‘Inexcusable’ language on immigration alienating Latino voters, Republicans told

Florida senator Marco Rubio and former governor Jeb Bush warn party’s frontrunners not to use ‘harsh and intolerable’ language

Huh. I wonder what those “frontrunners” said? Surely we’ll have some specifics?

“We must admit there are those among us that have used rhetoric that is harsh and intolerable and inexcusable,” Rubio said in a speech at the Hispanic Leadership Network in Miami on Friday.

“And we must admit, myself included, that sometimes we’ve been too slow to condemn that language for what it is.”

Nope. No specifics.

In case you couldn’t tell from the above quotes, Sen. Rubio is a Republican. I’d understand if you were confused. He’s talking like a race-baiting liberal.

I’m just wondering, Sen. Rubio: could you possibly give us an example? Point to somebody’s specific statement?

Why is that statement “harsh and intolerable and inexcusable?” And are those words just placeholders for “racist?”

Hey, I’m not exactly a hardliner on illegal immigration issues. But I know the difference between legal and illegal. Immigration laws apply to all foreigners, regardless of race or ethnicity. So if Senator Rubio wants to condemn “harsh and intolerable and inexcusable” rhetoric, great. I’m with you, Marco!

You want to “condemn that language for what it is?” Groovy. Speak truth to power!

But fer cry-eye. As it is, you sound like a race-baiting Liberal. Just so you know.

The last available choice is: “I plan to vote for Walker.” As of right now:

…Walker is winning with 51%.

Maybe that’s not such a big deal. After all, the Democrat vote is split up.

But maybe it is a big deal. Like I said, the Cap Times is an incredibly liberal publication. The only reason Republicans and conservatives ever read it is if they’re mentioned by name, or if they suffer from low blood pressure.

So what the hell? Ann Althouse considers that question:

It’s possible that some pro-Walker site has already linked to this poll, and that’s why Walker is getting 54% of the vote. (I assume my linking now will have an effect.) But it’s startling to see the Cap Timesters going big for Walker like this.

In second place, with 33%, is Russ Feingold…

That was then. So they have changed, but Walker’s still got a clear majority.

I’m making two assumptions, here:

1. There aren’t enough Republicans and conservatives reading the Cap Times to give Walker those numbers; and
2. There’s no way in hell enough regular Cap Times readers would honestly click the Walker option. Not as a joke. Not as an attempt at misdirection. They hate him too much.

So somebody linked it, and drove voters there. Wish I knew who. More importantly, I wish I’d been informed. Now I have to go dig the consequences out of the closet. If I can remember which closet I put them in.

Democrats have seized on Republicans as the party of unlimited secret money.

The only problem: so are Democrats.

In recent days, Obama released an ad blasting “secretive oil billionaires” for attacks on him, Nancy Pelosi unveiled a campaign slogan, calling for “a new politics free of special interest influence,” and the Democratic National Committee released a Web ad accusing Mitt Romney of lying about his ties to a super PAC that’s spent millions supporting him.

…But this year, Democrats are playing the same game. Obama’s team has blessed a network of super PACs trying to raise the same seven-figure checks as Romney’s. And Obama’s allies have gone even further than Romney’s, setting up nonprofit groups that do not disclose their donors at all.

In fact, top Democrats are so ardent about the need to raise unlimited — and sometimes secret — cash this year that some operatives aren’t pleased about the recent attacks, grumbling that it makes it a whole lot tougher to get wealthy liberals to fork over mega-checks when the politicians who’d benefit are ripping Republicans for taking the same types of contributions…

… the Obama campaign’s juggernaut fundraising makes the president an especially poor messenger for the attacks, reasoned one Democratic operative familiar with the party’s outside money operation.

“When you’ve been talking about raising $1 billion, you really shouldn’t be talking about money in the political process,” the operative said.

We here at The Trog have noted several times (here and here) the number of incredibly rich individuals giving millions to liberal organizations in order to – a la those evil, manipulative Koch brothers – influence the political arena.

Those millionaires, of course, go unnoted by the liberal establishment, because they’re having too much fun saying “Kochsucker.”

This is so well established, in fact, it’s hardly worth writing another blog post about it. As juicy and tempting as the above story is, we all already know that Democrats and liberals are complete hypocrites when it comes to political money. Why even bother pointing it out again? Why waste another blog post?

I’m not. I’m writing a post about the phrase “hoist with your own petard.”

Did you think it was “on” your own petard? Me, too. Did you think “petard” was some weird euphemism for “ass?” Me, too.

But, no:

A petard was a small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications.

…The word remains in modern usage in the phrase hoist with one’s own petard, which means “to be harmed by one’s own plan to harm someone else” or “to fall into one’s own trap,” literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoist, or blown upward) by one’s own bomb.

A bomb. Like this (skip ahead to about the :35 mark if you’re impatient):

That’s a petard!

Or, conversely:

Etymology:

The word petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from Latin peditum, from neuter of peditus, past participle of pedere, to break wind; akin to Greek bdein to break wind.

Um…sorry, no video example of that.

Point being, I learned something today. The phrase “hoist with one’s own petard” means to blow yourself up with your own bomb, a la Wile E. Coyote. So to use that phrase in a political context is incredibly violent, akin to wishing someone else dead.

We here at The Trog shrug our shoulders and don’t really regret any times in the past when we might have used this phrase.

Link: Temple of Mut.

Link: HuffPo.

Link: Trog.

Link: Megan McArdle.

Link: Mediaite.

Link: Trog.

Link: Sister Toldja.

Previously:

• This Week in Automotivators, January 9-15

• This Week in Automotivators, January 16-22

• Make your own automotivators.

Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.

But environmental zealots worldwide want to restrict CO2 production. The only possible conclusion: Global Warming zealots hate plants!

…plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today.

That’s in the Wall Street Journal. Hat tip Charlie Sykes.

UPDATE - Much, much more at Right Wing News.

Using home-stitched parachute and equipment found on Craigslist, two 17-year-olds send Lego-naut 80,000ft into the air

Two weeks ago, Mathew Ho and Asad Muhammad, both 17, attached the plastic figurine replete with maple leaf flag to a helium balloon, which they sent 80,000 feet into the air.

The pair managed to capture the entire journey into the blackness of space, including the descent, which lasted 97 minutes, using four cameras, at an entire cost of just £254.

Spending four months of Saturdays on the project, the teenagers launched the professionally made weather balloon from a football pitch. It then soared to more than double the height of a commercial jet’s cruising altitude – some 24km into the upper atmosphere from where the Earth’s curvature can be seen.

Having attached a GPS receiver to the styrofoam box carrying the cameras and Lego-naut, the two managed to recover the bundle attached to a hand-stitched parachute from a field 122km from the launch site.

See for yourself:

What, they spent all their money on cameras and couldn’t afford a Lego helmet? Air tank? Something?

Hat tip The Linkiest.

And two:

In a blow to GoDaddy’s annual marketing plan, none of their ads were banned from the Superbowl this year. But I’m sure they’ll do better next time.

I’m available for consultation. Very reasonable rates.

By the way: all the commercials are available here. Do yourselves a favor and watch the internet-only version of “the contract.”

In another blow to organized labor in the traditionally union heavy Midwest, Indiana is poised to become the first right-to-work state in more than a decade after Republican lawmakers cleared the way on Wednesday to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees from workers.

…

Indiana would mark the first win in 10 years for national right-to-work advocates who have pushed unsuccessfully for the measure in other states following a Republican sweep of statehouses in 2010. But few right-work states boast Indiana’s union clout, borne of a long manufacturing legacy…

Indiana’s Senate still has to pass it, but that appears to be a shoo-in. Then the Governor has to sign it, and there’s every indication he will.

This, of course, goes far beyond what Governor Walker did in Wisconsin. But that’s okay, unions – you just keep your eyes on us!

Previously:

• Uh-oh: Democrats are wondering if the recall election might have been a tactical error after all

On the other hand, though, look at it this way: over a thousand days without a federal budget. Are you worse off because of it?

Would you be any better off if they had passed a budget? If they’d passed three of them?

Do I even need to answer that?

So the question is: should we be trying to embarrass the Senate over this “thousand days” thing? Or should we be treating it more like a pilot program? So, okay, we tried the no-budget thing, and that’s worked, so this time let’s see if we can go a thousand days without the Senate proposing anything.

Anything at all.

And if that works, then we envelop the House in our little league of lackadaisicality. And then we could just have the Senate stay home for three years. Three years straight.

See, those “1000 Days” buttons weren’t a complaint. They were a celebration!

Is that an actual window behind him? Looks like a spaceship’s bridge. I keep expecting the Tardis to appear on the street there behind him.

My favorite part:

“You suppose that the value of a thing consists of the labor it took to make it. That’s the mistake that Karl Marx made. No. You could put as much labor as you like into the thing. Guess what it’s worth if nobody wants it? The answer is: a big fat zero.”

That’s Dr Madsen Pirie, by the way. President of the Adam Smith Institute. He’s doing a whole series of these short videos on economics. I think I might keep posting them as they go up.

Let the “Dr. Madsen Pirie” tag be created!

UPDATE - Wiggy recognized the window!