Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:35 AM ET, 12/30/2010

Morning Bits

By Jennifer Rubin

Richard Cohen is on the money regarding Michael Vick: "The sanctimony regarding this dog killer is sickening. He was wantonly cruel, not only pitting dogs against one another in fights, but drowning poor performers. Didn't he know this was cruel? Didn't he know wounded dogs were in pain? Is he so stupid he didn't notice the blood, the torn skin, the...? Oh, forget it! The man's an animal himself.... Vick got a second chance not because he deserves it but because he can play football." And that the president should weigh in on Vick is, to many of us, inexplicable and utterly gratuitous.

Tucker Carlson is likewise pretty much on the mark here. "I'm Christian. I've made mistakes. I believe fervently in second chances. Michael Vick killed dogs in a heartless and cruel way. I think, firstly, he should have been executed for that. The idea the president of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs is beyond the pale." (Okay, I might be talked out of the death penalty, but I find the rest entirely compelling.)

Tevi Troy is on target on presidents and sports. "The football curse has plagued presidents for nearly a century, perhaps since Teddy Roosevelt famously intervened in 1905 to get college football teams to agree to use both helmets and more serious safety rules to cut down on injuries and deaths." (And Obama would be well advised to stay away from baseball as well.)

Tony Blankley is spot on regarding the non-comeback of Obama. "In Obama's case, he enters 2011 facing more than 80 new Republican congressmen and senators, most of whom would make Barry Goldwater look soft on limited government and deficit spending. On those central issues of 2011, the president either capitulates or storms in defiance and gridlock. He has not come back from political crisis; he has only inflamed his formidable opposition across the country."

Republicans paint a bullseye on vulnerable Democrats. "The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has its eye on five key races it hopes will pave the way for the GOP to take the majority in the upper chamber in 2012. NRSC Executive Director Ron Jesmer said in an interview with CNN.com published Wednesday that the committee believes there is 'fertile ground' for Republican gains in Montana, Virginia, Nebraska, Florida and North Dakota." Perhaps Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin as well.

Charles Krauthammer is dead on when it comes to Obama's posturing on Guantanamo. "Obama says Guantánamo is against our ideals. But he is in charge of Gitmo and says the prisoners are well-treated. No indication of torture. There is no implication that there is anything that the Obama administration would do other than what the Bush administration did -- because Obama wants indefinite detention [for hard-core detainees] in Gitmo or elsewhere. It doesn't matter. If it [indefinite detention] is against our ideals, it would be against our ideals in Gitmo or Illinois. So there is nothing left of this. It's time that Obama admitted it. All he had to do is say: It [closing Gitmo] is mistake, it's not achievable, and stop the nonsense."

The New York Post editorial board scores a knockdown against Mayor Michael Bloomberg on his assistance to the Ground Zero mosque builders. "In fact, it turns out that Team Bloomberg was heavily involved in operating the political machinery needed to ensure that various regulatory agencies approved the controversial project -- which has rightly drawn the ire of many 9/11 survivors and victims' families.... That not only raises First Amendment questions -- it also provides serious doubts about the legitimacy of the [Land Preservation Commission] vote, which appears to have been dictated far more by politics than by any consideration of the building's architectural and historical merit."

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 30, 2010; 7:35 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Bits  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Liberal fixation with Palin continues
Next: So much for bipartisanship -- a slew of recess appointments

Comments

Tucker Carlson is wrong. Christians love and forgive others, just like Jesus did. Michael Vick has paid his punishment. It's now time to gracefully get off his back, quit judging him, and teach him what true love is like.

Posted by: mpreedin | December 30, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

You miss the larger point, Jennifer. There is a serious problem with re-entry into society of ex-cons. The Post has done some excellent articles on that topic. Vick's reemergence serves as a reminder that there is a large population of individuals who will serve out their sentences. Guess what keeping them unemployable and unhousable means? You guessed it. More crime.

The story of VIck is one of redemption. His isn't complete. Others should have a chance. One would think a conservative would concur. Of course, it doesn't give you a chance to throw cheap shots.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 30, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Posted at 7:35 AM ET, 12/30/2010 Morning Bits

Posted at 1:15 AM ET, 12/30/2010 Foreign policy predictions

Posted at 3:12 PM ET, 12/29/2010 Liberal fixation with Palin continues

Does Jennifer Rubin ever sleep?

Posted by: nvjma | December 30, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

I thought conservatives were of the forgiving ilk? Leading conservative figures are frequently found guilty of various transgressions and wholly forgiven after they stage the required blubbering I-found-Jesus spectacle.

Is there any amount of time Vick could serve before conservative would give him a second chance? Seems unlikely. I'd hate to think what conservatives would do to someone who tortured human beings. Oh wait, that was Cheney and conservatives love him. I wouldn't mind the bold hypocrisy so much if they didn't prattle on about Christianity. Their approach to Michael Vick is about as Christian as the Ottoman Empire.

Posted by: rgray | December 30, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

@FairlingtonBlade | December 30, 2010 8:21 AM
"You miss the larger point, Jennifer."
_________

The only points Jennifer made explicitly (about Vick) were that she agrees with the points made by Cohen, Carlson and Troy. Thus, one of her implicit points is that presidents should stay out of sports-related disputes. Where do you see a cheap shot in her "points"?

We get it. You and your lefty buds are appalled that the Post would hire someone who has the temerity to express opinions, which besmirch your pristine-leftist agenda. The obvious solution is for you to migrate to the DailyKrap where you can wallow in self pity, sour grapes and unicorn horsesh*t.

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 30, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Jennifer Rubin:

I have enjoyed reading you since you first started on Contentions, back in the day before the lefties and far right libertarians discovered it and began polluting the comment section with their jejune and sophomoric posturing. I agree with most, if not all of your opinions, but you go seriously astray on the Tucker Carlson comments. Whatever Vick is, he is emphatically not a "murderer." You murder human beings, not dogs. A person should be executed for certain types of murders of human beings, but never, ever for killing a dog. Any thinking to the contrary is not morally serious and you should know better.

Other than this little faux pas, keep up the great work.

Posted by: gord2 | December 30, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

We get it. You and your lefty buds are appalled that the Post would hire someone who has the temerity to express opinions, which besmirch your pristine-leftist agenda. The obvious solution is for you to migrate to the DailyKrap where you can wallow in self pity, sour grapes and unicorn horsesh*t.
Posted by: HenriLeGrand

We're having a good time. Commentary,Weekly Standard,NRO don't take comments.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 30, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: HenriLeGrand
"We get it. You and your lefty buds are appalled that the Post would hire someone who has the temerity to express opinions, which besmirch your pristine-leftist agenda."

Your comment is focused entirely on the supposed feelings of "lefties" regarding the fact that Ms. Rubin writes for the Post. However, the "lefty" comments preceding yours addressed the subject matter of Ms Rubin's article, not the fact that she writes for the Post. You see, we "lefties" encourage a diversity of views but that doesn't mean we won't debate a view that differs from our own. In your universe, disagreement should lead to disenfranchisement which explains your comment. You believe, rightly, that we disagree with Ms. Rubin and therefore deduce, wrongly, that we don't believe she has a right to her view. You also refuse to comment on the points brought forth in our comments. I am fascinated by your narrow-mindedness.

Posted by: rgray | December 30, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

rcaruth: NRO takes comments now --get on the Bandwagon!

Posted by: aardunza | December 30, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

(you must be logged in to the Corner to comment)

Posted by: aardunza | December 30, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse


rcaruth: NRO takes comments now --get on the Bandwagon!
Posted by: aardunza

Here's the bandwagon below for every article LOL

"In order to facilitate the proper policing of comments by National Review Online, commenting for Article is not available at this time."

Posted by: rcaruth | December 30, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

@rgray | December 30, 2010 11:33 AM
"Your comment is focused entirely on the supposed feelings of "lefties" regarding the fact that Ms. Rubin writes for the Post. However, the "lefty" comments preceding yours addressed the subject matter of Ms Rubin's article, not the fact that she writes for the Post. ... etc."
________

Quite true, none of the 4 comments preceding mine addressed the general comment I made, AFTER addressing BB's criticism about Ms.Rubin's supposed "cheap shots". But have you been following the general commentary of your leftist buddies during the past few weeks since this blog began?

I admit my general comment was off-topic in this instance, though I remind you again that I did not "refuse to comment on the points brought forth" in BB's "cheap shots" remark, which was itself a cheap shot.

I am fascinated by your narrow reading, AKA cherry-picking, of my 2-paragraph comment and proclaiming (strictly on the basis of my second one) that my 'comment is focused entirely on the supposed feelings of "lefties" regarding the fact that Ms. Rubin writes for the Post.'

In "my universe", which unfortunately I must share with people like you, there are many people, including me, who welcome a debate with people having other world views. Most people (you included), however,think debate and flame war are interchangeable terms. While I'll dabble in a flame war now and then for a change of pace, after a while, it does get mighty tedious.

Finally, your mama wears combat boots!!!

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 30, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Maybe someone can explain to me why the current batch of Conservatives/NeoConservatives disdain debate. My opinion is that they are conceptually totalitarian. They claim to favor freedom,but they really dislike opposing opinions.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 30, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

@rcaruth | December 30, 2010 1:36 PM
"Maybe someone can explain to me ...,but they really dislike opposing opinions."
______________

I'll try to explain; I'll even say it slowly.

I'd love to exchange stale inanities with you, but not today.

Tuesday's not good for me either.

How about never? Does never work for you?

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 30, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

How about never? Does never work for you?
Posted by: HenriLeGrand

Obviously,mine are staler than yours.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 30, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Word.

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 30, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

@rcaruth | December 30, 2010 2:18 PM
"Obviously,mine are staler than yours."
__________

OK then, rc, not never.
:)
Some other time.

h

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | December 30, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives are hilarious.

Posted by: Amminadab | December 30, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

How about never?
Can we make that the twelfth? That's a long, long time...

oh, shake hands, you both probably have much more in common than you realize, for example, your mutual antipathy toward Donnie Osmond...?

Posted by: aardunza | December 30, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

About time any NY newspaper finally nailed Bloomberg's manipulation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on 45 Park Place. It was obvious at the time of their vote that they (all Bloomberg appointees who would never dare to risk their invitations to the desirable dinner parties of Manhattan) had been pressured.

Unfortunately, it needs to be the Wall Street Journal who digs deeper, because the NY Post is still a tabloid.

The two men who built 45 Park Place were Thomas Tileston and Paul Spofford, leading shipping magnates when shipping was the economic driver of Manhattan. They pioneered the first use of steam power. They refused to break the blockade of the Confederacy, and then gave or sold all of their ships to the Union. (NYC tried to secede from the Union because the cotton trade was so important to shipping.)

45 Park Place is the only Tileston/Spofford building to survive, and then it survived a direct hit on 9/11/2001.

It is also a fine example of a merchant warehouse, with graceful proportions.

That LPC vote was a disgrace. The memory of what Tileston and Spofford contributed to NYC and America as civic-minded entrepeneurs should be an inspiration for all generations, not torn down to build a post-modern (current design) community center that is not needed in that neighborhood.


Posted by: K2K2 | December 30, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

gord2 is wrong. Anyone who deliberately tortures and murders dogs is depraved and should be punished to the full extent of the law. The death penalty is too good for such monsters. What they do to dogs, they will do to humans.

Would Obama have said anything if Vick was white? Just asking...

Posted by: K2K2 | December 30, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

k2k2:

I never said that Vick should not have been punished for what he did and we both know that he was. And I concede that animal torturers probably are more likely to "graduate" to something more heinous. My only point: a dog is not a human and you don't "murder" dogs. It is more than mere semantics because it reveals a twisted anthropomorphic thinking: that human beings are just the same as any other murdering humans shouldn't be the same as killing dogs. I think deep down you know that too.

Posted by: gord2 | December 31, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The cheap shot, my dear Henri, was that Jennifer called the president's comment gratuitous. You apparently didn't read my comment as you do nothing to address its substance--that the reentry of convicted individuals is an imperative for

I can't speak for my lefty buds (nor my right ones), but you evidently haven't been reading here long. I have by and large enjoyed Ms. Rubin's congtributions. She seems compelled to make so many posts that she naturally wanders into the silly season. For example, the first lady's campaign against childhood obesity is nannying, whereas the former first lady's campaign against childhood illiteracy was beyond reproach. When her blog posts show hypocrisy (IMHO), I'll call her out.

Perhaps you'd care to lay out a coherent argument as to why ex-cons should be shunned from society? Nah. Too much easier to send out pot shots about lefties. Yet another right-wing troll.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 1, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

@FairlingtonBlade | December 30, 2010 8:21 AM:
"One would think a conservative would concur. Of course, it doesn't give you a chance to throw cheap shots."

@FairlingtonBlade | January 1, 2011 7:18 PM:
"Perhaps you'd care to lay out a coherent argument as to why ex-cons should be shunned from society? Nah. Too much easier to send out pot shots about lefties. Yet another right-wing troll."
________________

Can you manage to wipe the spittle off your chin, and listen to yourself? Unless a conservative concurs with your views or is willing to satisfy your demand for a "coherent" (in your own unimpeachable estimation) alternative view, he or she is nothing more than a right-wing troll taking pot shots at your own pot shots?

Is that the position you actually take seriously?

Posted by: HenriLeGrand | January 2, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company