Democrats: "A Grande Bailout!"

News from Scrappleface:

(2008-07-02) — Democrats in Congress today plan to introduce a bill to halt the recently-announced closing of some 600 Starbucks coffee stores, noting that the displacement of 12,000 Starbucks baristas would overwhelm government aid offices not prepared to handle so many clients for whom English is a second language.

“These people can’t just walk out of Starbucks and get a job at a grocery store or a factory,” said House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. “They would need ESL classes and cultural training to learn how to relate to ordinary Americans and function in society.”

Rep. Pelosi’s bill would subsidize the 600 money-losing Starbucks locations by giving away millions of taxpayer dollars in so-called ‘Venti Vouchers’ to residents of these hard-hit neighborhoods. If the effort fails to revive the flagging stores, Rep. Pelosi said Democrats would “seriously consider nationalizing the coffee industry to ensure the free flow of java at fair prices.”

“This is just another one of our Democrat efforts to protect Americans from the impact of the Bush economic policies,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Under this president, America has become a cold and desolate place where corporations cut unprofitable activities to focus on increasing the bottom line, and returning value to shareholders. When Democrats retake the White House next year, we will reverse that trend.”

The Jews and Joe Lieberman

My gloating friend, the Pinko Commie, posted this link to our shared Google Reader page today.

It talks about the fact that in a recent poll of 900 Jewish folks, Barack Obama was more poular than Joe Lieberman. This is clearly about Iraq and Joe's supposed defection (though really an ousting) from the Democratic party.

Now I love my peeps, but next to Blacks, Jews are the most monolithic block of voters out there. Two things:

1) Lieberman, though ousted from his party, still won in a landslide in a very moderate (though left leaning)state with a large Jewish presence

2) The fact that Obama only has 60 percent of Jews polling for him now is amazing. The last president to get only 60 percent or less of the Jewish vote (besides Jimmy Carter who got votes taken away by an Independent) was Adlai Stevenson in 1956. This, mind you, was against Dwight Eisenhower, liberator of Nazi Germany.

Anyway, the neo conservatives and the Hasids will change all that eventually. And if i have anything to do with it, so will I.

Was The New York Times Rejection Good for McCain?

News today that The New York Times rejected an op-ed piece submitted by John McCain on Friday made big news. This is especially offensive journalism by the NYT given the fact that they ran an Obama piece just days earlier. It was perfectly timed with a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Jordan and allowed him to lay out his Mid East foreign policy on a national stage.

The Grey Lady didn’t agree to give John McCain the same opportunity, issuing a rejection with strict conditions required for acceptance. In this case, the conditions that needed to be met meant a rewritten McCain piece that framed his issues as the NYT saw fit (i.e. discussion of definitive timelines for withdrawal). I’m sure the editors at the Times didn’t change a comma for Obama.

And yet, as an ad guy, I can tell you that all of this is actually good for McCain. The media impressions he’ll gain from the rejection will far outweigh the Monday circ of the NYT op-ed page. The recent campaign for Trojan Condoms is a perfect example. A brand with a small budget gained over 200 million media impressions by getting its ad rejected by CBS and FOX. A few million bucks on late night TV could never touch the attention garnered by airtime on The Colbert Report, The O'Reilly Factor, and VH1's Best Week Ever.

The rejection will only work to galvanize the Right and, if the campaign is smart, become part of the McCain campaign theme. I’m not so convinced, however, of this campaign’s political IQ.

Just Beat It ... Again: A Response to the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal, recently posted a piece about the evil Republican joy of torture. BCPL listed 5 reasons he’s against the use of any "enhanced" information seeking techniques:

1. Immoral and inhumane
2. Universally illegal (under the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ and US Law, among others)
3. Ineffective
4. Counter-productive, making us less safe
5. Inconsistent with American values

At the end of last year, I posted a few thoughts on the subject; inspired by the previous evening’s Democratic debate. You’ll see that while I don’t condone torture for torture’s sake, there is something to be gained from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The ticking bomb scenario may be mostly academic, but it’s a necessary discussion none-the-less and ultimately separates those who support a reasonable security measure vs. those who are dogmatically demented by liberal ideology.

Here’s my take again:

The United States must not be in the business of torture. However, to be brutally honest, I believe there are more important things to care about than whether or not a few EVIL ANIMALS WHO SEEK TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE get roughed up a bit by their American captors. The main points against it (what it may do to our moral standing in the world; it makes us less safe) seem a bit naive -- these Islamic Crazies were killing women and children way before Bush and Cheney took office and began "ruining" America's international good will.

Further, only three terrorists were actually subjected to waterboarding, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind operations chief of 9/11. His interrogation was conducted not to extract a confession but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when further attacks seemed likely and intelligence about Al Qaeda's operations was limited. The CIA Director testified that these interrogations saved lives. To put it bluntly, I'm not losing any sleep knowing that bad guys like KSM are being thoroughly questioned.

Maybe the BCPL should be concerned about more important issues, like the fact that Iran may have nukes soon and Obama only wants to sit down and have a little chat about it.

"Get off my back!"

The Highlight of the 2008 Campaign

A Re-rebuttal to the Commie Pinko's Obama Comments

Below is the list of arguments made by the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal in rebuttal to my previous Obama post (see below). Here's my re-re-buttal.

Look out for the EVR ripping the commie pinko liberal a new ass on his blog shortly.


EVR argument #1

Obama is not a post-partisan politician.

Commie Pinko rebuttal

You can't expect BO to be his own man because he's too new. Also, just look at his time spent as a state senator and you'll see he's bipartisan.

The truth

I actually did look at BO's record. It is the ultimate example of a man legislating as politcal operative. Check it out.

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., do we want a president whose favorite vote seems to be, "present"?

EVR argument #2

BO's premise that his good judgement overrides his lack of experience is flawed: This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is politically expedient.

Commie Pink rebuttal

Look how far that argument has gotten us with the devil, W. Also, both McCain and Obama combine principled leadership with politcal strategery, just look at the littany of flip-flops on each side.

The truth

McCain is an imperfect candidate and at times seems to buck the party line just to tweak the GOP's nuts, but he's a man with convictions. He's proven time and again that he's willing to do tough work that won't make him popular (i.e. Immigration reform, Campaign Finance reform, the Gang of 14 vote on judges, etc.). He pissed me off by voting against the Bush tax cuts, and even used very liberal language to rail against them ("lining the pockets of the wealthy," etc.), but his main motivation for the "nay" vote was that he felt that any tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. In my mind, a bad vote that will be used against him, but a vote made in the name of principle none-the-less.

BO, on the other hand, has now pivoted from former positions on: an immediate Iraq pullout, the D.C. gun ban, the terror suveillance program, unilateral action on NAFTA, and public campaign fincancing. Obama seems to be promising a third Bush administration with all of these right wing views!

More Obama Myths to come soon ... plus rebuttals on the Billyburg Pinko Liberal's posts. Stay tuned...

A New Blog Format

Dear EVR readers,

We're trying a new format here for a while. A fellow New York resident and friend has just started a new blog across the Williamsburg Bridge in Brooklyn. He's a tried and true New York commie pinko bastard and we're going to try a little point/counter point and see if we can make things interesting leading up to the election.

I hope it proves stimulating, fun, or just downright nasty.

Here's where he can be found:

The Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal (good lord!)

We'll do a bunch of linking to make it easy to toggle between our discussions.

Thanks for reading.

The East Village Republican