Free Advice for Republicans Courting the Tea Party Voters

Filed under:Jerks,Language Barrier,Politics — posted by Anwyn on June 13, 2011 @ 10:15 am

Don’t answer like this Republican when asked why he’s careful to state that he’s a Republican, not a Tea Party candidate. (And, of course, don’t let your deputies grab the camera of a citizen blogger who is asking the candidate questions. Personally, I find this blogger’s manner in asking questions and narrating his video highly irritating, but that’s no excuse either. Jim Holden, as a displaced Hoosier, I’m ashamed of you.)

But back to the political advice: When you’re a Republican stating from the platform at a Tea Party rally that you’re a Republican, not a Tea Party candidate, and when somebody asks you why you’re overtly distancing yourself from the Tea Party at a Tea Party rally:

1) Saying, as you did, that the Tea Party doesn’t actually have any candidates on the ballot and so you couldn’t run as a Tea Party candidate if you wanted to is okay, but we already know you wouldn’t even if you could, so that doesn’t advance the ball all that much.

2) Saying, as you did, that there are people who would like to “paint” you as a Tea Party candidate gives your game away–that you are trying too hard to walk the line and really do want to keep your distance. So–

3) You should say the following: “Because the Tea Party folks don’t want a bandwagon-hopper. I’ve been a Republican [for X years], long before the Tea Party came into being. I admire the things they stand for such as [X, Y, Z], and my mission here is to show them that I share and support those positions and hope to get their votes for the U.S. Senate. But it would be dishonest to identify myself wholly with the Tea Party, and the Tea Party itself wouldn’t like it if they thought I was trying to cash in on their movement. I’m a Republican who admires the Tea Party and agrees with many of their positions, and I hope they will see that I’m the best candidate to advance those positions in the Senate.”

When even I can see what the answer should have been, you’re heading toward a FAIL.

“Spending Programs” Will Fall Outside a Spending Freeze

Filed under:Language Barrier,Politics — posted by Anwyn on January 26, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

Imagine that.

“You guys … are not only not talking about a second stimulus, you’re talking about trying to cut … the budget,” Maddow said. “I have to tell you, it sounds completely, completely insane.”

[“Top economic adviser to the president” Jared] Bernstein vowed “there`s going to be no stupid Hooverism around here, to use your, I think, very apt term.”

“Spending programs, in order to generate the kind of job growth that we need to offset this — the impact of what was the deepest recession since the Great Depression — generally will fall outside of this freeze,” he said.

But Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress, argued a week ago that this kind of a freeze would make only a dent in the country’s structural problems.

“The federal government spent a bit more than $625 billion on non-defense discretionary programs in 2009. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, in five years, the federal government will spend about $660 billion on the same programs,” he wrote.

“Freezing non-defense discretionary spending at current levels would therefore only produce a total savings of $35 billion in 2015. That year, the budget deficit is expected to be around $760 billion. Saving $35 billion would solve less than 5 percent of the problem. There may be some savings to be found in non-defense discretionary programs, but a spending freeze would accomplish extremely little in the way of measurable deficit reduction.”

Food stamp programs? Education programs? College loan programs? Even … spit … health care “reform” programs? No. Spending programs. Spending programs that will in no way be affected by a “spending freeze.”

Well, hell. Gotta admire a person who calls it what it is in defiance of his own political interest, right? Go ahead, keep stating your real goal out loud till everybody understands that spending was the real goal all along. Kthxbai.

Free Dave Barry

Filed under:Language Barrier,Not Cool,Priorities — posted by Anwyn on September 27, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

Got it from Instapundit.

One Wonders How He Really Feels about the Revolutionary War

Filed under:Church of Liberalism,History,Jerks,Language Barrier,Politics,Priorities,Sad — posted by Anwyn on June 23, 2009 @ 8:47 am

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs spouts what keeps recurring as an especially jarring note in Obama’s mealy-mouthed nothings over the fraud and violence in Iran:

“He’ll continue to speak out in support of those that are seeking to demonstrate and do so in a way peacefully,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told FOX News.

Obama said this himself a few days ago:

What you’re seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and – and seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way.

We “stand behind” and “speak out” only for those seeking to topple their violent, repressive, tyrannical government in a “peaceful” way. Because that’ll probably work, no?

Only two explanations occur to me for this particular idiocy. Either Obama really is of the no-exceptions “peace at any price” camp, an enemy of the freedom we enjoy in this country, which was bought with blood, or else he simply is too dim to understand that in Iran and places like it, fradulent elections don’t simply mean that one party yelps about it for a while and then it’s back to business as usual, complete with a peaceful transition. They mean that a party that has no qualms about ordering its thugs to kill its own people will stay in power with their thumbs, bootheels, and various other metaphorical appendages planted squarely on the metaphorical throats of the very real people. And while I think he’s dim, I don’t think he’s quite that dim. Which just makes him, potentially, very wicked. There’s nothing like protesting protests in the name of “peace” to confuse well-intentioned people into believing that what they want isn’t important enough to break the peace. And then, to quote one of C.S. Lewis’s less savory characters, one would have carte blanche.

Via Xrlq.

What Are You Talking About?

Filed under:Language Barrier,Priorities,WTF? — posted by Anwyn on June 18, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

Mr. Jonathan V. Last, here, seems very opposed to and disgusted by the idea of men in the delivery room during the births of their children. Other than that, and the fact that I too despise the expression “we’re pregnant,” I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about.

It wasn’t until the late 1960s that men began taking the last step. Urged on by books such as Robert Bradley’s “Husband-Coached Childbirth,” men started going the distance. By 1970, the delivery room had been pried open.

All manner of idiocy followed: tape recorders, cameras, video. Husbands huffing and puffing with the mothers. The expression “we’re pregnant.” Various fads have cajoled fathers into cutting the umbilical cord or playing catcher as the baby exits the birth canal or stripping off their shirts and clutching the newborn “skin-to-skin.” By the late 1970s, a man was considered something of a monster if he didn’t at least stand north of the equator during the delivery of his child.

He spends the first nine paragraphs loathingly reciting the history of how fathers went from off the scene entirely into the delivery room, and then spends the last three chapters wailing about society’s tolerance for absent or deadbeat fathers. While I sympathize on the last score, I wish he would explain to me what the hell one has to do with the other.

Yet today it is socially acceptable to father a child without marrying the mother or to divorce her later on if mother and father actually do bother to get hitched. And at the same time there is zero tolerance for a husband who says: “No thanks, I’ll be in the waiting room with cigars.” Ms. Leavitt’s fascinating history suggests that childbirth is just one more area where our narcissism has swamped our seriousness.

Whose narcissism, exactly? A birthing mother’s narcissism in wanting the person who, theoretically, is her companion and partner in all of life’s big decisions and events, in the room with her when a drastic, potentially uncontrolled event occurs resulting in the birth of his own child? A father’s narcissism in thinking his presence is necessary for this event? Who and what? And who cares? The idea seems to be that social norms now require the father present at the birth but let him off scot-free for the rest of the child’s raising. Does Mr. Last seriously believe that a father who stands ready to abandon his child and the child’s mother is going to feel constrained by customs requiring him to cut the umbilical cord? Does he really think the majority of the country both a) derides a man as less than a man if he fails to be present in the delivery room AND b) thinks it’s okay for him to then step out of his child’s life? Of course not. The bigger question is, just how does he propose “society” control the latter? The former, according to him, was brought about by an influential book that caught on into a trend and evolved into a norm. Great. If that method is so powerful, let’s use it on the deadbeats! Oh … you mean it won’t work on irresponsible trash like them? Huh. I thought Mr. Last said they could be found dutifully at the bedsides during the delivery. Weird.

Via Hot Air headlines.

Dear Christian Bale

Filed under:Jerks,Language Barrier — posted by Anwyn on February 6, 2009 @ 11:39 am

Instead of “I acted like a punk,” I think you were thinking of a different word that also begins with P.

Dear Mr. Hitchens and Newsweek

Filed under:Language Barrier,Need a Good Editor?,Religion — posted by Anwyn on January 10, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

The fact that you, Mr. Hitchens, do not personally believe in God, or any god, does not precisely give you the right to lower-case God in a Newsweek article, and the Newsweek editors who allowed it should turn in their stylebooks. The fact that you believe there is no such being as God does not negate the fact that in writing, the word God, capitalized, is used to refer to a distinct, specific entity commonly acknowledged to be the God of Judaism and Christianity, the God of the Bible.

When you start lower-casing Santa Claus, Sherlock Holmes, and Allah, Newsweek, then you may let Hitch get away with this cutesiness. Not before.

Via the headlines at Hot Air, where even Hitchens fanboy Allah doesn’t lower-case God except in cases of interjectional “thank God” moments.

Update: I assumed it was obvious, but I guess it should be noted that an advanced search for “god” at shows numerous instances of capitalized “God.” Hitchens did this to make a point and the magazine’s editors supported him. But as I point out on the comments below, while other gods who fall under the umbrella of the lower-case common noun (including God) have identifying proper names (Zeus, etc.), and while God does have other proper names (Jehovah, etc.), God is his most common proper name and thus is capitalized. Hitchens could have made his point in a stylistically correct way by simply referring to “men of the Judeo-Christian god,” but chose to go for the shock value and broke the rules in so doing.

A Letter from My Congressperson!

Filed under:Jerks,Language Barrier,Need a Good Editor?,Politics — posted by Anwyn on December 29, 2008 @ 7:51 pm

Or, How Politicians Lie to Themselves so That They May Lie to Me About My Own Positions

In response to my emailed form asking him to vote NO on the auto bailout:

Dear Ms. Anwyn, If That Is In Fact Your Real Name:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to government loans for the auto industry. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this issue.

Well, that’s a relief; I’ve been under the impression members of Congress do not want to know my thoughts on this issue. Oh, right–they don’t:

I understand your concerns with the federal government providing assistance to the auto industry, and I share your anger with the automakers’ business plans’ that focused on production of large SUVs and high-profit luxury vehicles instead of the fuel-efficient vehicles consumers demanded. However, in this economy, when over 1 million have already been lost this year, I believe Congress has a responsibility to protect the 3.3 million jobs GM, Chrysler, and Ford provide for American workers. In Oregon, more than 37,000 jobs are directly liked to the “Big Three” automakers.

Whew! So THAT’S the problem–huge businesses deciding, for kicks, to make a boatload of product that nobody will buy while paying their workers artificially high wages! No, wait–that’s not what they were doing, that’s what Congress actually wants them to do–make bicycle-shaped cars that run on hamster wheels. Should make them solvent in no time flat, yes?

Our nation is facing serious economic turmoil that has been characterized by a sharp downturn in auto sales. While I am deeply concerned about the business decisions that contributed to the automakers inability to respond to our nation’s current economic crisis, I believe we should help the auto industry weather the current economic crisis. That being said, I believe any assistance should be tied with conditions, and the federal government must have broad accountability and oversight powers. These conditions should be based on the automakers overhauling their business foundations for long-term viability.

I voted for the auto industry rescue (H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act) when it was considered by the House of Representatives on December 10, 2008. The rescue would have provided up to $15 billion in short-term bridge loans to the automakers. In addition, H.R. 7321 would have created a “Car Czar” to hold the car companies accountable for developing and implementing viable long-term restructuring plans. The bill also would have prohibited participating automakers from providing excessive compensation packages to their executives, including so-called “golden parachutes.”

Well, thank God, as long as somebody’s making concessions.

H.R. 7321 was passed by the House by a vote of 237 to 170. The bill, however, stalled in the Senate, and it now appears unlikely that Congress will enact a rescue package for the automakers before the end of the year.

Hoo-rah-ray and a tiger.

Congress will likely re-consider a revised auto industry rescue when the 111th Congress convenes in January. Although we disagree on this particular issue, I will keep your concerns in mind as Congress debates further auto industry rescue proposals.

No, you won’t. You refused to even acknowledge my concerns, which centered on the UAW’s unreasonable contracts and refusal to make concessions. Because then you might have had to comment on them in this letter.

Thank you again for sharing your views on this issue. If you have further questions or concerns, please contact me at 503-326-2901 or 800-422-4003.

With warm regards,

David Wu
Member of Congress

Please do not respond to this message. This mailbox is unattended. If you wish to contact me, please use my website, Thank you.

I wonder if ol’ Wu has a staffer who gets off on sitting around, answering emails from constituents by re-stating their position in the way most disconnected from reality, or if he just wrote that one-size-fits-all piece of garbage and they mail it out to everyone who complains, no matter what’s in their email? Your Congress at work! You missed an apostrophe and a few other typos, guys. In the midst of your giggling over your cleverness (“Also, this one’s ticked about pork! Let’s put in ‘we’re just as angry about public money being spent on defense rather than on the homeless as you are’!”) you think you could put down the bong and do some proofreading?

I Can Has TV Guide Gig?

Filed under:Language Barrier,Need a Good Editor?,Television — posted by Anwyn on December 16, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

When your only writing objective (and, apparently, your only task altogether) is to summarize a TV show and you can’t even get the character names right, it’s time to step out of line. Lester, not Larry, as a commenter helpfully notes … and as TV Guide still hasn’t fixed.

Communications 101

Filed under:Heh,Language Barrier — posted by Anwyn on December 7, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

Good sentiment, bad expression.

An Australian mayor who begged unattractive women to move to his town has been crowned “sexist of the year.”

John Malony pleaded for “ugly ducklings” to migrate to Mount Isa to counter a lack of eligible women.

The mayor of the remote mining town in northwest Queensland state defended his comments, saying he was “telling it like it is.”

Why is this sexist, exactly? Because he didn’t call for ugly gay men as well?

All he had to do was put out a call for women, and then count on them to figure out who benefits the most from packing up their current lives to move to 5-1 Mantown. I mean, even if the women who make the switch are not beauty queens, you’d like them smart, right?

Via Ace’s headlines.

Not Even the English Can Write the Queen’s English Any More

Filed under:Language Barrier,Need a Good Editor? — posted by Anwyn on November 22, 2008 @ 8:22 pm


Its turns out that Mrs Clinton’s delay in accepting the president elect’s offer to be his top foreign policy adviser had much to do with her negotiating the terms of the job and insisting on the right to choose her own state department staff and possibly even some of the plumb Ambassador postings.

and this:

Obama will have in his gift the right to appoint Supreme Court justices, possibly as many as five out of the nine: Roe v Wade, which gives a woman the right to an abortion if she chooses, would be safe.

Assignments and posts are plum, as in the good stuff in plum-cake, not plumb, as in straight. And the appointments themselves are what the president can give, not “the right” to appoint. He appoints them himself; he doesn’t gift that right to anybody else.

An Englishman of my acquaintance refers to two languages: English and “an American derivative.” His English appears to be slowly dying on the pages of his own country’s papers.

Links via, where else, Hot Air.

People Are Whos, Not Whats

Filed under:Language Barrier — posted by Anwyn on November 19, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

Been going on a long time, this abuse has, and shows no signs of slowing down. I see it in print, in emails, in marketing materials; hear it on TV; hear it in conversation: “People that want to attend …” “A person that went to the party said …” “The youth that went on the trip …”

STOP IT. People are people WHO do things. They are not objects THAT do things. The people who want to attend are people who will not be happy to say that the youth who went on the trip were objectified in the last issue of the newsletter. The team that won, however, or the company that weathered the downturn are all right, even though the team whose mascot was banned or the company whose stock went down are pretty huffy that teams and companies can be both whos and whats. People are not bi-statist. They are always and forever Whos. Don’t grinch them into Whats.

Et Tu, James

Filed under:Language Barrier,Music,Not Cool,Politics — posted by Anwyn on October 22, 2008 @ 11:34 am

Taylor tanks for Obama, like Billy and Bruce.

Advice for stars endorsing Obama: Say as little as possible about why your man is The Man. Please:

“And I just feel so good about seeing Obama present himself, and people getting to know who he is, and how he responds, how he works. I have a huge amount of hope.”

Come on. There’s also this gem:

“I am an Obama guy. I’m sure we don’t know the entire John McCain, we don’t know the entire Barack Obama. That’s what the campaign really needs to be about. We need to know who these guys are.”

Two things: 1) It would have been ridiculous, back in the day of “We don’t really know Obama,” to claim the same of McCain, who’s been on the national scene for decades and has run for president already. If you don’t know enough about it him it’s because you aren’t paying attention. 2) That claim is over even about Obama. We know as much as we need to: He favors socialist economic policies, tells generalistic lies about what caused the finance crisis, couldn’t see outside the bubble of his Chicago pals to know that his relationship with Ayers doesn’t play well with the rest of us, and uses race as a disingenuous club while having sat under a man who is certainly, at the very least, the most racist and flat-out craziest preacher I’ve ever seen or heard of, and I’ve seen and heard some fiery Southern Baptists in my time, people. That is “who this guy is,” James. You know I love you, and it’s certainly not going to stop me from singing “Sweet Baby James” to my son at night or keeping “Frozen Man” among my top favorite songs, but good grief. Just come out and say you’re in favor of rich people paying higher taxes and that Obama’s relationship baggage doesn’t bother you. Something wrong with that?

Allah thinks it’s refreshingly honest when they don’t bother to talk about issues, and it may be, but it also makes me think either A) they’re just not too bright or B) they absolutely think we’re not too bright. Probably some truth in both of those, but why embrace them?

H/t: J.

next page

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace