Once again, a vote by my senator Amy Klobuchar leaves me scratching my head in disbelief. She was one of a handful of Democrats to vote in favor of condemning MoveOn.org for its Petraeus ad in the New York Times. What could her rationales be?
a) I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want anyone to accuse me of not supporting our troops.
b) I believed the hyperventilating Republicans that the ad was a vicious attack on the general and the troops.
c) I had a killer hangover.
Amy has raised the hackles of many Minnesotans in the blogoshpere and for good reason. Her vote is now part of a Norm Coleman ad bashing Al Franken for supporting MoveOn.org. The ad, of course, uses Amy’s vote as evidence that all right-thinking Minnesotan’s support the hysterical Republican blather about that anti-American group of lefties.
So what is Amy Klobuchar? An unwitting tool of conservatives? A Republican in Democrat’s clothing? A soulless, calculating political machine? A not very smart person? Nothing good on this list from which to choose. One thing we do know is that she’s turning out to be a Democrat in name only.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
“Please, Mr. President. Not in public.”
Minnesota’s lovably loony congressperson Michele Bachmann is at it again. This time she claims that President Bush tried a little grope-a-dope at the site of the 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, and she rejected his gesture. According to the site Think Progress, Bachmann made these remarks during a local radio show:
The President and I enjoy a great relationship. When he and I were back visiting the collapsed bridge, he reached over because he wanted to give me a kiss when we were down at the site, and I had pulled back and he said, “What? You don’t want to embrace?” And I said, “The people of Minnesota love you Mr. President, but I think one kiss was enough.”
Where, oh where, to begin. First off, Michele’s assertion that Minnesotans love George Bush is itself a delusion. She might love the Shrub, but poll after poll tells us that the majority of Minnesotans (a group of which I am a member) detest George and his policies.
Then there’s the kiss thing. Her use of the word “kiss” is interesting. How exactly did she know he wanted to kiss her and wasn’t simply offering her a comforting hug? Was his tongue hanging out? His reaction, according to Bachmann, “What? You don’t want to embrace?” simply doesn’t sound like anything Bush would actually say. He might mutter, “Huh?” or “What’s wrong?” but “You don’t want to embrace?” rings false.
Michele has a unique world-view that begs you to question virtually anything she says, and she seems to have a difficult time distinguishing between what’s appropriate what’s not. Hiding behind bushes to watch people: Not appropriate. Grabbing and holding on to the President of the United States at his State of the Union Address: Not appropriate. Accepting a comforting embrace from the president at the site of a terrible disaster: Probably appropriate.
The President and I enjoy a great relationship. When he and I were back visiting the collapsed bridge, he reached over because he wanted to give me a kiss when we were down at the site, and I had pulled back and he said, “What? You don’t want to embrace?” And I said, “The people of Minnesota love you Mr. President, but I think one kiss was enough.”
Where, oh where, to begin. First off, Michele’s assertion that Minnesotans love George Bush is itself a delusion. She might love the Shrub, but poll after poll tells us that the majority of Minnesotans (a group of which I am a member) detest George and his policies.
Then there’s the kiss thing. Her use of the word “kiss” is interesting. How exactly did she know he wanted to kiss her and wasn’t simply offering her a comforting hug? Was his tongue hanging out? His reaction, according to Bachmann, “What? You don’t want to embrace?” simply doesn’t sound like anything Bush would actually say. He might mutter, “Huh?” or “What’s wrong?” but “You don’t want to embrace?” rings false.
Michele has a unique world-view that begs you to question virtually anything she says, and she seems to have a difficult time distinguishing between what’s appropriate what’s not. Hiding behind bushes to watch people: Not appropriate. Grabbing and holding on to the President of the United States at his State of the Union Address: Not appropriate. Accepting a comforting embrace from the president at the site of a terrible disaster: Probably appropriate.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
A few 9/11-anniversary questions
Why do a number of prominent progressives, some of whom have made careers out of questioning the U.S. government’s motives and methods, continue to vigorously defend the government’s findings around the events of 9/11?
World Trade Center building 7 was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed into it’s own footprint. I’ve read various attempts to explain this, but none of them make sense, not because they are too technical, but because they simply defy logic.
I’m certainly not an engineer, but I can understand the concept of the heat from the plane’s burning fuel weakening the metal supports in the Towers enough to cause a collapse. What I don’t understand is how hot liquid pouring through a building would weaken the metal beams at the same points around the circumference of the building in order to cause the buildings to fall straight down. Logic tells me that the intensity of the heat from the fuel would affect the metal beams at different areas up and down the building, which would cause the upper section of a tower to fall to one side or another, not straight down.
Why did Bush sit on his ass in a Florida classroom for seven minutes after being informed that America was under attack?
World Trade Center building 7 was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed into it’s own footprint. I’ve read various attempts to explain this, but none of them make sense, not because they are too technical, but because they simply defy logic.
I’m certainly not an engineer, but I can understand the concept of the heat from the plane’s burning fuel weakening the metal supports in the Towers enough to cause a collapse. What I don’t understand is how hot liquid pouring through a building would weaken the metal beams at the same points around the circumference of the building in order to cause the buildings to fall straight down. Logic tells me that the intensity of the heat from the fuel would affect the metal beams at different areas up and down the building, which would cause the upper section of a tower to fall to one side or another, not straight down.
Why did Bush sit on his ass in a Florida classroom for seven minutes after being informed that America was under attack?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
