEVEN sides) really were committed to the best possible attempt at reaching a deal.

    (3) What the White House and the Iranians have been spinning since then are the limits to the fudge/vague language, to both of their domestic audiences. BUT...

    (4) This is actually a GOOD THING. Because it highlights the bones of contention between the two sides. Think about it -- you wouldn't be this far down in the weeds of the deal unless this focusing had happened. So we all -- the American and Iranian publics combined -- see the two ends of the rope. We can all see, from this point going forward, who moves more towards the middle. This will HELP people see who is making concessions, in the next couple of months.

    Remember, please, this is NOT a final deal. Sure, go ahead, and advocate for the details of the points you care about. That's what this final period is all about, after all. We'll see what Kerry comes up with by the end of June, and then we can discuss the actual deal. When it's finalized.

    Anyway, that's what I think of that. I'm going to post this now, just so I don't lose all that typing...

    -CW

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [20] -

    I have seen pictures of Reid's bathroom..

    OK, I'm not sure exactly how to read that one, personally...

    Heh.

    As for you obsession with "immediate sanctions relief," Kerry and Obama have said they won't agree to that deal. Have patience, Grasshopper, and wait to see the final deal...

    Michale [31] -

    Aha! There it is... letting the waves of scahdenfreude wash over me...

    Heh. Hey, you deserve it. You went pretty far out on that limb, my friend...

    :-)

    Michale [39] -

    There's actually a whole subset of hilarious campaign photos devoted to "Iowa corndogs" -- I'm sure there are just as many Dems as Repubs in those photos, to be fair...

    Michale [42] -

    There you go. [41] has been freed!

    Sorry...

    OK, that's about it for now... all caught up!

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Somebody snuck a Star Trek reference almost completely by you? Man, you must be slipping or something...

    I got it, eventually.. It was one of the weirdest TNG episodes ever... :D

    As far as the deal thing goes, that's one of the best descriptions of this mess I have seen. And you know I've seen plenty!! :D

    But do you honestly believe that Obama will walk away from a bad deal??

    I mean, forget partisan ideology and DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS SUCK!!

    Just look at Obama's history and the depths he will go to when his ego is on the line. This is a POTUS who blatantly and knowingly lied to the American people to get his abomination healthcare program to pass..

    Do you honestly believe that with so much of his political clout and his ego on the line that he will walk away from a bad deal?

    I don't...

    And that's what scares me...

    Not so much that Obama is so ego-centric.. That's a given..

    What scares me is that Iran's mullahs know that they have Obama over a barrel and will push it for all it's worth...

    You yourself said that they couldn't agree on anything.. So, why didn't Obama walk away???

    Because he NEEDS this deal..

    This country doesn't need this deal...

    The region certainly doesn't need this deal...

    The planet doesn't need this deal...

    OBAMA needs this deal...

    And THAT is the entire problem..

    Even though I am still bruising from my Hillary Clinton prediction (in my defense, it WAS a logical prediction. It just didn't take into account the power-hungry nature of Hillary) I am going to make another one..

    Obama won't walk away from the deal. Even if it gives Iran everything they want and the other side gets nothing in return, Obama won't walk away...

    As for you obsession with "immediate sanctions relief," Kerry and Obama have said they won't agree to that deal. Have patience, Grasshopper, and wait to see the final deal...

    Ok, so we are ALL in agreement..

    1. Immediate Sanctions relief is a BAD DEAL...

    and

    B. If Iran demands immediate sanctions relief, Obama should walk away...

    We are all in complete agreement on that...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have seen pictures of Reid's bathroom..

    OK, I'm not sure exactly how to read that one, personally...

    :D hehehehehehe

    http://louderwithcrowder.com/harry-reid-is-lying-about-his-exercise-accident-and-i-can-prove-it/

    There.. Now you have seen pics of Reid's bathroom too.... :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Just look at Obama's history and the depths he will go to when his ego is on the line. This is a POTUS who blatantly and knowingly lied to the American people to get his abomination healthcare program to pass.."

    I have to say that's both rich and funny. Obamacare is not called Romneycare in Massachusetts for nothing! Also, Obamacare is essentially the Republican Conservative Heritage Foundation / Newt Gingrich alternative to the Hilary Clinton health care plan of the 1980's.

    Also the recent Republican budget proposal for Medicare is to give seniors a voucher, in other words a government subsidy, in order to be able to purchase private insurance with it on the open market. Now, where have I heard of a program like that before??? Oh yeah, Obamacare!!! The very program Republicans say they want to repeal entirely! Yet their plan for Medicare is to replace it with Obamacare! Oh the irony!!!

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to say that's both rich and funny. Obamacare is not called Romneycare in Massachusetts for nothing! Also, Obamacare is essentially the Republican Conservative Heritage Foundation / Newt Gingrich alternative to the Hilary Clinton health care plan of the 1980's.

    A loony Right Wing Fringe Plan does not a Republican Plan make..

    That's like claiming that a 9/11 Truther "Plan" is a "Democrat Plan"...

    Also the recent Republican budget proposal for Medicare is to give seniors a voucher, in other words a government subsidy, in order to be able to purchase private insurance with it on the open market. Now, where have I heard of a program like that before??? Oh yeah, Obamacare!!! The very program Republicans say they want to repeal entirely! Yet their plan for Medicare is to replace it with Obamacare! Oh the irony!!!

    And what does this have to do with the fact that Obama blatantly and knowingly lied to the American people to pass his abortion of a plan??

    We're discussing Obama's credibility...

    Not the merits (or in this case, lack thereof) of TrainWreckCare...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to say that's both rich and funny. Obamacare is not called Romneycare in Massachusetts for nothing! Also, Obamacare is essentially the Republican Conservative Heritage Foundation / Newt Gingrich alternative to the Hilary Clinton health care plan of the 1980's.

    And the fact that you have to go back over 3 decades should indicate to you the relevance (or in this case, lack thereof) of that old and stale charge...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Except for, you know, facts.

    Uninsured rate is down from 18.0 percent to 11.9 percent. That is a 1/3 reduction in the first two years. Exactly what Obamacare was designed to do.

    Note the graph. That enormous downward spike happens right when Obamacare takes effect:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/uninsured-rate-obamacare_n_7043534.html

    -CW

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except for, you know, facts.

    And yet, the majority of Americans STILL didn't like it, didn't want it and STILL don't want it...

    But hay, if you want to make the case that a GOP plan is actually good for the country...???

    By all means.. :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And yet, the majority of Americans STILL didn't like it, didn't want it and STILL don't want it..."

    What you don't mention is that 40 percent of the people who are opposed to Obamacare are opposed to it because they don't think it goes FAR ENOUGH. What the plurality of people opposed to Obamacare actually want is a single payer system instead, ie. Medicare for all.

    "But hay, if you want to make the case that a GOP plan is actually good for the country...???"

    So if we call it Obamacare it's bad, but if we call it the Republican plan it's good, even though it is exactly the same plan! Got it!

  58. [58] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "A loony Right Wing Fringe Plan does not a Republican Plan make.."

    Ok, so a plan supported and pushed by the then Republican Speaker Of The House is loony right wing fringe, got it!

    "And what does this have to do with the fact that Obama blatantly and knowingly lied to the American people to pass his abortion of a plan??"

    It seems very relevant to me when Republicans are pushing the very same plan, just in a different context, as the one they are railing against! Rather speaks to their credibility too, doesn't it???

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    If YOU want to push the meme that TrainWreckCare, which you say is god's gift to this country, is a Republican plan, by all means..

    Push it for all it's worth.. :D

    But the TWO claims that ya'all make that "prove" TWC is awesome is ridiculous..

    Claim #1
    TrainWreckCare is awesome because more people are getting insurance...

    Well, DUH.... If you make NOT getting insurance illegal, OF COURSE more people are going to have insurance!!

    Claim #2
    TrainWreckCare is awesome because costs are coming down...

    Costs were already dropping before TWC became law... NO ONE... NO.... ONE.... can offer ANY correlation between TrainWreckCare and lower costs...

    The ONE point that ya'all can't dismiss is that the majority of Americans are against TWC..

    Never wanted it.. STILL don't want it..

    And, with two exceptions, the will of the American people is the ONLY factor....

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.