…in the offing? I’m not going to bother to listen.
[Update a few minutes later]
Enough is enough, Sheriff Dupnik. These people have no sense of how crazy they sound. What a hack.
[Update a couple minutes later]
A guide for the journalistically challenged:
[Update a while later]
Thoughts on the confusion of the “feminist” narrative.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Paul Krugman, buffoon:
My guess is that Krugman has no idea when Michele referred to being “armed and dangerous,” or why, or what the rest of the sentence was. Krugman’s biggest problem isn’t that he is stupid. His biggest problem is that he is lazy. He is incapable of doing even the most rudimentary research, which is why his columns rarely contain many facts, and when they do, his “facts” are often wrong.
As it happens, I–unlike Krugman–know all about Michele’s “armed and dangerous” quote, because she said it in an interview with Brian Ward and me, on our radio show. It was on March 21, 2009. The subject was the Obama administration’s cap and trade proposal. Michele organized a couple of informational meetings in her district with an expert on global warming and cap and trade, and she came on our show to promote those meetings. She wanted her constituents to be armed with information on cap and trade so that they would understand how unnecessary, and how damaging to our economy, the Obama administration’s proposal was. That would make them dangerous to the administration’s left-wing plans.
The interview illustrates quite well the difference between Michele Bachmann and Paul Krugman. Krugman is a vicious hater. He rarely argues any issue on the merits, but prefers to smear those who disagree with him. Bachmann is infinitely better informed than Krugman. All she wants to do is debate her opponents on the facts. Unlike Krugman, she doesn’t hate anyone; her irrepressible good humor is considered a marvel by everyone who knows her.
Not like that’s news, of course. I would note that he wasn’t on the panel on This Week on Sunday. I wonder if the suits at ABC decided to head off his jackassery at the pass on that particular day?
[Update a couple minutes later]
Not just a buffoon, but a hypocritical one. No news there, either.
I’m disgusted by this, but sadly I am not surprised.
I won’t say I’m disgusted. I agree that the logo is starting to go over the top, but a politician giving a title to something is nothing new (in fact, it was more odd when they failed to title the act that funded the teacher bailout last fall). However, I did here some news report that couched that the President would “not make any overt political comments” in his speech. I nearly chocked on the qualifier. Why not “overt”? Is “covert” fine? Code words acceptable?
“Memorial Rally”. AKA “Dancing In The Blood”. A class act from a class guy.
Looking for his Oaklahoma City moment, he is.
Hope y’all are mighty proud of what you’ve chosen to represent yourselves, Democrats.
“Like Bill Clinton, Obama will henceforth be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.”
What’s the procedure for recalling a sheriff in Arizona? Just askin’…
Is it a state procedure, or does it depend on the county? I would imagine even if it’s prescribed by the state, it will still be up to Pima County voters — the same ones who elected him. Probably the ones who voted for him agree with this nonsense.
Not necessarily, Rand. Don’t overlook the possibility that the guy is angling for higher office.
And here’s the answer. Seems like lots of people are thinking about this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257014/fun-facts-about-arizona-recall-elections-daniel-foster
Something else the Feminists forgot
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/latina-governors-historic-inauguration-gets-little-national-news-coverage/?test=latestnews#content
The cheering was, indeed, odd.