Republicans don't want bin Laden to be captured!

After reading this Captain's Quarters post (I've been picking on him a lot recently), see if you draw the only logical conclusion that I drew:

[here's what Sen. Obama said]
There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

[here's Morrissey's response]
Frankly, the only idea worse than invading Iran is invading Pakistan. One might expect a serious presidential candidate to avoid looking like an idiot while provoking an ally that still helps more than he hurts in that region. Obama seems determined to prove himself unserious.

Can there be any other conclusion than he doesn't want the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 to be brought to justice? Obama says "find bin Laden" and Morrissey says "that's a bad idea"... it doesn't get any more straightforward.

Except for one thing: I'd be a complete dumbass for making that conclusion, since Morrissey's criticisms run deeper than that. Actually, I'm doing the exact same thing that Morrissey is doing with Obama. Morrissey is making the argument that Obama wants to "invade Pakistan", similarly to the way we invaded Iraq, except that it's NOT what Obama is saying at all. Obama is saying that we should send troops into the mountains where bin Laden and his crew are holed-up, and bring them in. It's a point Morrissey is either willfully or stupidly missing.

Now that THAT'S cleared up: Obama's idea is horrible.

[update]: Another Republican wants bin Laden to be free.

A classic game: Making stupid assumptions from meaningless data!

Oh boy, the GOP sure has a feather in its hat over this one: The Democrats are more partisan than the Republicans. At least that's the assertion Ed Morrissey makes:

Both parties like to blame the other for failing to exercise independence in Congress. Their supporters blame the members of the opposite side for excessive partisanship which keeps Washington DC from accomplishing anything for the people. The Washington Post decided to take a look at the 110th Congress to see which party exercises the most partisanship -- and the Democrats win the prize.

In fact, the Democrats take nine of the top ten partisan spots, as well as scoring 8 points higher in partisanship as a party.

So here's where he got that damning evidence. But all is not what it seems. The chart doesn't actually show "partisanship" at all. Here's the co-creator of the chart in the first comment:

I'd like to point out that the party voting scores are not indicative of partisanship per se but of voting behavior, which can have a number of factors.

Of course that doesn't stop the idiots in the rest of the comments to proceed with their "yee haws" and "git 'er dones". But when I read the chart, my first thought was -- "Well, they're in the majority. It seems logical that they would vote more similarly, since the Democrats are setting the agenda". Morrissey obviously doesn't have my sophisticated thinking skills.

So I went back a few Congresses to check my theory. Here goes (House only):

109th - top 20: 18 Repubs/ 2 Dems
108th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems
107th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems (the first Dem is 66 places down)
106th - top 20: 12 Repubs/ 8 Dems
105th - top 20: 18 Repubs/ 1 Dem/ 1 Ind
104th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems

Of course you know what that means! Nothing! Or more precisely that when a certain party is in power, they vote for issues they support. *gasp*

Fairness Schmairmess - Let's outlaw ALL political talk radio.

Just to show that I'm fair and balanced, in that I hate BOTH the Republicans and Democrats, here's an Ed Morrissey post about the Demo-craps (see what I did there? "craps" instead of "crats"? Ha!) and their freedom hatin':

Once again, Minnesota's Senator Norm Coleman attempted to ensure that government would not control the content of political speech -- and once again the Democrats ensured that they could impose it. Ted Kennedy himself blocked Coleman's amendment with a point of order, and the Democrats torpedoed it in a party-line vote

I'm sorry, but has the entire Senate become retarded? Either that, or the oxygen level in the chamber has decreased to a point where their brain-cells are dying at gradually increasing rate. Because I can't comprehend how people who are supposed to be smart, can act this mind-numbingly stupid.

First, this Fairness Doctrine stuff needs to go away for good, and Coleman's bill would help accomplish that. The fact is - Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage are popular because A LOT OF PEOPLE choose to listen to them. Simple-minded, illiterate people... but people nonetheless. It's called a Free Market, and there is nothing that institutionally brings these guys success... they just provide the pablum that people want to hear. Yes, it sucks... but so does that turd of a TV show "Two and a Half Men", and millions of people watch that crap every week. And while I wouldn't shed a tear if Hannity were pecked to death by AIDS infested pigeons, I would NEVER advocate prohibiting or limiting anything he has to say.

Secondly, I'm so tired of politicians trying to tack on pointless sh*t to legislation that has NOTHING to do with it. This isn't just about Coleman, though. They ALL do it. It's the reason why Porkbusters needs to exist, because they use the same tactic to get through their little pet projects, and funnel money to their districts. And all of that is fine, if they can get away with it. I'm just waiting for the Congressional Leadership to step-up and try to manage all this crap a little better. Make it more transparent. But I won't hold my breath.

Lastly, take for example, the complete waste of bandwidth that is the Day by Day comic strip. Chris Muir's stupidity shines through on a daily basis, as in today's strip that shows how eeeevil Hillary is totally playing into Iran's little plan. Yes, I realize that the Liberal Lesbian comic strip like Cathy needs to have an opposite counterpart, and thankfully Muir countered her unfunny leftist comic with his unfunny rightist comic. And you see... the Market works!

Is it me, or does Ed Morrissey seem a little gay?

It can't be easy sharing the same name as one of the gayest gays that has ever gayed. But in his critique of New Republic article, he seems to have found insinuations that I had trouble finding:

In reading the entire article, it becomes apparent what Cottle and TNR want to say with this article. They want to imply that conservatives suffer from some latent homosexuality, and that the enthusiasm for Thompson's run exposes it.

To start with, the article he's talking about is about as interesting as a dog taking a dump on the sidewalk. Meaning - not very. Sure, Cottle throws in some subtle (as a brick in the face) digs at Thompson, but Morrissey seems to be way more affected by those digs than he should be. For example this critique:

She derisively refers to him as "young Freddie Thompson" when reviewing his high-school life...

Well actually, it wasn't "derisively" as much as just "refers". It seems Morrissey is offended by Cottle's attempt to show Thompson in a less-than-masculine light. Or this critique:

Cottle writes somewhat derisively about how his first wife had to help him mature...

Again, it wasn't "somewhat derisive" at all... she just stated "Sarah has long been credited with starting Thompson on the road to personal maturity and professional direction". Ohhhh! Cottle BURNED HIM with that one!!! What?!?! And then it seems like Cottle is absent any kind of humour:

Cottle also reveals a certain lack of humor when discussing an Internet post that joked, "If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1." Had Cottle had a sense of humor, she would have realized that the joke pokes fun at the sweeping enthusiasm surrounding Fred.

And if you were to read the actual article, you find this:

My favorite bit of macho Fred-worship making its way around the Internet is a widely circulated joke about the title of the recent film 300, in which a small troop of Spartans holds the line against the massive Persian army: "If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1."

Notice how she used the word "joke" in her article. If she had said something like "a totally serious person on the Internet said this", maybe Morrissey would have a point. And the site where the comment comes from is about as chest-thumpingly Republican and "masculine" as can be. Either way, that line can really only be considered "humor" if the definition of "humor" is changed to "the complete opposite of funny". In that case, then it's the most humorous thing I've read all day.

So to finalize, a silly article about a silly potential Presidential candidate/actor is critiqued by a silly blogger, over things the silly article doesn't say. That just seems a little gay.