Monday, April 1, 2013

Last Call

This should be the point where I post some elaborate April Fools' joke about me selling the blog to raise money to go to New York and profess my undying love for Jennifer Rubin or something, but I got nothing right now other than I hope you didn't buy your kids baby animals for Easter.

Pet horror stories are a staple of the post-Easter season in the United States, day animal control and rescue officials. The Easter holiday brings out the duckling, chick, and baby bunny lovers in people. They make an impulse buy, the recipient goes wild with joy for a day, but the honeymoon soon ends and parents scramble to surrender the animals.

Animal rescue staff, traditionally inundated with calls from regretful parents following Easter, are asking consumers to stop and think before buying an animal for Easter, and with good reason.
If, and it’s a big if, the animal doesn’t die from all that Easter excitement, now there’s a growing and soon-to-be mature duck, chicken (worse, a rooster), and rabbit on your hands.

A pubescent rabbit is not one to cuddle. Females are prone to running in circles, lunging, and grunting, says Anne Martin, shelter director for House Rabbit Society’s headquarters in Richmond, Calif. And if you purchased a male? “The boys will spray urine ... all over the place,” says Ms. Martin, who owns six rabbits and adds that a mature rabbit is a fantastic pet. But they can be quite alarming for a new pet owner whose supplier did not warn them.

Suppliers are also known for selling bunnies that have been taken away from their mothers too soon, says Mary Cotter, vice president of the House Rabbit Society.    

Ducklings and chicks have their own drawbacks, says Susie Coston director of the Farm Sanctuary shelter.

Like bunnies, ducklings and chicks are extremely fragile. If a child plays with them like a toy instead of fine china, they are likely to die from over-handling, Ms. Coston says.

And that's not a joke.

Shooting Yourselves En El Pie

The post-2012 election GOP "Latino outreach" continues to be one of the most miserable political relations failures in history, and the latest component of this house of cards is the fact that a big chunk of the Latino electorate sees Obamacare as something that directly benefits the Latino community, something that the GOP wants to take away.

Latinos, who have the lowest rates of health coverage in the country, are among the strongest backers of President Obama's healthcare law. In a recent national poll, supporters outnumbered detractors by more than 2 to 1. Latinos also overwhelmingly see guaranteeing healthcare as a core government responsibility, surveys show.

Yet congressional Republicans continue to make repeal of the 2010 Affordable Care Act a top agenda item and have renewed calls for deep cuts in health programs such as Medicaid, which are very popular with Latinos.

"Obamacare is a colossal mistake for our country," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said recently in a speech on the Senate floor. "It needs to be pulled out by its roots."

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Alexandra Franceschi expressed confidence that Latinos would ultimately recognize that the law raises costs and burdens businesses. "We're going to do a better job explaining why this law is negatively affecting all Americans, including the Hispanic community," she said.

And I'm sure it will be successful.  Note the red states with the largest Latino populations are now quickly trying to embrace Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, states like Texas and Florida.   Latino voters don't think Obamacare is a "colossal mistake".

But they think Republicans are.

Good luck with that, GOP.  Meanwhile, keep on confusing Hugo Chavez with Cesar Chavez and using vulgar racist terms while vowing to block immigration reform yet again. (and that's just the last couple of days.)  Also, vow to repeal a law that two thirds of Latino voters approve of in Obamacare, and go ahead and block gun control legislation that 84% of Latinos support.

Then ask yourselves why Latinos vote Democratic.  I can't imagine why.

Ashley, Alison, And The Turtle, Part 4

The Ashley Judd sage continues here in the Bluegrass State as Judd campaign adviser and former state Treasurer Jonathan Miller takes to the Daily Beast to say that Big Dog isn't responsible for Judd being pushed out...but KY Blue Dogs who duped the press (and apparently bloggers like me) into thinking he was involved are very much responsible for her decision not to run.

The past several weeks had seemed like a dizzying blur of false testimony, as the national media seized any morsel of news or gossip to sate its ravenous appetite for Ashley Judd stories. As the actress contemplated whether to move back to Kentucky and challenge Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, I was alternating with Congressman John Yarmuth as witness for the defense against a steady stream of salacious recriminations.
The prosecution was assisted in nearly every article by the same handful of Democratic professionals railing against the prospects of a Judd candidacy, promoting instead the potential Senate candidacy of Kentucky’s young Secretary of State, Alison Lundergan Grimes. While many may legitimately believe that Grimes is the better candidate, many of those who have been quoted impugning Judd, or have done so on background, also have personal motives: some stand to profit from a Grimes campaign, some may have been trying to redress perceived “disses” by the actress, and some may be aiming to keep Grimes out of the 2015 gubernatorial race, where she could undermine their preferred candidates.

Miller claims that Judd never uttered the phrase "I have been raped twice, so I think I can handle Mitch McConnell" because he was at the dinner where she was supposed to have said it.  I believe him here, and that false charge has Mitch McConnell's grimy fingerprints all over them. 

But then Miller says this:

The second Big Lie involved the Big Dog. The national media began to press the narrative that former President Bill Clinton was trying to force Judd out of the race in favor of a Grimes candidacy because Grimes’ father, Jerry Lundergan, had been a longtime Clinton supporter and had helped Clinton win Kentucky twice in the 90s.
There’s no doubt that the whole Lundergan family had developed a deep bond with the Clintons ever since Jerry emerged as Hillary’s loudest Kentucky supporter in her 2008 presidential bid. And just because, as a Clinton campaign staffer in 1992 and an administration official in 1996, I don’t remember Lundergan’s involvement, it doesn’t mean he didn’t help the former President win Kentucky on those occasions.
But I can personally attest to one prominent Kentucky supporter of the Clinton/Gore reelection campaign: Ashley Judd. Indeed, that’s where we first met. And Judd’s close relationship with both Clintons continued through Hillary’s 2008 bid, when the actress campaigned with Bill in Texas. He later returned the favor by providing the cover squib for Judd’s 2011 memoirAll That is Bitter and Sweet.  So it’s not surprising that Ashley informed our Louisville dinner group that the former President had privately urged her to run against McConnell, offering his complete support for her prospective campaign.
ABC News ultimately cleared up the record, but by then the narrative was set—the most popular national figure for Kentucky Democrats was opposed to a Judd candidacy, providing further oxygen to the anti-Ashley conflagration.

So at this point, we have at least one Judd supporter who says the Clinton/Judd split was manufactured and sold in order to get her out of the race.  Here's my question:  if that's true, why didn't Clinton say anything?  The one guy who could have put Miller's claim to rest was the Big Dog himself, and indeed if that's the case, President Clinton would have had every reason in the name of Dem party unity to nip this in the bud.  Instead, silence.

The problem is while Judd may have been a Hillary backer in 2008, Jerry Lundergan was a far bigger one across the board.  What raises my alarms that this may be miller's sour grapes is his ending:

But pity Alison Lundergan Grimes, the primary beneficiary of the anti-Ashley putsch. Like most Judd supporters, I hope Grimes runs, defeats McConnell and enjoys a long and successful career in Washington. But there are two other equally plausible—if not more probable—scenarios: One, Grimes gets drubbed by McConnell, whose ruthless, take-no-prisoners campaigns have ended the political careers of four of his last five opponents. Or two, Grimes opts out of the race for another campaign, leaving McConnell with no serious opponent.
All the while, I imagine McConnell sitting back, watching the antics with his sly, tight grin, enjoying how a small group of Democrats duped the so-called liberal media into creating the false narrative of a Democratic civil war. Only a master politician could get so damn lucky.

Yeah, first, those aren't the words of somebody trying to make a logical argument against the Clinton hose job.   Second,  if it's a 'civil war' it ended in about a week and was totally one-sided.  Judd rolled over hard, fast enough I might add that I think she wasn't ready for the hell that Mitch was going to unleash upon her.

Luck had nothing to do with it.  If anything, this piece seems a bit self-serving on Miller's part.


Related Posts with Thumbnails