From Sanford’s clip file

A colleague calls my attention to Frank Rich's column over the weekend, which starts in on our governor about halfway down:

    At least the G.O.P.’s newfound racial sensitivity saved it from
choosing the white Southern governor often bracketed with Jindal as a
rising “star,” Mark Sanford of South Carolina. That would have been an
even bigger fiasco, for Sanford is from the same state as Ty’Sheoma
Bethea, the junior high school student who sat in Michelle Obama’s box on Tuesday night and whose impassioned letter to Congress was quoted by the president.

    In
her plea, the teenager begged for aid to her substandard rural school.
Without basic tools, she poignantly wrote, she and her peers cannot
“prove to the world” that they too might succeed at becoming “lawyers,
doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president.”

    Her school is in Dillon, where the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, grew up. The school’s auditorium, now condemned, was the site of Bernanke’s high school graduation. Dillon is now so destitute that Bernanke’s middle-class childhood home was just auctioned off in a foreclosure sale. Unemployment is at 14.2 percent.

    Governor Sanford’s response to such hardship — his state over all has the nation’s third-highest unemployment rate — was not merely a threat to turn down federal funds but a trip to Washington to actively lobby against the stimulus bill. He accused
the three Republican senators who voted for it of sabotaging “the
future of our civilization.” In his mind the future of civilization has
little to do with the future of students like Ty’Sheoma Bethea.

    What
such G.O.P. “stars” as Sanford and Jindal have in common, besides their
callous neo-Hoover ideology, are their phony efforts to portray
themselves as populist heroes. Their role model is W., that
brush-clearing “rancher” by way of Andover, Yale and Harvard. Listening
to Jindal talk Tuesday night about his immigrant father’s inability to pay for an obstetrician, you’d never guess that at the time his father was an engineer and his mother an L.S.U. doctoral candidate in nuclear physics.
Sanford’s first political ad in 2002 told of how growing up on his
“family’s farm” taught him “about hard work and responsibility.” That
“farm,” the Charlotte Observer reported, was a historic plantation
appraised at $1.5 million in the early 1980s. From that hardscrabble
background, he struggled on to an internship at Goldman Sachs.

Of course, with enemies like Frank Rich, the governor's liable to get some sympathy from me. Never have liked that guy's work — he has all of Paul Krugman's objectionable characteristics as a mindless hateful partisan, without the saving grace of being a Nobel winner in economics.

Anyway, I'm less impressed with that sort of mention than I am the kind that our governor gets in his favorite journalistic habitat, the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, where they continue to try to construct an alternative universe in which Mark Sanford, possibly the least accomplished governor in the nation, is an actual contender for President of the United States sometime this century. (I don't know about you, but I found "Serenity" way more believable — I just can't see terraforming taking hold in this world the WSJ is trying to conjure into being. Do you think Sanford could get the Reaver vote?)

Which reminds me that I meant to pass on this piece by WSJ board member Kimberley A. Strassel about our gov, which ran 10 days ago:

    South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is mooted as a GOP presidential contender. During the stimulus debate he told President Barack Obama, to his face, that the Palmetto State wanted no part of a spending blowout that would be harmful to the economy, to taxpayers, and to the dollar. He even traveled to Capitol Hill to stiffen Senate Republicans against the plan….
    The 48-year-old South Carolina governor is of the party wing that believes it failed in its core promise of fiscal responsibility, and in tackling the bread-and-butter issues (education, health care) that worry voters today. He's made his name partly by confronting his own party, which runs the legislature.

My very favorite part is when she strains to make it sound like Mark Sanford has actual achievements in S.C. to boast of:

    Nearly every year since he was elected in 2002, Mr. Sanford has proposed to cap spending at state population growth plus inflation. His state senate has ignored him. He's used his line-item veto more than 500 times, usually on pork projects. The legislature routinely overrides. Far from diminishing his standing, these lost battles have made him popular in the state.
    His policies have made South Carolina more competitive. In 2005, the state passed its first-ever cut in marginal tax rates for businesses, and in 2007 broader tax relief. He's shepherded tort reform, and crafted incentives to encourage property insurers to remain in the state after a spate of hurricanes. South Carolina still has problems (in particular, education), though since 2003 it has had the 16th fastest job growth in the nation. Its unemployment rate — the third highest in the country — has been exacerbated by record growth in the state's labor force.

Did you catch that? We have so much employment here because there are just to darned many of us! Mark Sanford has made S.C. into such a Nirvana that people are a-comin' here quicker'n we can find jobs for 'em!

56 thoughts on “From Sanford’s clip file

  1. Lee Muller

    If we had a legislature full of Mark Sanfords, most of the social problems would be gone. Instead, the Democrats keep their illiterate voting masses in poverty and in line.
    Brad, have you ever read “Breaking the News”, by James Fallows? He is the very liberal editor of Harpers, who despises the shallowness of modern editors and TV personalities posing as newscasters.
    Speaking of partisan blowhards like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, whatever happened ot William Greider?

    Reply
  2. Mab

    “What such G.O.P. “stars” as Sanford and Jindal have in common…”
    is a knowledge of the economic truths espoused by Milton Friedman, et al.
    Markets don’t always behave according to plan — according to the platitudes of unrealistic people like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

    Reply
  3. KP

    Does South Carolina really have the 16th highest job growth in the nation since 2003? The tables I looked at are since 2001, but we’re 37th or worse on those.

    Reply
  4. Bill C.

    Brad, what are you going to do when in 2011 when you don’t have Sanford to write about? It’s not even worth reading your comments anymore because it’s the same bitch and complain comments that you’ve had for the past 6 years. I realize that not everybody is held on the same pedestal as Sam ($2000 Visa card) and Inez (50th best Education Supt) Tennenbaum and James (I didn’t do it for political reasons) Smith, but give it a break… not everybody loves a liberal Democrat like you media folk.

    Reply
  5. martin

    There’s that parallel universe, again.
    That woman must be using his press releases or has he already started his headstone like Sen. Burris?
    Lee, really, has Mark Sanford ever shown any interest, one way or another, in any social issue? Or, do you just think his fiscal and environmental poliicies would cause the social changes to happen?
    And, another really: isn’t the Republic Party in control of both SC House and Senate? Isn’t the deal that he can’t work with members of his own party?

    Reply
  6. Ralph Hightower

    New York City real estate mogul, Howie Rich, has a “two-fer” in his investment and ownership of Governot Mark Sanford:

    1. School Vouchers
    2. TABOR (euphemistically called the Tax Payers Bill of Rights

    Howie Rich supports and buys candidates that follows his agendas.
    I have done my own personal research into Howie Rich and also follow the SC Barbeque and Politics blog. I have used the campaign financing websites to track Howie Rich and his cronies.
    I won’t go into a discussion about school vouchers because that has been debated about ad nauseum in Brad’s blog.
    TABOR is “cap spending at state population growth plus inflation”. It became law in Colorado and it crippled the state until they could get it repealed.
    Sanford is a puppet controlled from New York City.
    Count down to new leadership in South Carolina: Six hundred and eighty-one days.

    Reply
  7. Randy E

    Brad, you slam Rich yet it appears you agree with his evaluation of Sanford. Partisans can make valid and even insightful points. By dissing any partisan out of hand, you ingore this fact – baby out with bath water. Rich nailed it this time!
    Krugman’s insight has been incredibly important these past few months, despite your diatribes. On This Week this past November, George Will, a man of immense intelligence, stated that the Great Depression was extended because the capitalists were sent mixed signals by The New Deal. Krugman explained that GDP shot up except when Roosevelt caved and tried to balance the budget – notice the dip.
    Some propagandists on the right either blame Roosevelt for the Great Depression or state that WWII and not The New Deal that had any impact (again, look at GDP during the New Deal). Thankfully, Krugman the partisan is around to squash such bluster (such as Lee’s or Weldon’s next post).

    Reply
  8. Brad Warthen

    Randy, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve been using Krugman from time to time over the last few months, as his area of expertise has become the biggest story in the country.

    Also, his stuff is more useful now that W. is no longer president, so we don’t have to be bored with his ranting about how much he hated him, and how everything was his fault, yadda-yadda.

    Unfortunately, he still has trouble writing a few simple declarative sentences about the economy without getting in a mini-rant or two, so it’s a tradeoff.

    Let me try to be specific as to what’s wrong with Krugman, so you can see my problem more clearly.

    Take his column that I ran on our op-ed page Sunday. Clearly, I thought it was worth publishing. But I had to overlook some really ridiculous partisan asides, such as this silly little ideological whine: “The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of post-partisan depression.” In other words, God forbid the president should try to lead the whole country. I mean, Krugman really thinks that way. He gives the impression that if there were two ways to save the economy, and they were equal in every other way except that only Democrats would want to choose Course A, whereas there is bipartisan agreement on Course B, Krugman would insist upon Course A. He constantly writes things that betray that sort of petty mentality.

    Then there was this bit right out of planet Bizarro: “So if Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire)….” What the hell? Yeah, we know that you don’t like our involvement in Iraq, because it’s associated in your mind with You Know Who, but now you’re speaking of our commitment in Afghanistan as being the same sort of “quagmire” that will only involve us if Obama makes the mistake of “bogging us down” in it? I mean, do actual facts out there in the world have any bearing on your thinking at all? Let’s see: The Taliban is resurgent, Pakistan’s about to collapse, Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy Democrats keep saying that Iraq was keeping us from going after) is still over there somewhere as far as we know, and you think it’s just a matter of whether the president willfully “bogs us down” in another “quagmire?”

    I mean, let’s set aside the unbelievably tacky assertion that whether we should live up to our commitments or pursue the nation’s national security interests in the world depend on whether it costs money. Let’s even set aside the purely mercenary consideration that government spending on wars can be stimulative, as long as you’re talking money. What gets me about this passage — and it’s very typical of Krugman — is that it speaks of our national security priorities in terms that are painfully restricted by political ideology, and that’s very disturbing.

    There is something about the way Krugman writes — and Rich is even more so, on the rare occasions that I look at his stuff — that suggests he lives in a hermetically sealed, VERY limited little world, in which everyone has exactly the same political attitudes that he does, and where it doesn’t matter whether they are right or not, because it’s not about choosing the right policies for the good of the nation in the real world; it’s about adhering to the group orthodoxy.

    I hope this helps.

    Reply
  9. slugger

    If we had a legislature full of Mark Sanfords, most of the social problems would be gone. Instead, the Democrats keep their illiterate voting masses in poverty and in line.
    Brad, have you ever read “Breaking the News”, by James Fallows? He is the very liberal editor of Harpers, who despises the shallowness of modern editors and TV personalities posing as newscasters.
    Speaking of partisan blowhards like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, whatever happened to William Greider?
    The economy of this country needs to do what the saying is about water seeking it-s on level.
    We need to let the economy seek it-s own level. The more Obama and Polosi, Reid, Barney Frank etc pour money into “saving our economy” is destroying our way of life and turning this country into a socialist nation.
    Do you folks know what quicksand is? We are mired in the quicksand that is paying for the destruction of our country.
    The idiots that sit in Washington that vote to destroy our nation need to be contacted. Please contact your representa
    tives.
    Sit on your behinds. Stay involved in the TV sports. Watch your ball games. Read your newspapers that give you more sports news than they deliver to you about the road to destuction of our country.
    Obama is the enemy of our country. He is in the process of destroying our country that was founded by a constitution. He has an agenda that makes us a socialist/communist nation.

    Reply
  10. bud

    Then there was this sentence right out of planet Bizarro: “So if Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally
    expensive Afghan quagmire)….” What the hell? Yeah, we know that you don’t like our involvement in Iraq, because it’s associated in your mind with You Know Who,…
    -Brad
    Now you’re just showing a petty bias against Krugman. That comment is condescending, insulting and just plain wrong. Krugman doesn’t dislike our involvment in Iraq because it’s associated with Bush. He disapproves of it because it’s WRONG. And if Obama gets us into a quagmire in Afghanistan that will be wrong too. In fact isn’t that exactly the point he’s making? Why can’t you warmongers understand a very basic principal of us anti-war folks. We think the damn war was wrong, is wrong and will always be wrong. That is true regardless of who is president, or whatever so-called progress is supposedly made. It’s a killing field without end. Thankfully we have a president that gets that. Or at least I hope so. And if he doesn’t get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan soon he’ll be disliked also.

    Reply
  11. bud

    The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats
    who were starting to feel a bit of post-partisan depression.” In other words, God forbid the president should try to lead the whole country.
    -Brad
    Krugman’s making a joke Brad. You’re just too stuborn to enjoy this bit of humor. Lighten up man.

    Reply
  12. Randy E

    slugger, if you don’t want our Constitution to be defiled, then jump in your time machine and retract your votes for W-Cheney. Look at what came out today:
    The Justice Department on Monday released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants. In other words, W could identify ANYONE as a terror suspect and throw them in jail. If you had access to the original Constitution and peed on it, you wouldn’t defile it more than that!
    I’m always surprised at conservatives who claim to be champions of the Constitution but turn a blind eye to such unabashed actions taken to circumvent the very principles supposedly being protected.
    Regarding Obama, he’s busy cleaning up the elephant dung.

    Reply
  13. Lee Muller

    That is donkey dung that Obama is afraid to touch.
    Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Bill Clinton dung on their Minority Mortgage Fraud Scandal.
    Rahm Emmanuel, Jamie Gorelick and a half dozen other Obama advisors’ dung on the falsified reports of FNMA and FMAC, which Democrats stuggle to paper over with taxpayer bailouts.
    Investors started bailing out of the stock market in June, when Hillary slipped and the media was laying down a smokescreen of excuses for Obama’s racist and communist pals.
    Business investors quickly put all expansion on hold until the elections, then began layoffs, correctly anticipating a Marxist vendetta of wanton spending by Democrats.

    Reply
  14. Lee Muller

    Yes, martin, I do believe strong economic policies are a primary means of effecting social change. So do the Marxists in the Democratic Party; we just have different social goals.
    Free market capitalism is based on honesty and hard work. Socialism is based on the appeal to do as little as possible, and live off the work of others.
    Capitalism thrives on diversity, choice and opportunity for buyers and sellers, and competition between all the choices.
    That is why all economic progress, and social progress, has come under capitalism. Socialism consumes wealth, encourages depravity and sloth, and enforces conformity with lethal force.

    Reply
  15. Lee Muller

    Brad, FYI, fiscal and monetary policies to combat recession and deflation are not Paul Krugman’s areas of expertise, and it is evident to most economists and businessmen.

    Reply
  16. Randy E

    Hey Lee, 1 out of every 2 new immigrants to the US is HISPANIC! They vote Democrat! The republicans are morphing into the dixicans. 48% of North Charleston is HISPANIC! Cinco de Mayo will be a national holiday in 20 years! Que bueno!!

    Reply
  17. Mab

    From the evening news roundup
    ########################
    Newt Gingrich/FOX:
    Obama doesn’t want America to prosper. He wants to redistribute wealth — this is about power and implementing socialist policies. If this costs him a second term, that is irrelevant to Obama.
    Zimmerman[?]/CNBC:
    “Hope makes a good breakfast but a bad dinner.”

    Reply
  18. Lee Muller

    Actually, the LEGAL Latino immigrants vote Republican, because they are anti-abortion and work hard.
    It’s the illegal aliens who come for welfare that would vote Democrat.
    FYI, they are Latinos, not Hispanics. Learn the difference.

    Reply
  19. Weldon VII

    Regarding Obama, he’s busy cleaning up the elephant dung.
    Actually, your particularly partisan Randiloquence, Obama’s throwing your grandchildren’s money onto a raging fire.
    Today it was revealed two more of his nominees fall short of his standards for officials — another with back taxes, and a housing official who has had a habit of approving developments for contractors who contributed to him directly before or after he approved their projects.
    The estimate of his initial budget deficit climbed to $1.9 billion today, too — more than four times the last Bush deficit.
    You and your comrades, as well as the operator of this blog, turn a blind eye to that, though. Neither does it strike you as strange that so soon after Obama’s inauguration his administration is trashing Bush as if the campaign were still going on, while day after day his popularity is waning.
    Americans have better sense than to think you can solve economic woes with massive debt, Randy. Obama’s grabbing hold of the recession, and when he turns it into a depression, he’ll own it lock, stock and barrel.
    I’ll be looking forward to your apologies then.

    Reply
  20. Birch Barlow

    Actually, your particularly partisan Randiloquence, Obama’s throwing your grandchildren’s money onto a raging fire.
    Children can’t vote.
    So screw them!
    This message brought to you by the Democratic and Republican parties.

    Reply
  21. Phillip

    How many times do you have to be told, Brad, that opposition to the war in Iraq came about because…(drum roll, please….) people were OPPOSED to the war in Iraq, NOT, NOT, NOT just because George Bush thought of it. Bud is right on this, talk about Bizarro, your take on Krugman’s comment is just plain odd.
    Your continual delusion that somehow opponents of “bogged-down” Mideast adventurism hold their opinions only on the basis of a personal vendetta against one particular President is a cop-out of titanic proportions on your part, a contemptuous attitude that only those who share your opinion arrive at that view thoughtfully and sincerely.
    If your view was true, then the same writers like Rich or Krugman would automatically have opposed the immigration reform proposals of recent years or Bush administration’s large-scale AIDS spending in Africa, on the same basis. Because, after all, You-Know-Who supported those as well.
    Time to let that delusion go, Brad.
    Also enjoyed this: “…suggests he lives in a hermetically sealed, VERY limited little world, in which everyone has exactly the same political attitudes that he does…” That’s rich, if you’ll excuse the pun.

    Reply
  22. bud

    From Politico:
    Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”
    We now have the RNC Chairman groveling at the feet of one big fat, oxycotin idiot. How irrelevant can the GOP become? It seems as though there is no bottom to the ridiculous antics this party can sink to. Rush Limbaugh is now the leader of the GOP. His ideas have been tried and they have failed. His hypocricy is total. Yet here he is, the defacto leader of the GOP.
    I suggest that the Democrats can now pretty much write whatever legislation they want without fear of any relevant discussion from the Republicans. The real debate in congress now is between the various factions of the Democratic Party. Any continued discussion of bipartisanship should now focus on the 58 members of congress who are members of a real and relevant party, not the kooks who follow Oxymoron Rush. It’s time to say goodbye to the filibuster rule in order to speed things up. Any remaining sane members of the GOP who want to come along will be welcome. But to continue to cotton to the completely insane remnants of a once proud party is nothing more than an excercise in futility.

    Reply
  23. Phillip

    I also meant to add that the very same Frank Rich column you cited, Brad, criticized Geithner and moreover, Rich has not shied away from being critical of other Obama appointees or questioning various decisions of Obama himself. Liberal/progressive? Yes, Rich is, without a doubt. A Democratic Party partisan? Not really. I don’t think you’re reading him carefully, rather just allowing the fact that you disagree with him (mostly on foreign policy) to blind you. Truth is, on a lot of domestic issues (certainly things like education and health care) the two of you think more alike than you might imagine. And he’s a great writer, which you above all should appreciate.

    Reply
  24. Birch Barlow

    I suggest that the Democrats can now pretty much write whatever legislation they want without fear of any relevant discussion from the Republicans. The real debate in congress now is between the various factions of the Democratic Party.
    If there’s anything scarier than having two inept parties in control of this country, its having one inept party in control of this country.

    Reply
  25. cartman

    “Never have liked that guy’s work — he has all of Paul Krugman’s objectionable characteristics as a mindless hateful partisan, without the saving grace of…
    ” —
    Well, here’s hoping that your readers will show the same sensible attitude towards your work.

    Reply
  26. Lee Muller

    “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” ~Winston Churchill
    No wonder Obama removed that bust of Churchill from the Oval Office.

    Reply
  27. Brad Warthen

    Phillip, I read him very carefully for years, and the one thing that I remember most clearly about that experience is the unrelenting nastiness of his attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him. The guy’s just hateful, unless he’s had some sort of conversion experience since then and suddenly loves the world — and I’ve seen no evidence of that, in the few looks I’ve taken at his work recently.
    I decided years ago I wasn’t interested in running Rich any more. That conclusion on my part happened to coincide with his starting to write columns that were WAY too long for our op-ed page, so I just got out of the habit of even looking at him.
    bud suggests Krugman is joking with his jab at bipartisanship. No, he isn’t. I read a columnist within the context of everything else I’ve read by him. Krugman is expressing scorn for the very idea of considering what anyone other than people who agree with him want. That is consistent with his style and oft-expressed attitudes.
    The person I hope is kidding is Phillip, when he SEEMS to be suggesting that it’s ironic for me to talk about people living in a very limited little world filled with people who agree with him. If you think I live in such a world, well… I can’t imagine how you would, if you’ve ever spent five minutes on this blog. And of course, this blog is a TINY sliver of the atmosphere in which I live and express opinion. In fact, this one is probably more homogeneous than my daily experience — although as I say, if you look only at the blog, you might conclude that I live in a world in which NOBODY agrees with me…
    By contrast, in New York and inside the Beltway it’s possible for a journalist to live, and have a very active social life, quite shut off from people with a differing world view. And some people who write out of those towns frequently betray this narrowness of experience. There’s a reason why the the most partisan Democrats, for instance, are constantly extolling Krugman. It’s because he writes like a guy who likes to get patted on the back by like-minded people within his own ideologically homogeneous community, people who say, essentially, “You really told those bastards THIS time!”
    To the extent that that crack about post-partisanship is a joke, it’s one that Krugman fans would have a laugh at while patting him on the back, and saying, “You’re absolutely right! The president needs to get over that garbage and remember who elected him!…”

    Reply
  28. cartman

    “It’s because he writes like a guy who likes to get patted on the back by like-minded people within his own ideologically homogeneous community, people who say, essentially, “You really told those bastards THIS time!”
    Okay, so substitute Rush Limbaugh’s name instead of Paul’s in your comments above in a future post if you dare.
    Then your so-called non-partisan worldview may have some credibility.
    Until then, this is all just obfuscatory noise.

    Reply
  29. Birch Barlow

    Okay, so substitute Rush Limbaugh’s name instead of Paul’s in your comments above in a future post if you dare.
    Then your so-called non-partisan worldview may have some credibility.
    Until then, this is all just obfuscatory noise.

    Warthen steps up to the plate. cartman on the mound. He winds and delivers the pitch… oh no, its a high hanging breaking ball…

    Reply
  30. bud

    (I don’t know about you, but I found “Serenity” way more believable — I just can’t see terraforming taking hold in this world the WSJ is trying to conjure into being. Do you think Sanford could get the Reaver vote?)
    -Brad
    Ok, is this a joke? If it is how does it differ in tone from the Krugman comment about post-partisanship? Frankly, this comes across as a hackneyed, gratuitous insult aimed at our governor. It’s certainly unprovoked. Heck, I don’t like Mark Sanford, but to sling smarmy insults like this at him while condeming similar behavior from Rich and Krugman smacks of rank hypocricy.
    Frankly Brad, your writings can be disturbing at times the way you repeatedly miss the point. Krugman and Rich both make good points in a tough, yet fair-minded way. They are both liberals but I don’t find anything they have written in the 2 articles you cited as particularly partisan in tone. They are just expressing the liberal viewpoint. And what’s partisan about that?

    Reply
  31. Brad Warthen

    No, I was serious about the Reaver vote. It’s a significant factor among the outer planets.

    In fact, come to think of it, maybe the only way to lessen the Reaver influence in the next ‘verse elections would be to require photo ID. It’ll be a challenge, though. I hear the Alliance tried to get Reavers to sit still for photo IDs on Miranda awhile back, but they kept eating the guy operating the camera…

    Reply
  32. cartman

    ….which drops down and inside for a clear and (unanswered) strike.
    (….as evidenced by Mr. Warthens reference to all those who disagree or challenge his world view as being either cannibals or torturers via an insipid reference to a television show obviously marketed to febrile teenage boys and produced by
    of all entities
    THE FIXED NEWS CORPORATION!

    Reply
  33. cartman

    Whoops,
    But cartman realizes his mistake and wiffs it in not reading the post closely enough; warthen gets part of it, a low breaking ball off to right field up towards the reavers section, and Mark Sanford….

    Reply
  34. Phillip

    Brad, as one who shares your enthusiasm for Serenity and Firefly, I was wondering if you’ve checked out Joss Whedon’s latest creative vehicle, “Dollhouse,” and if so, what you thought. I haven’t had a chance yet to see it…

    Reply
  35. Brad Warthen

    I have not. In fact, I’ve never watched any Whedon efforts outside “Firefly,” since I don’t watch much TV.
    In fact, I sort of backed into being a Firefly fan. I never saw it when it was on the air. One of my sons talked my wife and me into seeing “Serenity” with him, and we went not knowing what to expect. I liked it so much that I checked out the series via rental. Next thing you know, I was asking for the series on DVD for Christmas (couple of years back), and Santa came through.
    I still haven’t seen the last episode, because I’ve been saving it. My son recently borrowed the series from me; guess I’ll buckle down and watch that last one when I get it back.
    My son told me that Whedon made something after Serenity that had Adam Baldwin in it. Is that “Dollhouse,” or something else. Jayne’s my favorite character — except maybe when Kaylee is on the screen…

    Reply
  36. slugger

    From NBC’s Ken Strickland
    Ron Kirk, the administration’s nominee to be U.S. Trade Representative, is the latest Obama nominee to apparently have tax problems.
    The Senate Finance Committee, which has addressed tax issues before with the Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle nominations, has also discovered tax issues with Kirk.
    The committee estimates that as a result of their findings, Kirk has paid approximately $9,975 in back taxes. The panel raised questions about “clarification of his practice of assigning honoraria to Austin College and whether the honoraria should have been reported as taxable income, substantiation of various charitable donations and other miscellaneous tax questions.”
    Committee Chairman Max Baucus supports Kirk, calling him “the right person for the job” and will work for his speedy confirmation. “I am confident he can successfully restore the confidence of Congress and the American people in a balanced international trade agenda,” Baucus said in a written statement.
    This was taken off of a website. When will all the crooks get rejected? Or will they? How many appointments of people that have passed the muster that just have not been found out about committing the illegal acts.
    Obama does not have any legal friends. He is an abomination. We cannot even inspect his background except to take him at his word that he wants to socialized/communize this nation. We will join the other nations of the world that take care of their people from the cradle to the grave. Obama wants to be sure that you do not have another country to escape to when you are ready to leave. Global economy. That is the plan.

    Reply
  37. Lee Muller

    Day by day, so-called “moderates” of both parties are waking up to the fact that Obama fooled them to get elected, and is now ruling as a socialist dictator.
    David Brooks and David Frum are the two latest Compassionate Conservatives to begin waking up to the monster they helped set loose on America.

    Reply
  38. Randy E

    Lee, Hispanic refers to Spanish speakers including those from Spain…SPAIN, el pais madre. Does the phrase “white, non-Hispanic” sound familiar? Check out the census. Hispanic is the terminology primarily used.
    The notion that only illegal HISPANICS vote for democrats is like saying only northerners vote for republicans. Que tonto.
    I’ll repeat, 50% of new immigrants to the US are HISPANIC and the majority vote democrat 😉

    Reply
  39. Lee Muller

    Hispanics refers to citizens of Central and South America who are primarily of Spanish descent. It has been broadened from its original meaning of a specific set of immigrants from Hispanola.
    Most of the illegal aliens entering the US from Mexico have little or no Spanish ancestry. They are mostly of Mayan or some other native tribes. Many of them are not very fluent in Spanish, and many more of them are illiterate and unable to read much of anything in any language.

    Reply
  40. Lee Muller

    How can the 30,000,000 illegal aliens be Democrats, when they cannot legally vote or make campaign donations?
    Oh, I get it – you Democrats don’t care about the law. These are the same as the Chinese Red Army Democrats who donated $20,000,000 illegally to Al Gore and Bill Clinton.
    They are like the Hamas Democrats who donated illegally to Barack Obama through his web site.

    Reply
  41. bud

    Now I’ve heard everything. Illegal aliens are not Hispanics but rather Mayans that don’t speak Spanish. Dang, you learn something new every day.

    Reply
  42. Randy E

    I heard Chairman Steele is now catering to the Mayan vote. He’s using Mayan rap as campaign theme songs and Michelle Bauchman will refer to him with “you da’ man” in Mayan at next year’s CPAC.
    bud, haven’t you noticed all the Mayan translation on the signs? There’s a MYN button on the TV remote next to ESP.

    Reply
  43. Randy E

    HISPANIC enrollment in schools rising.” MSNBC (and the Census and AP and Spain and my wife etc.) didn’t get Lee’s memo about being called Latino and speaking Mayan.

    Reply
  44. Lee Muller

    MSNBC’s misuse of the language does not redefine it, nor does it excuse your ignorance, Randy.
    Importing cheap illiterate laborers from Mexico in 2009 is no different than importing cheap illiterate laborers from Africa in the 1809.
    Whatever you want to call the illegal aliens, they are criminals, and now commit 1/3 of the serious crime in the USA. Last year, just the illegal aliens who were convicted and put behind bars cost the USA almost as much as the money stolen from Medicare and Medicaid.

    Reply
  45. Randy E

    I guess the US CENSUS is misusing language as well. The whole country is WRONG because of the ubiquitous use of “non-Hispanic white.” Professor Lee is here to set the country straight. Que tonto.

    Reply
  46. Lee Muller

    A lot of people misuse words, intentionally, such as “Hispanic” for denizens of Latin America without an ounce of Spanish or Portugese ancestry.

    Reply
  47. Lee Muller

    Our state constitution forbids government debt, yet the state, counties, cities, school districts, water districts and industrial parks issue hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds, quite illegally.
    Sanford is right to pay off this illegal debt, which will eliminate billions in interest payments, and lower taxes for everyone.
    Blowing the Pelosi Pork money on some government jobs for 2 years would be like a sugar buzz: over quickly, with no long-term nutrition. The poor saps in these make-work jobs would be back on welfare, or state taxes would have to be drastically increased to continue another burned out federal spending spree. We don’t need to fall for that trap.

    Reply
  48. Penny Stocks

    Wow! I know I am a little late reading this post but I am really surprised more people have not commented. You have a ton of helpful information on Blogs and Blogging. After reading this post I almost feel like a mini expert. Thanks for the great info.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.