Tuesday Mashup (11/02/10)

In a thoroughly unsurprising development, presumptive losing senatorial candidate from Delaware Christine O’Donnell was endorsed recently by Pete du Pont, he of the idea that students be subjected to mandatory, random drug tests with those who flunked losing their drivers licenses (endorsement noted here).

Also, as noted here, du Pont criticized Obama for the following…

The “cap-and-trade dividend” proposal, supported by Obama allies like Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), recommends distributing carbon market revenues to 100% of American households. Obama’s proposal — which du Pont calls “the opposite” — returns 80% of the revenues to 95% of American households.

So, according to du Pont, the “opposite” of 100 is 95.

Uh huh.

This endorsement really isn’t news anyway, since du Pont has been trying to promote the teabaggers for some time, which actually puts him at odds with the life forms who really call the shots in his party based on this (re: trying to put O’Donnell’s mentor in her place).

Also, Ted Nugent provided the following amusement over at the Washington Times here…

As I have written before and as is now painfully obvious, President Obama has no hands-on experience as to how the private sector operates. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is equally clueless. Both could stand in a free-market sandstorm and not bat an eye. As far as I can tell, neither the president nor the vice president has ever owned or run a business.

In response, please allow me to note the following (concerning the individuals running the Executive Branch the last time this country saw days of actual prosperity):

Number of businesses run by Bill Clinton before election to the White House – 0
Number of businesses run by Al Gore before election to the White House – 0

And concerning the duo succeeding Clinton and Gore, a certain former owner of the World-Series-losing Texas Rangers basically imploded the three following companies (Arbusto, Spectrum 7 and Harken Energy) before he took on the ceremonial title of Governor of Texas (noted here). And in 1998, as noted here...

...Halliburton CEO and future Dubya veep Dick Cheney brought onboard a subsidiary called Dresser Industries. In the process, Halliburton inherited some 300,000 asbestos claims. As the litigation cut into Halliburton's war profits, Bush continued to make speeches decrying the proliferation of "frivolous asbestos suits."

(If you know anyone dying of asbestosis, by the way, I can assure you that there is nothing "frivolous" about it.)

The only person in the administration of Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History who knew anything about running a successful business (building it up as opposed to taking over when it was already a mega-corporation) was former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who ran Alcoa and was fired by Bush-Cheney for criticizing the Iraq war.

So I would say that we really haven’t had any recent experience of executive governance by presidents and vice-presidents who were actually successful in business. And I really don’t think that has a damn thing to do with businesses contributing to Republicans and doing their level best in the hope that Dems fail anyway.

And for now, I'll pass on commenting about the absurdity of expecting Ted Nugent to make sense about anything at all.

Next, Bill Kristol opines as follows (here)…

On October 14, in the only debate in the Nevada Senate race between Senate majority leader Harry Reid and his Republican challenger, Sharron Angle, Reid was attacking his opponent for supporting private retirement accounts alongside Social Security. An exasperated Angle responded: “Man up, Harry Reid. You need to understand that we have a problem with Social Security.”

The comment wasn’t about Harry Reid’s manliness. It wasn’t really about Harry Reid personally—though it did have a certain piquancy, addressed as it was to the person who, fecklessly and irresponsibly embracing defeatism in a war our men were fighting, asserted in April 2007 that the surge in Iraq was “not accomplishing anything” and that “this war is lost.”

Leave it to Irving’s callow offspring to try and stick in a commercial for his failed war on Election Day. And I sincerely hope that, with the end of this electoral season, we see the end of this wretched “man up” phrase as well.

Funny thing, though – I don’t recall Kristol writing anything along the lines of “Chuck Hagel Should ‘Man Up’” since Hagel protested the Iraq war also, with this story from January 2007 telling us the former Nebraska senator’s comments opposing the surge “placed him squarely in the mainstream of public opinion” (actually, I’d love to see the reaction of a former Marine to never-served-warmongering Bill if Kristol were ever to say that, which he wouldn’t of course).

Also, as noted here, Kristol also didn’t tell any of the “thousands of service members” fired until DADT that he supported to “man up” either.

That said, I think someone around here does indeed need to “man up.” And I think we know exactly who it is.

Finally, I got a kick out of this story…

A husband and wife research team may have discovered a novel way to make college kids care about politics. According to their research, online porn usage goes up among those who vote for winning candidates after elections.

…

Of course porn isn't the only - or even the most effective - way to satisfy a sexual appetite. So, if the polls are right, and (researchers Patrick and Charlotte Markey) are right, Republican voters may wish to wear their sexy PJs to bed next Tuesday.

To which I say the following in response…

We Democrats don’t wear PJs, if you know what I mean :-).