Archive for March 1, 2010

R.S. McCain hits Frank Rich upside the head, which apparently is highly necessary for this man since he is acting like an idiot, except for the acting part:

Accusing opponents of dangerous insanity has become so commonplace in the Age of Obama that such discourse is now taken for granted. Frank Rich devoted the entirety of his Sunday New York Times column to insinuating that the Tea Party movement is a paranoid aggregation motivated by “frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage,” and thereby complicit in the Feb. 18 crime of Andrew Joseph Stack III, who piloted his Piper airplane into an Internal Revenue Service office in Texas.

Of course Stacy, my soft fedora in hand, is still recovering from my 20/40 parry of Rule 5, so he was a day late hitting Rich, but he is not the only one going after him:

Frank Rich of the New York Times retired as a drama critic in order to take up his new role as the paper’s full-time drama queen. As an op-ed columnist for the Times, his assignment, apparently, is to write in such a hysterical fashion that Paul Krugman seems rational by comparison.

Read the entire Fisking by Mr. Hinderacker and wonder what kind of readers the Times must have for this story to be recommended by anyone.

Now all of this is well and good but what does this have to do with the famous line from the Sherlock Holmes short story Silverblaze?

Well nothing but Morning Joe does…

Morning Joe often touches on Frank Rich’s columns. I had it on this morning from about 6:30. It is certainly possible that I missed something they said because I haven’t been just sitting in front of the TV this morning but as Rush would put it on the subject Zip Zero Nada.

It’s fair to say that the Healthcare bill and the McCain stuff is much bigger and maybe they can get to it tomorrow but Morning Joe is the dog that didn’t bark.

I suggest there is no way to look at the Frank Rich Column without concluding that it is one of the most idiotic pieces of writing that a person has ever been paid to paper or pixel. It has no basis in reality. The only reason why I don’t give him the Mike “Dishonorable” Huckabee treatment is because I expected better from the Gov.

I would very much like Joe and Mika to tackle this column this week. I suspect MSNBC would very much like them to stay away from it, I suspect the reason is because they are honest enough to call it the pap it is. This might be a bridge too far for their niche market.

Next year they should broadcast from CPAC.

Update: No sheeples here offers a restrained image of Mr. Rich, who in fairness has more hair than me, but no fedora.

as she is a BIG supporter of J. D. Hayworth. (Who I managed to miss at CPAC).

Morning Joe is just destroying John McCain over the “I was duped” stuff. I remember the presidential campaign, at the time this came up he was ahead. Rush and many other conservatives insisted that if he just came out against this it would be the clincher as the American people didn’t didn’t trust it. He insisted he knew better (after all he was a long time senator) and Gov Palin, as a vice presidential candidate does, backed and defended the top of the ticket. This destroyed him.

I will always have a soft spot for John McCain, he stood alone for the surge when many republicans wanted him and it to go away. If there is a person other than President Bush that we can point to as responsible for the Victory in Iraq it is him. For that reason he is owed a debt that can never be repaid. (Not just in terms of Americans, but Iraqi’s who are still alive because of him).

But just as I wouldn’t consider Nomar the shortstop solution for the RedSox in 2010 as his time has passed I think that Barbara is right. John McCain’s time has passed.

It would appear that Mr. Hayworth shares Sen McCain’s correct positions on the war and on Reconciliation while being better on solid conservative issues.

One prediction: If he loses the primary be aware that he will become THE goto republican as far as the MSM goes for as long as he wants to be.

Update: Boy does Michelle elaborate.

I certainly have no objection to Rule 5 and the ladies therein. I rarely participate in it myself but I certainly don’t have a problem with anyone having fun with it, nor do I object to it as a source of hits to the blog who join in, but Smitty today mentioned something that is worth bringing up…

When talking about the direction that rule 5 has gone he mentioned something: The simple appreciation of loveliness.

To that end let me direct you to this photo:

Non-Random CPAC photo of the day

You will not that the lady therein is not wearing anything revealing, her hair is not made up, her clothing is not designer and her hat is not a fedora (ok that last part isn’t really important).

But let me tell you something, this is a good face, this is a lovely face, it is what I call a 20/40 year face, it is the type of face that is going to age very well. I’ll wager that 20 years ago that face was just as cute as it is now or cuter and in 20 more years it will still be a pleasure to look at.

Because of our culture this type of face and woman is under appreciated. That is a shame. Any man worth his salt would be proud to stand next to a woman with a face like that. I haven’t met the gentleman who wakes up next to this face, but he is a lucky man.

So per Smitty statement let me suggest that although it might not be considered a rule 5 post. I think given the choice I’d rather be sitting next to this person than any of the rule 5 choices offered today.

Oh and if you are wondering why I didn’t use a picture of my wife for this post although she fits the 20/40 rule it to a T: She hates compliments of that nature from me, especially when made publicly. (But feel free to check out this link to see what I mean.)

Update: No reason to blush, as they said in the old TV show The Guns of Will Sonnett: “No Brag Just fact.”

Update 2: Camp of the saints launches an all out NSFW offensive. Impressive, but my statement still stands.