A good reason to carry a pistol in the car with you. Along with lots of ammo.
(update - another good reason to carry a pistol. No wonder Lefties all want to make sure you can't carry a pistol with you. It makes it safer for them when they want to threaten everyone else. Best if they don't come to Colorado or Wyoming.)
One of the nice things about working on my house is that I get to listen to the radio during the day, something I haven't had time to do in years. I tune into the Michael Medved show in the afternoon, mostly because he likes to have Lefties call in and challenge him. But I'm challenging Michael on this call screening. The Lefties he has on his show are so ill-informed, their arguments so infantile and quite often self-contradictory with their statements, that it's hard to imagine that they represent the intellectual level of the Left. As wrong as Chomsky is on everything except language and it's origins, he is still in possession of a brilliant mind. But when I hear caller after caller to the Medved show say that they believe Nancy Pelosi is both courageous and diplomatic, I wonder what kind of alternate universe these people inhabit. So my challenge to Michael Medved is this: Do you screen the callers until you find the one most obviously infected with BDS, or are these callers really reflective of the intellectual depravity of the Left?
The WaPo is even harder on Pelosi than I was. I figured that she was being traitorous, which at least allowed the concept that she knew perfectly well what she was doing. The editors at the WaPo just think she's an idiot.
Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi
suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting
started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in
promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such
message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not
contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly
issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms.
Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited
Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of
Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country
regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms.
Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually
alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
When any Democrat loses the support of the Washington Post, they are in it deep. When the Democrat is the Speaker of the House, and she steps on it this hard in an international arena, it's past deep, it's called "in over your head". It's not surprising that she thought diplomacy was easy, she made it to Speaker of the House with little effort and and even smaller intellect.
Five questions that the press needs to ask Candidate Clinton. But they won't.
1. Prior to learning about your husband’s affair in the White House, you blamed the entire scenario on “a vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”. Do you believe there was such a thing, and if so, will it be directed against you as President? Will this affect the way you conduct cross-aisle negotiations with Republicans in Congress?
2. As a senator, you voted for the bill that limited the Commander in Chief’s ability to conduct war as he saw fit. This is a new, extra-Constitutional authority for the Congress. As President, will you welcome Congress exercising such authority over any military action necessary under your presidency?
3. The old standard of ex-presidents being behind-the-scene elder statesmen was abandoned by the two Democratic ex-presidents during President Bush’s eight years in office. What is your stance on ex-presidents being front and center in helping shape international public opinion, or in the case of President Carter, actually conducting what they believe to be foreign policy with heads of state?
4. You have stated that you believe the Iraq War was a disaster, and that you will end the war when you become president. What, if anything, do you believe we will still owe to the people or the government of Iraq for the disaster of the Iraq War after we leave?
5. President Bush made it clear that he would hold nations that supported terrorists responsible for the actions of the terrorists, regardless of whether those terrorists were acting on behalf of the state or not. Do you think that a terrorist attack on US interests worldwide should result in action against just those terrorists personally who conducted the attack, or should it action be taken against the entire infrastructure of the terrorist organization, including official state agencies of other countries? If action should be taken only against the actual terrorists, what do we do when the terrorists conduct a suicide attack and they are killed? Is there no recourse in the case of suicide attacks?
I've gotta disagree with Bush's take on Pelosi's trip to Syria:
On Tuesday, President Bush denounced Pelosi's visit to Syria, saying it sends mixed signals to
Assad's government. "Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been
counterproductive," Bush said.
The message isn't mixed at all. The message, as delivered by Pelosi and reinforced by the other Democrats with her, is that the Democrats are willing to do anything to ensure a defeat for US forces in Iraq. Including meeting with a leader who supports killing US soldiers and civilians in Iraq and around the world. That's a pretty clear message. That's the message that the Democrats want to make sure gets worldwide coverage, and is especially well covered in the arab world. And that message, clear as a bell, is being delivered personally by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Nope, not mixed at all. Traitorous, yes. Mixed, no.
The Democrats want to surrender our forces as they fight and the head Democrat is holding talks with the leader of a government that funds, trains, and transports suicide bombers that kill our servicemembers. Not many years ago, this would have been the dictionary definition of sedition. In fact, it fits within the definition of sedition as defined by the US Army in SAEDA training. And still they believe they are patriotic. I'm interested in hearing exactly what a present-day Democrat would call traitorous actions. I'm guessing it would have to involve creating wealth, or voting for a Republican.