About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Phony Pacifists

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, December 21, 2009 7:18:04 PM
Dave Swoish of Orange asks a good question in his letter to the Orange County Register.
Has anybody else noticed the disappearance in the past year of the "anti-war protesters" who flocked to the Circle in "Old Orange" and other street corners in Southern California?

Even though our soldiers are still fighting in Iraq and the current president announced an increase of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, these self-righteous humanitarians have slunk back into their corners until the next time the Democratic Party summons them out to do their political bidding. Next election, just bring out your political candidate signs and spare us the sanctimonious hand-wringing.
Yes, Mr. Swoish has discovered the fine print on the signs that say "Say No to War!" – which is, "Unless a Democrat is President."

It is the height of double-standard partisanship when you speak out in support of something "your guy" does, but criticize others for doing the exact same thing, or when you stay silent when your guy does it but actively protest against it when others do the exact same thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sticking Up For TEA Parties

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:59:49 PM
A recent commentary in the Los Angeles Times by Bill Maher on TEA Parties and the GOP has prompted a responding commentary and some letters.

Phil Kerpen, the policy director for Americans for Prosperity, wrote the commentary.
The amount of money for which the government put taxpayers on the hook through bailouts -- undeserved rewards for people who took risks that didn't work out -- went from a shocking $7.7 trillion under George W. Bush to an utterly incomprehensible $12.8 trillion during Obama's brief time in office so far. The anti-bailout majority of Americans are justifiably angry. They were angry when Bush got this mess started and are really angry now that Obama has made it worse. People who played by the rules, took care of their families and paid their taxes are going to pick up the tab for special interests on Wall Street and in Washington.
And they'll pay for their immoral neighbors.

Rod Hallock of Chino Hills wrote:
Bill Maher makes the same mistakes as other pundits when he writes that he doesn't know what the "tea party" protests were all about and then goes on to imply that it is all about President Obama's race.

I went to the protest in Yorba Linda because I am concerned about the inevitable inflation that will result from spending trillions of dollars we do not have to spend.
Linda Winters of Culver City, still not getting it, wrote:
What is bothering Republicans is the plain fact that they lost the last two elections and haven't a clue what to do to clean up their sorry act.
TEA parties were not Republican events.
Instead of acting like grown-ups and working together with the new guy, they can do nothing but pout and rant and call Obama silly names.
It's a good thing that Democrats didn’t do that when Bush was elected.
Hey, GOP, I've got a flash for you: You were beaten fair and square by Obama, an intelligent, hardworking guy who will get this nation back on its feet, even if you won't lift a hand to help him do it.
Drastically increasing debt, inflation, and the size of government is not going to get this nation back on its feet.  We'll get back on our feet despite these things.  We’ll get back on our feet faster and stronger if we halt the growth of these things and let the free market work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yes, He Will Be My President

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:12:36 PM
For over eight years, we have heard the whining and hysterics and paranoia and derision from the Left about President Bush.

He stole the election!
He actually believes the religion he professes!
He's going to force women into back-alley abortions and make sure they'd never get equal pay for doing the same amount, quality, and level of work!
He's going to end all medical research!
He's going to destroy education and force all the kids to be indoctrinated with young-earth creationism and abstinence preaching!
He's going to destroy the planet with global warming!
He's not going to force other people to provide me with top-notch health care are no cost to me!
He's giving tax breaks to the rich!
He's taking us to war only to enrich a handful of companies!
He's making hurricanes to kill black people and preventing them from leaving areas facing disasters!
He's not listening to or cooperating with Democrats, or other countries – everything is unilateral!
He's going to cancel elections and turn us into a Christianist Theocratic Dictatorship!
He's letting Cheney and Rove run everything!
He let 9/11 happen when he could have prevented it, or was in on it!
He's listening in to my phone calls, reading my e-mails and chat sessions, and going to stick us all in secret prisons and torture us!

Just about every person he nominated was vehemently opposed as one or more of the following:
1. completely inexperienced
2. just a crony
3. just a political hack
4. out of touch
5. extremist
6. the person who was really going to be in control of the whole Presidency
7. incompetent
8. evil

There was no honeymoon, there was no "wait and see".  This kind of thing was how it was from the start.

Sure, most people rallied behind him immediately after 9/11, but that moment was very brief.  Aside from that moment, it has been a constant barrage.

And now, some Republicans are tempted to respond just a little bit in kind now that there is a Democrat President coming in to office.  One way we see this is with calls to "protest" Obama’s inauguration – not picketing like so many unwashed Leftist freaks – but by deliberately not watching and letting others know that they are going to "protest" or "mourn".

I call on my fellow Republicans, conservatives, and defenders of limited government to be respectful of the inauguration.  Regardless of who is being inaugurated, these events are a testament to one of the blessings our founders secured – a smooth and orderly transition of power.  In some countries, bloody coups are pretty much the norm, or corrupt dynasties that crush all potential rivals and rule for decades.

Thank God we live in the U.S.A.

We are a nation of laws, not men.  Our nation is a collection of fifty states, each a democratic representative republic.  Collectively, our fifty states elected B. H. Obama as President per Constitutional procedure.  We should respect that, because we value doing things in an orderly, lawful way, an unlike too many of our political opponents, we have respect for the office of President and for our Constitution.  Notice that a President on our side wouldn't take his jacket off in Oval Office, while one their side soiled an intern’s dress with a body fluid that shouldn’t have touched another person other than his wife.

Think of the inauguration as a celebration of our Constitution.

I'm no fan of Obama or Biden.  That's obvious from my blog entries.  But as far as we know, there wasn’t enough voter fraud to call their election into question.  They won by unfairly blaming Bush and linking McCain to Bush, by fostering false hopes and wishful thinking and racism, and through massive voter ignorance – but that is all legal and orderly and Constitutional.

DON’T be like so many of our political opponents, who were constantly disrespectful and tacky and whiny and at times downright bizarre.

DO support our President in what he does right.

DO be vigilant in protecting our rights.

DO stay informed, be active, network, encourage, and persuade others towards limited-government thinking and action.

DON’T cast pearls before swine, wasting your breath with hardcore Leftists who will never change, but instead focus on the young and the undecided and the moderates, who will notice the difference in how we react to Obama and how the Left reacted to Bush.

Yes, Obama will be my President, because that is who our country elected.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LA Times Urges Bush Not to Be Like Clinton

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:07:31 PM
Yes, you read that right.  The Los Angeles Times editorial board praises Bush by writing "Unlike [President Bill] Clinton, Bush has been judicious in granting clemency" in an editorial titled "Bush’s Pardons".

And silly me, I thought perhaps the editorial board was being moderate.

Then I read the whole thing.  After calling Clinton’s pardon record "atrocious", they go on to write:
Television commentator Lou Dobbs has made household names of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, former U.S. Border Patrol agents who were convicted of shooting a fleeing drug smuggler and trying to conceal their actions. There also is speculation that Bush might issue a blanket pardon for CIA agents who could face criminal charges for engaging in or approving the torture of suspected terrorists.

The Constitution gives the president absolute discretion in granting clemency, but misuse of the power can taint his or her legacy.
Later in the piece, they write:
If Bush wants to spare himself the obloquy rightly visited on Clinton, he will say no to any pardon based on... populist propaganda (the two border guards)... The pardon power also shouldn't be used to indemnify lawbreaking in the cause of the president's policies. That rules out a group pardon for CIA interrogators, who already enjoy significant protection from prosecution under an act of Congress.
The implication is that Bush shouldn’t pardon Ramos and Compean, nor others who have worked to save us from terrorists despite ungrateful ninnies whining about it.

But the editorial board's folly is made complete only with what comes later:
We don't suggest that Bush should spurn every high-profile request for clemency. As we have argued before, John Walker Lindh should be given a commutation of his 20-year sentence for aiding the Taliban, a dramatically disproportionate penalty for a young man who never took up arms against the United States and was wrongly described by his government as an Al Qaeda-trained terrorist.
See?  Bush should pardon more people - like traitorous American terrorists - but not those who have worked to protect us from terrorists.

Pardon you, editorial board.

At least they don't give Clinton a pass; so many on the Left bash Republicans for doing things or warn them not to do things that some Democrats do - without criticizing those Democrats.  Of course, it is easy for the paper to criticize Clinton now that it doesn't matter.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What’s Good For the Goose

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 27, 2008 12:40:39 PM
When Democrats and other supporters of former President Clinton are rebuffed in their criticisms of President Bush when defenders of Bush compare something Bush has done to something Clinton did, they often blow up and say something alone the lines of "Is that your answer to everything?  That Clinton did it, so it is okay?"

Actually, our argument in that case is that you, the Clinton supporter, apparently thought such things were okay, because you didn’t speak up when Clinton did them.  You only complained when Bush did them.  You have a lot less standing to bash Bush for doing something akin to what Clinton did, especially if you supported Clinton’s behavior.

It’s going to be the same thing if Obama is elected.  The MSM and other Obama supporters have glossed over Obama’s associations with extremists, radicals, terrorists, and criminals.  But don’t make the mistake of thinking they will EVER give a pass on a Republican for having some sort of connection to extremists or criminals, no matter how distant and casual.

And when we point out that it was okay by them that Obama had such associations, they will blow up in frustration and again say, "Is that your answer for everything?  That Obama did it, too?"

It is the worst kind of partisanship to hold the other side to standards to which you do not hold yours.

According to some analysts, Mark Foley was one reason the Democrats made gains in 2006.  Yet does anyone expect Republicans to make gains because of the scandals of his successor, Tim Mahoney?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Lieberman Wrong?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:12:33 PM
He was Algore’s choice for Vice-President.  A mere eight years ago, Democrats were touting him as ready to be President, and supporting him as VP.  Indeed, according to many, the Vice-Presidency was stolen from him by the evil minions of Bush-Cheney through dastardly courtroom tricks.  (Bush, by the way, had only gotten the GOP nod after defeating John McCain in the primaries - McCain is NOT Bush.)

Last night, Senator Joseph Lieberman stood up in front of the world and heartily endorsed John McCain for President.

How could this be?  Did Lieberman go racist?  Is he just trying to get back at the Democrat Party for forcing him to run for re-election to the Senate as an independent?  Or could Lieberman actually be right – that someone he disagrees with on many significant issues has the character, experience, and abilities to be a better President than Senator Obama?

And which Republican Senator did the Democrats have speaking in prime time at their convention, promising that Obama would be a better President than John McCain?  Oh that’s right.  They didn’t.

So, supporters of Obama – I  ask you: Is Lieberman right when it comes to just about everything but wrong when it comes to Iraq and McCain?  Is the man you told us was ready to be President wrong about who else should be President?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Point Me To This Past Unpartisan Utopia

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:19:01 AM
I heard a clip of Benedict Arnold McClellan on the radio – I think it was from The Today Show - talking about his desire to change the partisanship in Washington, D.C.

Give me a break.  All of these people who claim that the nation has never been so polarized and partisan should do a little research and read up on some of the stuff that was said and written about some of our favorite Presidents in years past.  And hello... the war for secession, otherwise known as the Civil War?  Partisanship is nothing new, and we all know that calls for “bipartisan cooperation” mean “Hey all of you conservatives and libertarians: Shut up and roll over as we grow the socialist nanny state and tear down the family.”

Where partisanship really has gotten worse is with our involvement in Iraq.  Go back and see how Republicans handled dealing with a Democrat President during World War II.  You won’t find them behaving like the Democrat leadership is these days.  It’s really disgusting.  But the absurdity here is that McClellan is adding to that instead of reducing it.

Good job, buddy.  Better put some of this money aside to live on, unless you plan on being a paid tool of very partisan Democrats for the rest of your life.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Enough With Whining About Firing U.S. Attorneys

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, March 10, 2008 6:07:04 PM
The Dems are so shameful with this U.S. attorney investigation.  This is so blatantly partisan and grasping at straws that if Republicans pulled something like this, they would be brutally attacked by the drive-by media.  Pete Yost of the Associated Press reports.
The House Judiciary Committee sued former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten on Monday, setting up a constitutional clash over the Bush administration's refusal to provide testimony and documents about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
What a crock.  I want to see if any of these people make a peep if a Dem gets elected President and fires any U.S. attorneys, or “fails to discourage them from resigning.”
The lawsuit says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and that she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress regarding what Democrats say were politically motivated dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys.
What if they were politically motivated?  SO WHAT?!?  This investigation is clearly politically motivated.

Will Congress intervene in such matters in the future?  Will the drive-by media make a big deal about it, whatever happens?  Somehow I doubt it – if a Dem is President.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Shouldn't GOP Presidents Exercise the Same Powers as Dem Presidents?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, July 09, 2007 12:16:59 PM
The Democrat Congress has nothing better to do than to try to assert control over the Executive Branch with endless subpoenas, inquiries, and hearings.  Currently, the hot topics are the Scooter Libby commutation and the firing of the U.S. Attorneys.  Both of these things are the prerogative of the President, who doesn’t need to give a reason to anyone as to “why”.

Democrats balk when the Bush Administration and those siding with it say “Hey, Clinton did the same thing, and you didn't complain then.”  It’s as if these Democrats maintain precedence is completely irrelevant, and as if the next Democrat President won’t do exactly the same thing.  Please.  We know he or she will.

For some reason, these Congressional Democrats and the MSM think that Presidents should have different powers depending on their political affiliation.

Hey Congress: It’s none of your business as to “why”.  It’s something all Presidents get to do, not just Democrat Presidents.  End of story.  Don’t like it?  Don’t let your next President do it.  Stop wasting our money.

With this in mind, I urge you, if you ever get the chance, to ask Democrat Presidential candidates the following question:

“Will you pledge to never pardon or commute any part of a sentence for anyone associated with your Presidency, and pledge to never fire a U.S. attorney for any reason that could be construed as “political”, and testify before Congress to these matters?”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Bashers Who Try to Forget Bill Clinton's Mistakes

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:09:06 AM
History matters.  Action have consequences.

Bush bashers roll their eyes and huff dismissively when someone brings up their past support of Bill Clinton, who did something akin to, or worse than, that which they are accusing President Bush.

They don't have an answer, though.  They just expect that everyone will have forgotten.  Or they think and behave as though nothing in the past matters unless they want it to.

The chickens are coming home to roost, and it frustrates them.  All of the scandals and poor decisions and priorities of President Clinton are coming back to haunt those who supported him through it all, but now bash Bush.

Republicans can be a forgiving sort, though.  So, if you are one of those frustrated people who supported Bill Clinton through all of those scandals and want us to consider your dissatisfaction with Bush's actions without bringing up Clinton, my advice to you is this:

1. Admit that Clinton was wrong.
2. Admit that you were wrong to defend Clinton when he was wrong.
3. Pledge that you will consider something wrong no matter what politician does it in the future.

Then, we can take you seriously.

And you have to listen to us when we say "It's the Economy, Stupid" to defend Bush's shortcomings.  After all, Wall Street is in record territory, so that means Bush is a good President, according to your logic... right?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »