Sure you might lose your job, or some pay, in the process but who cares? Those won’t be needed under an Obama administration anyway.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that he’s looking forward to one party controlling all aspects of government, despite GOP charges that it would be a disastrous Nov. 4 outcome.
“Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it’s time to give the other party a chance,” Dean said on MSNBC.
Barney Frank has already revealed one of their first targets:
In a revealing meeting with the editorial board of the Southcoast (Mass.) Standard-Times last week, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., called for a 25% cut in military spending, saying: “We don’t need all these fancy new weapons.” Judging from his past comments, Obama seems to agree. He says we should talk to our enemies. Obama, Frank and the Democratic caucus would have us speak softly and carry no stick at all.
The irony here is that this call to disarm is coming from the party of Franklin Roosevelt, who called the United States the “arsenal of democracy.” Obama is a far cry from Harry Truman or the Jack Kennedy who said that only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt will we be certain beyond doubt they will never be employed.
It’s “fancy new weapons” that now provide a rudimentary amount of protection against ballistic missile attack both here and abroad. What olive branch does Obama suppose will protect against Iraq’s Shahab missiles, once they’re armed with nuclear warheads?
In a video presentation to the far-left group Caucus for Priorities, Obama revealed just where Frank’s 25% cut might come from. “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” he said. “I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.”
So forget about national missile defense or responding to a realistic assessment of our enemies’ intentions and capabilities.
You folks in aerospace and defense should probably be polishing up those resumes now.
Elaine is a Democrat and former editor in chief of Ms. magazine. While she does comment on Palin’s intelligence she shifts gears quickly and goes after hypocritical feminists who’ve been exposed by Palin’s selection:
Many of those—not all—who decried the sexist media treatment of Hillary Clinton have been silent as Palin has been skewered in the old ways that female public figures are skewered, as well as a host of sexualized new ways as well. Some feminists have weighed in; “Even the reportedly clear glasses she wears to play down her beauty queen credential and enhance her gravitas can’t make up for experience,” writes my heroine Suzanne Braun Levine, former editor of Ms. Oppose her on policy? Fine. But how sad for feminist leaders to sink this low, especially when Palin has worn glasses since she was 10 years old.
Last month a prominent feminist blogger, echoing that sensibility, declared that the media was wrongly buying into the false idea that Palin was a feminist. Why? Well, just because she said she was a feminist, because she supported women’s rights and opportunities, equal pay, Title IV—that was just “empty rhetoric,” they said. At least the blogger didn’t go as far as NOW’s Kim Gandy and declare that Palin was not a woman. Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. And there you have the formula for diminishing what was once a great and important mass social change movement to an exclusionary club that rejects women who sincerely want to join and, God forbid, grow to lead.
More examples of this behavior, some graphic, can be found here.