Welcome to today's RedState Morning Briefing Summary (RMBS FAQ).
My prediction for tomorrow's RMBS? Smears of Sonia Sotomayor based entirely on The New Republic's gossip mongering.
Bleh.
Vichy Republicans
Call Powell, Ridge, etc. quislings, Vichy Republicans or whatever you like, but one thing is clear — these respected men have chosen to use their positions and media adoration to take on not Rush and Dick Cheney, but conservatives. Like Obama using various bank executives as a proxy to fight the free market, these men and others are using Limbaugh, Cheney, and others as proxies to fight conservatism in general.
You have to question the point in reading further into a post that starts off this unhinged. Obama is "using various bank executives as a proxy to fight the free market"? I guess somebody was on another planet when the so-called "free market" imploded under the weight of trillions in Credit Default Swaps.
Let's see if this gets any closer to reality.
As I have written before, every exit poll in the last three to four Presidential elections shows that roughly 34% of the country considers itself conservative and 21% - 22% considers itself liberal. For a winning coalition, conservatives have to pick off less moderates than liberals do.
I guess not — well, kinda. Erick is correct that given these numbers, "conservatives" have a 10 point advantage. That is, however, merely a lead, not a guaranteed win. So, given that 70% of the people have favorable opinions of Powell and 30% and 37% have favorable opinions of Limbaugh and Cheney, respectively, it looks like the "conservative" wing of the Republican Party plans to "pick off" roughly 0% of the moderates. Heck, at 30% favorable, Limbaugh doesn't even win the hearts of all conservatives.
Keep it up guys. No, I mean it.
New York Terrorists Radicalized in Prison
Authorities in New York have discovered that the four alleged terrorists arrested last week while planning to blow up a synagogue and shoot down a U.S. military plane were all converted to Islam while in prison. The four were attendees at a Newburgh, NY, mosque, where Imam Salahuddin Muhammad is the spiritual leader. Muhammad also serves as a Muslim prison chaplain.
Ah, I love the smell of fresh bigotry in the morning; smells like another Democratic sweep in 2010. Here, conveniently, converting to Islam and attending a mosque automatically means becoming "radicalized." Never mind that the people in the mosque thought these guys were crazy.
Never mind that newly-converted are often more fanatical than the mainstream of the religion. Next time you run into a more-Catholic-than-the-Pope right-wing Catholic, asked them where they attended RCIA. The Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) is what you have to go through if you join the Roman Catholic Church later in life. You find a high percentage will have an answer.
Never mind that there are plenty of opportunities for "radicalization" in prison that don't involve religion. There are criminal gangs and racist gangs that can affect an inmate's outlook and future activities. There are lots of people in prison with twisted ideas that they are willing to act upon — that's why they're in prison.
Anyway, the point is that the story of the recent bombing attempt has very little to do with Islam. Nevertheless, the article goes on to predict that if we had Guantanamo inmates in U.S. prisons, they'd start churning out Muslim terrorists like Cheney churns out lies (i.e. a lot, really quickly, in case you haven't been following Cheney).
This is getting predictable and tiresome. I was motivated to lampoon the wingnut thinking on this in video form yesterday. My post is here if you are interested.
Maybe MoveOn.org Planted the Starbucks Bomb
Really?
Subtitle: Not really, but talk about crummy timing
Here, in its entirety, is this cheap shot at MoveOn dot-org:
This morning a bomb went off outside a Starbucks in New York City.
This afternoon, I received this email from Justin Ruben at MoveOn.org:
You’ve probably heard about the illegal, anti-union tactics of retail giants like Walmart. But did you know that Starbucks has been found guilty of those same tactics?
Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ billionaire owner, has made it a priority to keep unions out of Starbucks. But our friends at Brave New Films are fighting back. They’ve put together a video documenting the harassment and intimidation that Starbucks workers have faced.
Check out the surprising video below and sign the memo telling Schultz that Starbucks must let workers exercise their rights and unionize.
Talk about bad timing. Way to go, MoveOn — first you defend terrorists during the war, then you attack a company that just had one of its stores bombed.
- This email campaign would have been submitted well in advance of the bombing.
- While it's upsetting that someone set off an improvised explosive outside a Starbucks, that doesn't mean that they are now exempt from criticism for their anti-union policies.
The police suspect a group of teenagers. Motive is unknown. No one was hurt.
Obama’s green-tinted glasses distort energy picture
If Obama won’t allow energy producers to get that oil and gas at home, they will have to get it from other countries more willing to derive revenues from their wealth of energy resources:
"If you penalize oil and gas, and add taxes, it is going to make it much more difficult and more expensive. That means U.S. jobs are exported and we won’t get the revenues from royalties," said Landry.
Cathy Landry is a spokesrobot for the American Petroleum Institute.
Shorter version of this tripe: "Drill, baby, drill."
Not that the Republicans are getting their energy policy dictated to them by the petroleum industry or anything.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Slated for Fall Action
Far be it from me to suggest that Democrat leaders would ever do anything disingenuous, but I can’t help but wonder if they’re promising passage of legislation that they expect will fail. It’s clear that there’s a lot of active opposition to immigration reform including amnesty, and that the opposition becomes louder, more organized, and more effective the closer Congress comes to a vote. Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, et al, are certainly aware that Democrats in swing states and districts regard this as an extremely dangerous vote - one that can cost them their seats. Notwithstanding the decisive Democrat margin of control in the House and Senate, this will be an extremely heavy lift.
The author, Brian Faughnan, is correct to imply that the Democrats are not above introducing a bill that would look good but ultimately fail to pass. It's been done by both sides often enough. What I question, though, is how "dangerous" it would be to vote for immigration reform. Last time I saw statistics (and I don't have time to dig them up), most Americans were ready to see something done — and not just a round of mass deportations and a border fence.
WTO: US Must Drop Protectionism for Trade Deal
Barack Obama campaigned on a promise of ‘restoring good relations’ with key US partners, but it’s hard to tell from the way he’s governed so far. From evicting the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, to sacrificing East European allies for better relations with Russia and Iran, to starting trade wars with Canada and Mexico, Obama has done nothing but go renege on this commitment.
These claims have been visited before in the RMBS and found to be bogus (Look at "Obama Set on Igniting a Trade War" in this RMBS). Even if they were 100% true, this is just day-to-day international posturing. It happens during all Administrations — except under Bush II, where it was all negative for the U.S..
Eliminating barriers to trade allows businesses to produce their goods more efficiently (by lowering the price of inputs) and to market their products for less. It increases competition, thereby improving the return to consumers. And since advanced western nations such as the United States are more likely successfully to protect critical markets, the benefits of trade liberalization are felt to a greatest degree by the world’s poorest. Therefore when the U.S. refuses to make concessions, the pain is felt most directly by those that Barack Obama has promised to help.
Oh, suddenly they give a shit about the poor. Oh, wait, it's just another defense of global mega-corps and pointless consumerism. Nothing new.
Gettin’ In Their Kitchen
The title comes from a labored metaphor involving golf. I hate golf. If you like golf, let me ruin it for you:
Ok, so your brother-in-law is lining up his putt tomorrow. He’s beating you badly on that front nine, even giving you strokes, so you resort to the oldest trick in the book. Greenside chatter - ol’ fashioned trash talkin’ - NEVER in his backswing, that would be a breach of etiquette, of course - but enough crap to get him thinking as he hops in and out of the cart. If it works, he yips that next putt and then stares at you - you shoot back that quiet smirk and say "good putt." If it doesn’t work, he chuckles and snaps up that ball from the cup. You immediately retort that he is playing well and add, "if you just smooth this drive, you’ll break 40 on the front." You’ve just guaranteed he won’t.
Welcome to his kitchen - you’re in it.
Dick Cheney is in President Obama’s kitchen.
So, Dick Cheney giving speeches is like an infantile fucknut taunting you on the golf course. It couldn't be the other way around, because Obama is the one trying to do something here and Cheney is the asshole on the sidelines going, "Noonan! Miss it, Noonan! NNNNNNooooonan!"
When did you ever hear of Bill Clinton feeling compelled to respond to Dan Quayle’s criticism? Or Ronald Reagan feeling compelled to respond to Walter Mondale - before or during the 1984 campaign?
When did Dan Quayle or Walter Mondale spend so much time on a 24-hour news channel that they probably had to sleep in the studio?
In a desperate attempt to resurrect his aimless foreign policy, Obama has blamed his predecessor for "hasty decisions" on matters of national security. Yet, even congressional Democrats have recently and repeatedly pointed out - no one was more "hasty" about GITMO than a president who announces its prospective closing without a plan. Combine that with Obama’s just-announced reversal of his once intended release of Abu Ghraib photos and it’s difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that Obama is a ready for prime time player or that his policies preserve American national security. And, the first and only Republican to skillfully articulate this criticism was Dick Cheney.
It's pretty sad when your side's version of "skillfully" articulated means "shamelessly lied and distorted."
The Lost Heroes of the War on Terror: Gallant Deeds and Untold Tales
Despite taking place in the Information Age, very few of the heroic exploits of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines since September 11, 2001, have made their way into the living rooms of ordinary Americans — at least in any lasting way.
It's melodramatic, but it's a sincere piece aimed at bringing some additional recognition to four heroic warriors, one from each branch of the service:
Michael P. Murphy, United States Navy
Jason Dunham, United States Marine Corps
Ross McGinnis, United States Army
Jason Cunningham, United States Air Force
It was Memorial Day and that was completely appropriate. Opportunistic attacks on "liberals" and "Obama" appear in the comments, but otherwise it was an apolitical tribute.
This was not a RedState original, by the way, it was imported from Pajamas Media.