Tonguetied's blog

Or sports too I suppose for that matter.

Campaign
Battle cry
Battle plan
Bullseye
War Room
Targeted Ads
Targeted Candidates
Easy Target
Gunning for
Reconnaissance
Advance Scouts
Plan of Attack
Attack Ads
Ads aimed at...
Opened Fire
Sitting Duck
Lame Duck
Range War
Shock and Awe
Scattershot
Hammering your opponent
Cutting your opponent's legs out from under them
Cutting your opponent off at the knees
Crippling
Decimate/Destroy
Bullets
Bulletproof
Hard fought
Shot across the bow
Arsenal
Brutal

...

John Jones easily won his election campaign last night after a hard fought battle using a series of targeted ads designed to hammer his opponent. His plan of attack was a rousing success in crippling Congressman Pete Peters using attack ads portraying him as an out of touch partisan.

Jones began gunning for the now Lame Duck Congressman early in the primaries with a shot across the bow airing ads aimed at the two term Congressman rather than his primary opponents. "We had a war room dedicated to scouring Peter's record and hounding the man at every step. It was easy to cut him off at the knees with his poor record of plundering the treasury," Jones Campaign Manager Paul Palson, the man Jones called his best soldier, reported after the close of this brutal voting season.

"Our arsenal was bigger than his, we had more bullets. The man was just begging to be taken out. It was a weak campaign. He was a sitting duck for our style of fighting" an anonymous staffer was quoted as saying.

The race was widely regarded as the most vicious in the state...

    Some idiot at work keeps tuning the TV in the breakroom to CNN so everytime I go in there to top off my water I have no choice but to listen to the drivel that comes from there.  Two days ago (sorry for the delay on my posting...) I caught part of an interview with Dede Scozzafava.  The caption below her says "GOP strips Scozzafava of her leadership role".  Well no duh!  The woman endorsed the Democrat canidate!  Why shouldn't she be stripped of her leadership role? 

And then the anchor asked her if there would be a place for moderates in the upcoming 2010 elections...  Hello!  This woman is pro choice, pro taxes, pro card check, pro union, pro government run health care.  In what way is she a moderate?  I get so tired of liberals calling other liberals "moderates".  Grow a pair and admit you're a liberal and that anyone who believes most of the things you believe is not a "moderate" but just as much of a liberal as you are....

So it has been nigh on three weeks since the details of the Walpin case broke.  At about this time in the legal firing of 5 US Prosecutors there were calls high and low and everywhere you looked demanding Congressional inquiries and claims that President Bush had violated the law.  Now in the firing of an Inspector General we have a very clear violation of the law and where are the voices that were so righteously indignent?  One would almost think that perhaps the complainers were politically motivated.  Yes there have been a few stories but compared to the intensity of scrutiny Bush's actions received it is but a drop in the ocean.

There was something else though that struck me as not getting much attention.  Writing in the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ger...) Byron York says:  "Since January of this year, the office has been headed by an acting U.S. attorney, Lawrence Brown, a career prosecutor who took over after the departure of the previous, Bush-appointed U.S. attorney. "

So think about that statement.  A Bush-appointed U.S. attorney left in January.  Was he fired?  How many Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys have left office since January?  Were they all fired much as Clinton did?  I honestly don't know.  I will admit that I have made only a cursory search but I found nothing about what President Obama has been doing with the U.S. attorneys.  Did our watchdog media decide that it was not something worthy of investigation and review?

I just looked over this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536... I was lead there by Instapundit (playing catchup since he posted the link on June 13th,)  The gist of the article is that they want to shrink cities in order to concentrate "the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area."  Remember the "Smart Growth" movement several years back.  The idea there was to fill in the cities green spaces to create a compact dense city core in order to combat sprawl and concentrate the population and services into a more viable area.  Now in areas where the population is shrinking rather than growning they want to create little pockets of villages within the city with lots and lots of green space in between. 

Now I don't really object to the idea of clearing out a bunch of deserted, decaying buildings and letting green spaces flourish.  I do think that the controllers of this project will fail to do the one thing that will actually help.  That would be to take the city governments and devolve along with the bulldozing and allow for more local control.  Revoke the city charter of these failed cities and allow for new smaller municipalities to be set up where they used to exist.  Some would be under the control of the old corrupt machine that caused them to decay in the first place (most if not all of which are Democratic machines) and some would come under new reform governments, some Democrat and some Republican with different ideas on how to run city services, attract jobs, run the schools and deal with their citizenry.  And then a grand experiment would really take place and we would see (once again) which methods of governance flourish and which prove once again to be miserable failures.  Then as the successful cities grown and succeed they would reach out to absorb and supplant the failures.  As long as they don't gobble down a huge chunk of new residents that haven't learned their lessons...

Update:  the link above seems to be too long for this website (Plus there seems to be some kind of script that the Telegraph site seems to try to run that slows you.)  You can do a Google search under "

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive" and probably find it...

    While looking over Amazon I happened across a listing for the movie 'Billy Jack'.  It's been a good number of years since I've seen it so my memory of all the details of the movies  might be kind of hazy but it struck me while reading the reviews that the movie might have been a bit more insightful than I first gave it credit. While for many years I have been pretty scornful of the movie I think that I've come around to a bit more of an appreciation of it.  Probably not in the way that most lovers of it do though.

The movie, for those who haven't seen it, involves a Peace and Love Commune based on an Indian Reservation and the hostile attitudes of the locals in a nearby town.  The folks in the commune preach and for the most part practice nonviolence.  However they are only able to live out this nonviolent lifestyle because of their self declared protector Billy Jack.  Without Billy's willingness to put himself between the pacifists from the commune and the people who would hurt them then the whole hippy dippy "We've got to be nice to everybody" airheads would find themselves in a world of hurt.

So the message of Billy Jack is not the one espoused by the lady who runs the commune.  In the real world her philosophy is an abject failure.  It is only because of a hard man, a defender willing to sacrifice himself and stand up for the weak that the weak are able to survive.

"If you would have peace, then prepare for war," goes the old saying.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the majority that are prepared for war.  Indeed if the ones prepared for war are sufficiently capable then a goodly sized chunk of the population don't have to be exposed to war at all.  The problem though is that if they aren't aware of how they are being protectedthen eventually the disarmed, the weak and helpless start to think that they don't need the hard ones, the armed ones, the strong ones around to keep them safe.  Instead the protectors are pushed away, they are deprived of the tools they need to keep the rest safe and then surprise, surprise once they are gone then the walls come down and the takers, the haters, the evil onescome in and no one is there to stop them.

Why is it that when one lone moron goes off the rails and does something henious you get a chorus of voices crying out how this proves that socially conservative views don't belong in the Republican party?  If you want to remain a minority party then go ahead and throw out oppostion to abortion and a preference for male female relationships over homosexual ones.  The social conservatives have been told for year after year to suck it up and vote republican because, after all it's better than the democrats and what choice do you have anyway?  Now they are proposing to jettison everything that makes the R's distinct from the D's on the social side and they think that wil lead to victory?  In fact what it will lead to (and indeed what it has been leading to for some time now) is religious voters staying home and voting for none of the above or even the creation of a spoiler party catering to the religious vote that insures that the Republicans stay out of power for a long, long time.

But go ahead folks.  Show me and millions of others that you don't have a clue as to how to build coalitions and how the party must be purified from all those nasty conservatives and let's see how toothless and useless you will be until you wake up one day and realize that you've destroyed yourselves and much of the country in the process.

Oh and I see denunciations of "legislating morality".  That phrase has got to be one of the most asinine phrases in the whole of human history.  How are any laws not a legislation of morality?  Spend 5 minutes reflecting on the fact that a law is only passed to stop people from doing what they otherwise would do and you will realize that is a pretty straightforward definition of "legislating morality".

If Chrysler and GM had been permitted/forced to declare bankruptcy months ago then there would not have been massive amounts of government money owed by those two companies.  As it was the debt owed allows the government to claim a majority ownership of both companies.If the single entity owning a majority of GM and Chrysler were not the US government would they be subject to a anti trust ruling from the federal government?How much collusion will there be between Chrysler and GM in the future with a common majority shareholder?

"Iran can have nuclear Power but we can't?" to paraphrase Dennis Miller from the other day.

President Obama has been touting his Muslim heritage on his latest trip.  I wonder about the long term consequences of that.  To many Muslims, if your dad was a Muslim then you're a Muslim.  So if you brag about your Muslim heritage and then proclaim your Christianity that makes you an apostate, worse than an unbeliever in their eyes.  You have abandoned the faith, something that's just not permitted in Islam.

"In a new overture to Iran, the Obama administration has authorized U.S. embassies around the world to invite Iranian officials to Independence Day parties they host on or around July 4th."

So if they see us partying and showing how much we love our country the scales will fall from their eyes and they will realize that we love our children too! (hat tip to Sting).

Or even worse the embassies will be told not to display the American flag during the Independence Day celebrations for fear of "offending" their Iranian guests...

Then we're told that the United States is "not at war with Islam."  Well Duh!  When has it been announced that we are?  I know that GW said the same thing in his speeches.  How is it any different when Pres. Obama says it? 

I just finished reading the excellent "Tried by War (Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief)" book by James M. McPherson.  In addition to a great discussion of the trials and troubles President Lincoln went through dealing with recalicitrant generals and military setbacks Mr. McPherson discussed the political travails and considerations that Lincoln had to keep in mind at the same time.

Mr. McPheson discusses the Copperheads and toward the end of the book he discussed the 1864 Presidential election which Lincoln sincerely believed that he was going to lose.  The Democratic platform made the "demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the states, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practical moment peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union."  This was a demand for "peace" without precondition allowing for the continuation of slavery and and end to the attempts by the military to defeat the Southern armies still in the field, still fighting to maintain the Confederacy.

I guess defeatism is in the Democrat blood.  I was so reminded of the "Peace Now" signs I saw for so many years in the yards here around Austin.  As I said so many times to my wife as we drove past those signs how they were not calling for peace they were rather calling for defeat.    And the Democrats during the Civil War were basically calling for  defeat then also.

P.S.  I forgot to mention one other thing I meant to bring up when I first wrote this.  There were only 3 Northern State legislatures controlled by Democrats.  They were the only legislatures that did not set up a procedure for absentee voting for their citizens serving in the U.S. Army...

I loathe this show with the flame of a thousand burning suns.  Every week it's the same thing.  A sob story that, occassionaly, is actually for someone deserving but most of the time I just see someone looking for a handout not help...  I wonder if any reporters have gone back to families that have been 'helped' by this program and found out how many of them have stopped helping out in their communities, how many of them are finding themselves in deep financial troubles.

But while I can make an arguement from Conservative principles against the way this show works my real hatred is for its formulaic repetitiveness.  Every week we are treated to the antics of Ty and his 'secret project'.  Every week it's the same 'crazy antics' the same trip to Sears, the same faked reaction shots from the families, each of them from week to week squealing and screaming with manufactured excitement.  (Yes, I know that they are genuienly happy to have their new place but  every week it's the same reaction, it is very obvious that they have been coached.)  The episodes are interchangable, shaped the same way every week, playing off the same sappy emotions.  Voyeurism at it's worst.

I felt the need to vent, because this is one of my wife's favorite shows and I have to suffer through it every week!