Twitter moves far faster than any person can read. Thousands of new tweets appear every second, so most of what is posted just goes by in a blur. Hash tags come and go on a daily basis, rarely lasting more than a few hours before people move on. Most of what’s written on Twitter you will never see, and much of what you do see will be forgotten in a few hours. So it’s no wonder that liberals like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are at a loss to explain the staying power enjoyed by tags like #ObamaEatsDogs, #ObamaDogRecipes and #PrayForBo.
Robert Laurie | All Articles
It’s easy for political junkies to forget that the majority of Americans don’t think the way they do. The average man on the street doesn’t spend his day obsessing over constitutional issues or arguments about the effect the Federal Reserve is having on housing prices. They don’t while away their hours dissecting foreign affairs, breaking down polling data or bickering about the Founding Fathers. It’s unfortunate, but most people are simply too busy living their lives to get involved with the day-to-day nuts and bolts of their government.
To conservatives, she’s public enemy number 2. Only President Obama himself elicits more anger and outrage from those on the right. While she’s constantly decried as a monstrous villain, she’s been unfortunately effective for the left, particularly in ramming the unpopular Obamacare through Congress. Republicans have been woefully ineffective at minimizing her power and even though she's no longer the speaker of the House, she’s remained the most visible Democrat other than the commander in chief. So, when Nancy Pelosi claims to “know something” about Newt Gingrich, it’s easy for nervous Republicans to joke that they’re surprised to learn she knows anything at all.
I know you mean well. You care deeply about all of us, want us to have the best possible life and afterlife, and you feel the need to step in and make sure we don’t screw that up. You’re just trying to look out for your fellow citizens. I also know that you envision your political stance as supportive of small-government, pro-liberty ideals. You think that you’ve done nothing but support freedom for all, while the left does everything within its power to take it away. The problem is, that’s not really the case. In fact, social conservatives and their liberal opponents have a lot in common. You need to recognize that because, at the moment, you’re part of the problem.
Granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would create a massive new Democratic voting bloc. At least, that’s clearly what the Democrats believe. Obviously, they’d never publicly admit such a thing. They claim that their desire for amnesty stems from their deep, abiding compassion. Night after night, they toss and turn, unable to sleep for fear that evil Republicans will break up families in their never-ending quest to send honest “undocumented laborers” back to their home countries. Perhaps, in darkened back rooms, behind closed doors, Democrats admit the truth to each other. But for fear of exposing their true intent, they dare not speak it in the light of day.
From the moment of Obamacare’s passage, the political spectrum was well aware that the president’s signature legislation would be heading for a Supreme Court showdown. Within short order, everyone, from the lowliest pundit to the president himself, had acknowledged that the law’s ultimate fate would be decided by nine justices. So, it came as no surprise when, two weeks ago, the court announced that it would hear the case early next year.
All the ingredients are here. We have a potentially powerful politician, a hopelessly flimsy accusation of sexual misconduct and a predictable media, desperate to fill broadcast hours. Was there really ever any doubt that alleged civil rights attorney Gloria Allred would get involved?
In the old days, common sense reigned supreme. If you spent your days hanging around with that kid who smoked, it was a safe bet you were smoking too. “Birds of a feather,” we were told, “flock together.” These days, that kind of thinking will earn you a one-way ticket to the politically incorrect doghouse. Thanks to the holier-than-thou left, the great sin of our time is the willingness to lump people together based on behavior or ideology. Liberal Democrats have worked long and hard to villainize the very idea that there may be such a thing as “birds of a feather.” Take a quick look at the Occupy Wall Street movement, and it’s easy to see why.
The Chris Christie “will he or won’t he” game has been running for months, but in the last week it’s reached a fever pitch. Pundits from every end of the conservative spectrum have been falling all over each other, trying desperately to decide if the New Jersey governor will make a White House bid. Dems are wondering if he can beat Obama, while the GOP has decided that he would be an instant frontrunner for the nomination. Sadly, no one seems to be asking why we’re supposed to be excited for a Christie presidency.
A couple years ago, the world’s major auto makers seemed obsessed with a certain kind of car commercial. The spots featured classic Cadillacs, Mercedes, or Fords, side-by-side with their supposedly superior modern counterparts, charging down a deserted highway. For a while, the ads were everywhere, then, almost overnight, they were pulled. It seemed an odd move. After all, who doesn’t like seeing those old cars? Then it hit me. Those classics looked a heck of a lot better than the new models. Who wants a plastic coated 2010 Caddy, when you’ve just seen it sitting next to its stately chrome and steel 1940 grandfather?
Tuesday night, when Christine O’Donnell managed to demolish Mike Castle’s senatorial hopes, the hand-wringing was to be anticipated. After all, Democrats have spent the last month chomping desperately at the bit, praying for an O’Donnell victory. The word on the street is that “she’s unelectable.” It’s a phrase that was plunged into the heart of the O’Donnell campaign by one of the GOP’s own, Karl Rove. A pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-cap-and-trade Republican-in-name-only like Castle was obviously the better way to go. According to people like Rove, if they’d only been willing to ignore outdated platitudes like “states’ rights” and “the 2nd Amendment,” Delaware’s voters could have guaranteed a Republican victory and strengthened the party’s power.
No one’s entirely sure how many people showed up this weekend for Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally. Beck has suggested the number is around 400,000. The official unofficial number provided by Washington, D.C.’s Park Services is 325,000. CBS low-balled the event, claiming that no more than 85,000 attended, only to have their assertion countered by NBC’s estimate of 500,000. Regardless of the numbers, Democrats are desperate to dismiss the event. They do so at their own peril. There’s a lot they could learn from it.
Last March, when the Supreme Court was about to hear arguments over the Washington D.C. gun ban, President Obama made it clear that he felt the Second Amendment was an individual right, but one he believed was subject to local limitation. He used the old “fire in a crowded theatre” argument to suggest that the same was true of the First Amendment, implying that virtually all of our unalienable rights could be limited by regional laws and plain old common sense.
Ask the average person on the street “Who is Charles Taylor?” and, more likely than not, they’ll say he’s a former basketball player, famous for his canvas shoes. For the record, that’s Chuck Taylor. Charles Taylor is the former president of Liberia, the man in charge of the Muammar Gaddafi financed National Patriotic Front, and a brutal mass murderer. In fact, he’s currently being held in The Hague, where he’s facing a war crimes trial. According to prosecutors, Taylor commanded a Sierra Leone organization called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), which was involved with blood diamonds, human atrocities, and incursions into neighboring countries.
Thursday morning, Barack Obama decided to face the hard hitting, hyper critical, no-spin firing squad that is The View.
It’s been a big week for racism. In the last seven days, it’s been made clear that Tea Party members are racist, state’s rights advocates are racist, Republicans are racist, and Black Panthers who want to kill white babies are, somehow, not all that racist. Perhaps the biggest news in racism, however, came after bombs tore through a Ugandan World Cup celebration. The blast killed 64 people. Fearlessly, President Obama leapt into action condemning the organization’s obvious bigotry.
Barack Obama’s presidency was supposed to be a new beginning. Finally, after two hundred years of bickering and division, the man Oprah deemed “The One” was going to bestow ethnic harmony upon his nation. Billed as the first “post-racial” president, he was supposed to bring us all together, restore our place in the world, and usher in a new era of unity and understanding. The rhetoric was big, bold, and hopeful. People ate it up.
It’s been a long-running joke that Robert C. Byrd was the living senator who’d named the most monuments after himself. In addition to placing an illegal, taxpayer-funded statue of himself in the West Virginia State Capitol, Byrd’s extraordinary narcissism led to the creation of a vast array of public works, monuments and roads, all bearing the late senator’s oft-sullied name. Monday morning, at the age of 92, Byrd passed away. This week we’re going to hear a lot of news stories lauding a man who held the dubious distinction of being the longest serving senator in U.S. history. It’s worth noting that this champion among Democrats will leave behind a legacy of bigotry, racism and hypocrisy that flies directly in the face of the values his party claims to hold so dear.
It’s been creeping into speeches made by the president and his staff. It litters Barack Obama’s two websites, BarackObama.com and Whitehouse.gov. As rhetoric fades, and the reality of multiple crises sets in, this sorry word is emerging as the plan of action for an administration that looks increasingly incapable of dealing with the challenges before it. The word is “cope” and as “hope” wanes, it seems to be the only avenue President Obama is capable of pursuing.