← yes, that being liberal is a disgrace ...
WHEN THE WORD ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS WHAT SITES
Posted on 06/10/2015of moosecon
Santi tells me I should clarify that when I'm messing with the "liberals" do using that term in its American sense rather than European, lest anyone not in on it confused. Santi is absolutely right, as usual. You know that it is something like the conscience of this blog (and today the "ombudsman") and any comments he is always very appreciated by this metepatas blogger. Consequently, to make it clear that I have no've I never had the slightest intention of denigrating the European liberals, bybut I strictly do not consider a conservative liberal.
The reason for this confusion is that this blog has three types of more or less fixed readers (the "fifteen of fame", you know) according to their geographical origin: the Americans, who interestingly account for 60% of my readers; Spanish, accounting for 30%; and various, some as far away as New Zealand where I have a faithful reader, representing the remaining 10%. To me has always liked to refer to the opposition with the "progressive" expression (abbreviated disparagingly as "progressive"), but some of my American readers were difficult to understand and so ended up drifting towards that of "liberal" which that it does not involve them no problem in identifying to whom I am referring. But I fear that to solve a problem, I created another and maybe I should stick to my original intention and return to "progressive" or "left", "socialist" or "asshole", which would also serve. The fact is that I am so keen to write for those American readers (I get not yet understand what they do read last news about Sarah Palin when they can have them fresh without turning on the TV ), now I just need to write directly in English, which better avoid that simply do not give the level for it. Anyway, I make this clarification to clear doubts and I promise that from now lend more attention when using degrading epithets, aware that not all mean the same thing everywhere, dammit!
That said, we are going to work. Today we have some notes of Sarah, photos of Piper (hurray!), A statement by Ted Cruz and even a sea of interesting article on the Republican primary. We started! And the first thing is to commemorate the 71st anniversary of the Normandy landings, the beginning of the end of the Nazi horror in Europe:
In this 71st anniversary of D-Day, God will bless our Greatest Generation for the sacrifices they made for our freedom. Please take a moment today to reflect on their courage. Say thank you to a veteran of WW2 and listen to their stories, tell their children the story of D-Day, see "The Longest Day" or "Band of Brothers" or simply say a prayer of gratitude for the tens of thousands who made the ultimate sacrifice that day to free a continent of evil.
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so that we may always be free "(President Ronald Reagan, June 6, 1984, the 40th anniversary of D-Day).
You are about to embark upon the great crusade, for which we have striven these many months. The world's eyes are on you (General Eisenhower).
The world's eyes are on you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people around the world are with you (General Dwight D. Eisenhower).
The second note refers to a new member of the Palin family, but animal branch, huh? Piper things, I guess you have removed the outstanding cole and he has earned. By the way, still wearing hair dyed pink, heh, heh, heh.
The family grows with a new bug! Meet the newest Piper; a micro mini pig that she has named Penelope. Aha!
Sarah & Piper Palin
The third note is the announcement of his speech at the Sean Hannity program a few days ago:
I will be on the program tonight Sean Hannity on Fox News; if you want to tune in at 22.00 ET.
Luckily, we have the video of his speech. Sarah's comments were mainly directed to the double standards applied by traditional means of communication rotten when treating the case of repeated sexual abuse perpetrated by the repulsive Lena Dunham with her younger sister. As Sarah as explained in an earlier note from him this condescension towards it stands strongly beside aggressive lynching campaign directed against all of the Duggar family, and wonder how we should describe those civil servants who leaked intentionally the statements from child victims of abuse. Moreover, Sarah made a few more comments on the new applications submitted to the Republican primaries, but without adding anything not already know. And no, he did not disclose if she if she would present too, something that otherwise we all know well that will not do. (Yes, it is hard to take, I know ...)
Well this is all we have Sarah for today. Not enough, right? I'm not saying that this woman is very reluctant. I hope that from September we have it overturned on the question of supporting Ted Cruz because if not go boredom, right?
Anyway, to add a little more substance to this post so bland, I happened to include a statement a few days ago Ted Cruz, who seems to be willing to give a twist to his campaign and move to attack, which has so far avoided. Specifically, these statements I offer the place in North Carolina, while campaigning in that state. Collects the Raleigh News and Observer and refer to two of his electoral rivals Scott Walker and Marco Rubio:
One or both of them may choose to come to compete with me for conservative voters. But I do not think that's likely. If you look at their records, view campaign teams have been hired, if you look at the decisions being made in real time during the campaign, I think we both have decided to compete for moderate voters. Certainly, I think that Walker and Rubio will become the main moderate rival Jeb Bush for those voters.
That has some consequences. It means those guys are going to spend millions of dollars shatter each other because first you have to win with their own voters, which is why you have seen these candidates attacking each other anymore.
So he says the article, Cruz admitted that it would not be he who beat with these voters, moderates. However, he also said his campaign began to pick up speed moderate donor funds, convinced that electing a moderate Republican in 2016 is a "safe way for Hillary Clinton is elected president."
And finally, another article that caught my attention. Rebecca Leber and signs it was published in The New Republic . It gives many clues about why there are so many candidates for president in the GOP this year and certainly most likely have absolutely right. To me, at least, he has convinced me:
WHAT ARE THINKING? THE MANY (POSSIBLE) MANY REASONS THE GOP CANDIDATE IN 2016
The list of Republican presidential candidates increasingly long days ago. On Wednesday, Rick Santorum entered the race and Thursday are expected to former New York Gov. George Pataki do the same. Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia now boasts up to 18 probable contenders . And yet, only a few have a real chance of winning: Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubiowill lead the pack , followed by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.
So why, if you Pataki, you and introduce yourself?
"Pataki has me confused about this," Sabato told the New Yorker last month. "I do not even know what he's been doing. Have you been on a board? ".
In fact, Pataki has not held public office since 2006 and refused to run for president in the last two elections. But a number of other participants in 2016 are equally disconcerting: Carly Fiorina, a former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, who has never held public office; Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon and Tea Party favorite; Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. Even Donald Trump threatens to arise.
Why presented as a losing candidate? Maybe God inspired them to present themselves ("I feel fingers," Carson said ). Maybe they want to influence the public debate. Maybe they want to stage a comeback. Or maybe they really believe they can win. After all, in 2012, five other candidates had the lead at some point, including pizza magnate Herman Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney won, as expected, but for a while, especially after the early victories of Santorum in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri in 2012, looked like it might be the choice of anyone.
But there are other reasons too. As four-time presidential candidate Ralph Naderexplained recently: "You can fatten your mailing list and your Rolodex for future opportunities. These can include lucrative jobs, speeches or advances paid books ".Other potential reasons include selling books, conferences, get a coveted appointment or simply satisfy your ego.
Pataki, for example, is in a few boards, and environmental consulting firm that formed called the Pataki-Cahill Group and worked as a lawyer at the law firm Chadbourne in New York. He is represented by Greater Talent Network . In 1998, Pataki got into trouble by charging $ 17,000 per speech during his tenure, but it is unclear which pronounced recently paid no speech: Speakerpedia, with several reports on lectures given by all candidates, does not have any on Pataki .
After 2012, Santorum created a film producer , EchoLight, producing Christian moviesof like Corbin Bernsen and Brian Dennehy. Last year, Santorum published Blue Collar Conservatives: recommitting to an America That Works [Conservatives blue collar: commitment to an America that work ], a manifesto disguised campaign book.Moreover, in March still he had $ 455,000 in debt from the campaign of 2012. To pay his debts, he rented his list of supporters for a total of $ 37,000 this year, according to the Center for Public Integrity . Also charges up to $ 25,000 per speech, according Speakerpedia .
Huckabee also knows of this tactic. He has rented its mailing list of supporters to a group that claimed to have found the cure for cancer in a Bible verse . His last bid for the presidency in 2008 gave good results, beating his own show on Fox News that went off the air this year. Speakerpedia says that charges as much as $ 50,000 per speech.
Carly Fiorina, whose attempt in 2010 failed Senate, is also a popular lecturer; It represents Celebrity Speakers Bureau and apparently can exceed $ 100,000 per speech. His latest book, Rising to the Challenge [ Facing the challenge it ], he went on sale the same week in May when he announced his candidacy. Many believe that Fiorina is competing to be the vice presidential candidate (although that is a long shot if any), which she denies .
Ben Carson has no fewer than six published books, the most recent of which, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Succeed [ A nation: what we can all do to succeed ], was published in 2014. And, according with National Review , "the Republican candidate can schedule includes lectures paid until well into the fall of 2015, several months after the time that is expected to announce his official candidacy." These commitments can supposing him up to $ 50,000 each .
As for Donald Trump, well, maybe he just wants a few million followers on Twitter over those who cause.
Very revealing all this, right? I confess I had no idea about it. Another thing I learn today.Certainly this year will be a year of muuuchos candidates, but we'll see how many of them come to Florida. I fear that when the truth will be a handful. Cruz And surely be among them!