Patterico's Pontifications


God Help Us: Tweeting Against Terrorism

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:08 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Faced with the continuing advancement of ISIS in the ME as well as an increasing number of people throughout Europe and elsewhere being brutally cut down by radical Islamic terrorists violent extremists, the White House took the bull by the horns this week in an effort to combat the terrorism-that-shall-not-be-named and held a summit. BOOM!

Then, in an even more daring display of organizing against this scourge, the State Dept. took the unprecedented step of turning to Twitter to ask people to tweet their ideas on how to tackle the problem of radical Islamic terrorism violent extremism. Unprecedented!

From the State Dept.:

This week, the White House hosted a Summit to Counter Violent Extremism to highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence. These efforts have become even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks throughout the world.

What solutions do you think are most critical to countering violent extremism?

So, to the twitters, people! Our government needs you! And how sad is that.

Note: All tweets submitted will automatically be entered in the Best Helpful Hint To Combat Terrorism contest sponsored by the State Dept. All tweets containing the “I” word will automatically be excluded.



The WaPo Clutching Pearls Over Some “Venting”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:22 am

[guest post by Dana]

Scott Walker, notorious college dropout, is ruffling feathers. How do we know this? He is now the target of a full-blown #12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. He’s being Alinskied, making it plainly clear he’s perceived as a threat that needs to be shut down and brought to heel. Good for him.

His blasphemies include favorable polling, declining to answer questions about evolution, declining to criticize this administration’s foreign policy while on foreign soil, and dropping out of college for no better reason than GETTING A JOB. Further, when taking into consideration his lack of requisite apologies for these decisions and evidencing a backbone as well as his historical resiliency and popularity in Wisconsin (despite repeated attempts by the left to take him down), it’s clear to see why he’s on the Alinskyites’ radar.

With that, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank is throwing a tantrum as he clumsily pushes ahead with #12. Milbank asserts that since Walker was sitting just a few seats away from Giuliani at the dinner they were attending when that comment was made, Walker, on top of all of his other sins, behaved with cowardice by not defending the president and taking Giuliani to task. During a televised interview the next morning, Walker explained:

“The mayor can speak for himself. I’m not going to comment on what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself as well. I’ll tell you, I love America, and I think there are plenty of people — Democrat, Republican, independent, everyone in between — who love this country.”

But did he agree with Giuliani? “I’m in New York,” Walker demurred. “I’m used to people saying things that are aggressive out there.”

Quelle horreur!

Milbank, upon hearing Walker’s explanation for not intervening, called him “spineless” and hysterically asserted that Walker’s act of “cowardice” should disqualify him from being a serious presidential contender:

This is what’s alarming about the Giuliani affair. There will always be people on the fringe who say outrageous things (and Giuliani, once a respected public servant, has sadly joined the nutters as he questioned the president’s patriotism even while claiming he was doing no such thing). But to have a civilized debate, it’s necessary for public officials to disown such beyond-the-pale rhetoric. And Walker failed that fundamental test of leadership.

Milbank concludes:

Walker surely knew it was horrible, too, but he refused to say so — and in this failure he displayed a cowardice unworthy of a man who would be president.

So, Milbank believes there is an obligation on the part of public officials to disown beyond-the-pale rhetoric? Really? Because I didn’t hear any disowning come from the White House when Obama car czar Steve Rattner framed Tea Partiers as suicide bombers , or when Steny Hoyer (D) said that Republicans want to shoot every bullet they have at the president, or when Rep. Andre Carson (D) said tea party members want to see people like him hanging from a tree or when Rep. Steve Israel (D) blamed Tea Party political rhetoric-turning-violent for the Gabrielle Gifford shooting or when President Obama accused Republicans of holding a gun to the head of the American people, etc. And not to get on my high horse or anything, but I also didn’t hear Milbank level accusations of cowardice at the White House for their silence in these matters.

But really, if the vice-president himself declines to disown beyond-the-pale rhetoric and instead refers to it as “venting”, what’s the problem with Walker not disowning Giuliani’s “venting” as well?


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1210 secs.