Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
There's Dodging a Question, and then There's THIS
This is an absolute classic:
Let’s be honest, Steve Shannon doesn’t need to know how many stinking divisions there are in the attorney general’s office. I mean watch the guy ramble. What more do you want from an elected official.
As of October 9th, two days after this debate took place, The Washington Post had Shannon down nine points (49-40) to Republican Ken Cuccinelli. A SurveyUSA poll (http://tiny.cc/Vfb4t ) released today has Shannon down 16 points (57-41). What a surprise!
The fact that 41% of the folks in the swing state of Virginia are still supporting this tool goes a long way to explaining many of the national polling numbers, including those for the resident of the White House.
Kudos to Greg Letiecq (http://www.bvbl.net/) for putting this video together.
Friday, October 23, 2009
More From the Author of the "Small Bill"
Believe it or not we conservatives actually have a plan to reform the health care system. Hopefully you've had a chance to see it. Aptly titled the “Small Bill” (posted previously on this blog as “The Plan They Don’t Want You to See”), this one page wonder stands in stark contrast to the mammoth piece of legislation being put forth by our beloved representatives in Congress.
This conservative alternative is the brainchild of Jeffrey Anderson, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute who has written a number of recent articles on the topic of health care reform. If you are familiar with him you know that he has been doing quite a job debunking the Democrats reform efforts.
Just over the past week or so Anderson has had three pieces appear in the New York Post: "The Senate Reform Fraud", "$1T Reform for 5%", and "How Reform Leads to More Uninsured". Other efforts by Anderson include: "Keep it Simple", "Expand High Risk Insurance Pools to Handle Pre-existing Conditions", and "Expanded Government -- and No More Tonsil Theft".
This conservative alternative is the brainchild of Jeffrey Anderson, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute who has written a number of recent articles on the topic of health care reform. If you are familiar with him you know that he has been doing quite a job debunking the Democrats reform efforts.
Just over the past week or so Anderson has had three pieces appear in the New York Post: "The Senate Reform Fraud", "$1T Reform for 5%", and "How Reform Leads to More Uninsured". Other efforts by Anderson include: "Keep it Simple", "Expand High Risk Insurance Pools to Handle Pre-existing Conditions", and "Expanded Government -- and No More Tonsil Theft".
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The REPUBLICANS Do What They're Told You Say?
Last night President Obama hosted a $30,400 per couple fundraiser in New York City. As part of his plea to get the Democratic ducks in a row he stated “Democrats y’all thinkin’ for yourselves. I like that in ya. But it’s time for us to make sure that we finish the job here; we are this close but we gotta be unified.”
Well at first blush there doesn’t seem to be anything too odd about this. There certainly isn’t anything out of the ordinary about a politician buttering up the base in an effort to gin up support for a significant reform effort, right? Well there is when you take into account what he is saying, who he is saying it to, and how he is saying it.
Why would you mix southern parlance into an address given to a bunch of wealthy New York City elites? Did I miss something? Is this how Democrats in the Big Apple talk now?
As is true of much of what comes out of this President’s mouth, this is rich on many levels. Not only is Obama claiming that at least with regards to health care reform Democrats are thinking for themselves and Republicans aren’t; a claim that is patently ridiculous. He clearly feels the need to pander to the very group that he claims to believe is so eminently capable of independent thought. And what’s more he decides to petition this group of northern big city dwellers with southern speak. Isn’t this part of what these people hated about George Bush, and why they feel Obama is such an epic improvement? Or is it only a problem when the southern speak is authentic?
To my shock and amazement though, I actually agree with the Campaigner in Chief on a couple of things here: liberals are an opinionated bunch; and their lack of analytical ability does make them quite susceptible to pandering.
If the President feels this way about these people, imagine what he thinks of the rank and file?
Well at first blush there doesn’t seem to be anything too odd about this. There certainly isn’t anything out of the ordinary about a politician buttering up the base in an effort to gin up support for a significant reform effort, right? Well there is when you take into account what he is saying, who he is saying it to, and how he is saying it.
Why would you mix southern parlance into an address given to a bunch of wealthy New York City elites? Did I miss something? Is this how Democrats in the Big Apple talk now?
As is true of much of what comes out of this President’s mouth, this is rich on many levels. Not only is Obama claiming that at least with regards to health care reform Democrats are thinking for themselves and Republicans aren’t; a claim that is patently ridiculous. He clearly feels the need to pander to the very group that he claims to believe is so eminently capable of independent thought. And what’s more he decides to petition this group of northern big city dwellers with southern speak. Isn’t this part of what these people hated about George Bush, and why they feel Obama is such an epic improvement? Or is it only a problem when the southern speak is authentic?
To my shock and amazement though, I actually agree with the Campaigner in Chief on a couple of things here: liberals are an opinionated bunch; and their lack of analytical ability does make them quite susceptible to pandering.
If the President feels this way about these people, imagine what he thinks of the rank and file?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Given Enough Rope These Democrats Just Might Hang Liberalism
For a while now I have maintained the belief that there is a silver lining to having Barack Obama in the White House.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that America is now in decline and it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out why. In fact it can be summed up in one word. Liberalism. From the inane belief that we as a nation can and should do something about the supposed phenomenon of man-caused global warming to the failed view that more and more government involvement is the best way to promote our collective well being, the increasing influence of liberalism is crippling America.
Who needs an external threat when a significant portion of your nation’s citizenry blindly accepts the notion that destroying capital (perfectly good cars) is good public policy; or when your leading legislative institution feels it doesn’t need to read 1000 page bills that spend hundreds of billions of dollars; or when your chief executive believes he can charm committed enemies out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. As Abraham Lincoln said, “America will not be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
No it’s clear that we have a problem and the problem here is not the American people, where the ultimate power in our society lies. The problem is liberalism and its ridiculously undeserved position of prominence in the minds of many Americans. Sure one could argue that decent fair-minded Americans are no longer the majority in this country or at least not a strong enough one to turn back this big government tide, but I don’t subscribe to this belief quite yet.
So how did we get here? How did a philosophy that is made up of theories that are at best entirely untested and at worst completely ineffective or downright disastrous, gain such traction in our society?
Thomas Jefferson said, “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Power corrupts as they say. It seeks more power. But a people won’t willingly cede authority unless they believe they will get something of real value in return. This something might be a welfare check or simply the “promise” that these welfare checks are in the best interests of the society as a whole. Whatever they are specifically, in the big picture they are one giant utopian mirage.
Liberalism (or statism as Mark Levin more accurately terms it) is thus a grand scheme used to amass power. With it there is always a promise of something in return. A promise that the money deducted from your paycheck will be successfully used to improve the position of the collective. A promise that the higher prices you will encounter will save the earth. But as with the hope in hope and change, these promises are more often than not empty.
As I’ve mentioned liberalism has been on the rise in this country and its increasing influence amongst journalists, educators, government officials, and those in the legal profession has been the main reason that it now holds such sway with so many Americans. As it stands now liberalism is the dominant ideology amongst the influential in this country and the resulting barrage of liberal nonsense to which Americans are exposed has stripped a significant number of them of any intimate connection to the principles that have made this nation great.
The beating that traditional American principles have taken at the hands of liberal elites has been achieved to a great extent through the application of two practices: crediting liberalism for the successes of conservative policies because Democrats were said to be responsible and blaming conservatism for the failures of liberal policies because Republicans were said to be responsible. The assignment of responsibility by party hasn’t always been incorrect, but the beating that conservatives have taken as a result has most often been completely undeserved.
Now you can argue that these journalists, educators, etc. who are promoting liberalism are actually perfectly well intentioned individuals. Any avarice they possess, if they do possess any, is simply a desire to promote the public good. Well I’m sure most of these folks are in fact “decent Americans”. Decent Americans that are, to put it mildly, rather ignorant -- ignorant enough to spend much of their time working on behalf of and/or pushing a worthless ideology. An ideology that if left unchecked will lead to tyranny and a complete obliteration of the public good, as it has done throughout history. But whether true malice is involved or it simply is as John Adams said, “power always thinks that it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws”, doesn’t really matter. Either way this cloaked socialist philosophy is killing our country.
The founding fathers were all too aware of this tendency towards the accumulation of power; and in designing a system based on checks and balances, the spreading of power, the reliance on natural law, etc. they tried to minimize its effects. That being said, there was only so much they could do. They knew that ultimately it would be up to us to keep the Republic they had created.
So how do we keep the Republic and avoid a collapse into tyranny? As it stands now with Barack Obama in the White House the liberal establishment is in an all out race to remake this country. From the government purchase of GM to a possible nationalization of the health care industry and from the czars to the apology tours the dominance of liberalism in America today is staggering. But as liberalism tears at the traditional fabric of America with a fury to date not seen Americans are showing clear signs that they are beginning to wake up.
This growing backlash comes as no surprise to me or to many others. America has not drifted so far left that you can give people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid a monopoly on federal policy-making authority and not expect that people will protest. This discomfort with liberal/Democratic control of the federal government as evidenced by the tea parties, the town halls, and the March on DC is nothing new.
From 1937 (as far back as I can find presidential job approval data) to January of this year when Barack Obama was sworn in there have been eight periods where one party has controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Only one Republican during this time has governed alongside a Republican controlled House and Senate (George W. Bush). Using Gallup data and treating Kennedy’s Presidency and Johnson’s Presidency as two separate periods, five of these periods have seen a Democratic president’s job approval rating end below 50%. This has been true whether you look at the last Gallup poll taken during these periods or you take an average of the last three polls. The seven periods featuring Democratic control have seen an average final presidential approval rating of 46%. If you look at the five Democratic periods that ended below 50%, which seems to be particularly relevant given that only nine months into his Presidency Obama is already at 51% (October 20th – www.gallup.com) , the average final approval rating falls to 38%. Neither of these final approval numbers look any better when you look at the three poll averages, as only Clinton’s numbers improve (ending at 42% rather than 40%) while Kennedy’s, Johnson’s (45% vs. 49%), Roosevelt’s, and Truman 1’s all decline.
To me the most striking thing about these numbers is that of the two Democratic presidents to keep their heads above water, one of them (Kennedy) would hardly be considered a Democrat at all by today’s standards. I don’t think you’re going to hear Obama saying that “it’s a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
So we are left with six distinct periods of complete Democratic control over the legislative and executive branches of the federal government; and only one of those periods ends with a president receiving the final approval of the American people. Looking at the 3-poll averages, Truman 1 begins with 81% approval and ends with 34% approval (with the start of the Republican controlled 80th Congress); Truman 2 begins with 57% approval (with the start of the Democrat controlled 81st Congress) and ends with 32% approval; Johnson begins with 76% approval and ends with 45% approval; Carter begins with 69% approval and ends with 34% approval; and Clinton begins with 54% approval and ends with 42% approval (with the start of the Republican controlled 104th Congress).
In my opinion the Carter years are the most helpful in trying to predict what is likely to happen from this point forward. Not only did Carter first enter the White House through election he also most closely approximates the unbelievably flawed liberal nature and naiveté of our current President.
In the three Gallup polls taken between September 12, 1977 and October 17, 1977 Carter’s approval ratings averaged 56%. So when it comes to failure; Obama, Pelosi, Reid and gang are actually outpacing Carter, O’Neill and friends.
This then brings me back to the opening premise of this article; the silver lining to this dark liberal cloud.
Liberalism’s ascendance to its current position of dominance amongst the distributors of information in this country has disconnected a vast number of Americans from the principles that this country was founded upon; and given the frail state that our nation is in people are going to need to begin to recognize this.
For America to remain the (or even a) land of opportunity the founding principles are going to need to experience a mighty renaissance, and this renaissance will only be made possible through the renunciation of liberalism. Without any collective help from the information elites, this ideology is finally going to have to be seen (in the eyes of a significant majority of Americans) for the failure that it is. A tall task to be sure. But Obama and this group of Democrats might just be up to it.
As we now know, electing a moderate Republican like George Bush was not the way to “out” liberalism. And succeeding him with John McCain would have simply made matters worse. Had John McCain been elected, the endless “last eight years” chants would have simply been postponed four years, with the common refrain now featuring a twelve instead of an eight.
Believe me four years of John McCain would have been no picnic. The combination of a Democratic controlled Congress, and well, John McCain being John McCain would have made passage of cap and trade and amnesty almost inevitable. Even with the obvious outrage present in this country (which would have been very unlikely under McCain) these scoundrels in Congress are still likely going to pass a calamitous health care reform bill. The difference is that were McCain in office the Republicans (and by extension conservatives) would have received all the blame when these liberal reforms went all wrong. As it stands now, blaming us limited government types won’t be so easy.
In the last 76 plus years the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress 71% of the time. During this time the Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress for only 14 years, and 10 of these years have come after Jimmy Carter left office. In the 76 years before Obama took office the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress and the White House 42% of the time, but only two of these years came after Carter left office in 1981. In the 44 years before Carter took office the Republicans held the White House and/or both houses of Congress 41% of the time. By stark contrast they have only failed to accomplish this feat once between Carter’s leaving office and Obama’s entering this year. Thus I think it’s safe to say that relative to the success they enjoyed before he took office in 1977, the Democrats have suffered greatly as a result of Carter’s badly failed attempt at leading the free world.
So what will happen to Obama? Will he fail? Well it’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where he doesn’t; and if he gets just a few of his “rebuild America” ideas enacted he will fail miserably. The real question is whether the land of the free and the home of the brave will be mortally wounded in the process or will the decisive blow in fact be dealt to liberalism?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that America is now in decline and it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out why. In fact it can be summed up in one word. Liberalism. From the inane belief that we as a nation can and should do something about the supposed phenomenon of man-caused global warming to the failed view that more and more government involvement is the best way to promote our collective well being, the increasing influence of liberalism is crippling America.
Who needs an external threat when a significant portion of your nation’s citizenry blindly accepts the notion that destroying capital (perfectly good cars) is good public policy; or when your leading legislative institution feels it doesn’t need to read 1000 page bills that spend hundreds of billions of dollars; or when your chief executive believes he can charm committed enemies out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. As Abraham Lincoln said, “America will not be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
No it’s clear that we have a problem and the problem here is not the American people, where the ultimate power in our society lies. The problem is liberalism and its ridiculously undeserved position of prominence in the minds of many Americans. Sure one could argue that decent fair-minded Americans are no longer the majority in this country or at least not a strong enough one to turn back this big government tide, but I don’t subscribe to this belief quite yet.
So how did we get here? How did a philosophy that is made up of theories that are at best entirely untested and at worst completely ineffective or downright disastrous, gain such traction in our society?
Thomas Jefferson said, “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Power corrupts as they say. It seeks more power. But a people won’t willingly cede authority unless they believe they will get something of real value in return. This something might be a welfare check or simply the “promise” that these welfare checks are in the best interests of the society as a whole. Whatever they are specifically, in the big picture they are one giant utopian mirage.
Liberalism (or statism as Mark Levin more accurately terms it) is thus a grand scheme used to amass power. With it there is always a promise of something in return. A promise that the money deducted from your paycheck will be successfully used to improve the position of the collective. A promise that the higher prices you will encounter will save the earth. But as with the hope in hope and change, these promises are more often than not empty.
As I’ve mentioned liberalism has been on the rise in this country and its increasing influence amongst journalists, educators, government officials, and those in the legal profession has been the main reason that it now holds such sway with so many Americans. As it stands now liberalism is the dominant ideology amongst the influential in this country and the resulting barrage of liberal nonsense to which Americans are exposed has stripped a significant number of them of any intimate connection to the principles that have made this nation great.
The beating that traditional American principles have taken at the hands of liberal elites has been achieved to a great extent through the application of two practices: crediting liberalism for the successes of conservative policies because Democrats were said to be responsible and blaming conservatism for the failures of liberal policies because Republicans were said to be responsible. The assignment of responsibility by party hasn’t always been incorrect, but the beating that conservatives have taken as a result has most often been completely undeserved.
Now you can argue that these journalists, educators, etc. who are promoting liberalism are actually perfectly well intentioned individuals. Any avarice they possess, if they do possess any, is simply a desire to promote the public good. Well I’m sure most of these folks are in fact “decent Americans”. Decent Americans that are, to put it mildly, rather ignorant -- ignorant enough to spend much of their time working on behalf of and/or pushing a worthless ideology. An ideology that if left unchecked will lead to tyranny and a complete obliteration of the public good, as it has done throughout history. But whether true malice is involved or it simply is as John Adams said, “power always thinks that it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws”, doesn’t really matter. Either way this cloaked socialist philosophy is killing our country.
The founding fathers were all too aware of this tendency towards the accumulation of power; and in designing a system based on checks and balances, the spreading of power, the reliance on natural law, etc. they tried to minimize its effects. That being said, there was only so much they could do. They knew that ultimately it would be up to us to keep the Republic they had created.
So how do we keep the Republic and avoid a collapse into tyranny? As it stands now with Barack Obama in the White House the liberal establishment is in an all out race to remake this country. From the government purchase of GM to a possible nationalization of the health care industry and from the czars to the apology tours the dominance of liberalism in America today is staggering. But as liberalism tears at the traditional fabric of America with a fury to date not seen Americans are showing clear signs that they are beginning to wake up.
This growing backlash comes as no surprise to me or to many others. America has not drifted so far left that you can give people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid a monopoly on federal policy-making authority and not expect that people will protest. This discomfort with liberal/Democratic control of the federal government as evidenced by the tea parties, the town halls, and the March on DC is nothing new.
From 1937 (as far back as I can find presidential job approval data) to January of this year when Barack Obama was sworn in there have been eight periods where one party has controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Only one Republican during this time has governed alongside a Republican controlled House and Senate (George W. Bush). Using Gallup data and treating Kennedy’s Presidency and Johnson’s Presidency as two separate periods, five of these periods have seen a Democratic president’s job approval rating end below 50%. This has been true whether you look at the last Gallup poll taken during these periods or you take an average of the last three polls. The seven periods featuring Democratic control have seen an average final presidential approval rating of 46%. If you look at the five Democratic periods that ended below 50%, which seems to be particularly relevant given that only nine months into his Presidency Obama is already at 51% (October 20th – www.gallup.com) , the average final approval rating falls to 38%. Neither of these final approval numbers look any better when you look at the three poll averages, as only Clinton’s numbers improve (ending at 42% rather than 40%) while Kennedy’s, Johnson’s (45% vs. 49%), Roosevelt’s, and Truman 1’s all decline.
To me the most striking thing about these numbers is that of the two Democratic presidents to keep their heads above water, one of them (Kennedy) would hardly be considered a Democrat at all by today’s standards. I don’t think you’re going to hear Obama saying that “it’s a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
So we are left with six distinct periods of complete Democratic control over the legislative and executive branches of the federal government; and only one of those periods ends with a president receiving the final approval of the American people. Looking at the 3-poll averages, Truman 1 begins with 81% approval and ends with 34% approval (with the start of the Republican controlled 80th Congress); Truman 2 begins with 57% approval (with the start of the Democrat controlled 81st Congress) and ends with 32% approval; Johnson begins with 76% approval and ends with 45% approval; Carter begins with 69% approval and ends with 34% approval; and Clinton begins with 54% approval and ends with 42% approval (with the start of the Republican controlled 104th Congress).
In my opinion the Carter years are the most helpful in trying to predict what is likely to happen from this point forward. Not only did Carter first enter the White House through election he also most closely approximates the unbelievably flawed liberal nature and naiveté of our current President.
In the three Gallup polls taken between September 12, 1977 and October 17, 1977 Carter’s approval ratings averaged 56%. So when it comes to failure; Obama, Pelosi, Reid and gang are actually outpacing Carter, O’Neill and friends.
This then brings me back to the opening premise of this article; the silver lining to this dark liberal cloud.
Liberalism’s ascendance to its current position of dominance amongst the distributors of information in this country has disconnected a vast number of Americans from the principles that this country was founded upon; and given the frail state that our nation is in people are going to need to begin to recognize this.
For America to remain the (or even a) land of opportunity the founding principles are going to need to experience a mighty renaissance, and this renaissance will only be made possible through the renunciation of liberalism. Without any collective help from the information elites, this ideology is finally going to have to be seen (in the eyes of a significant majority of Americans) for the failure that it is. A tall task to be sure. But Obama and this group of Democrats might just be up to it.
As we now know, electing a moderate Republican like George Bush was not the way to “out” liberalism. And succeeding him with John McCain would have simply made matters worse. Had John McCain been elected, the endless “last eight years” chants would have simply been postponed four years, with the common refrain now featuring a twelve instead of an eight.
Believe me four years of John McCain would have been no picnic. The combination of a Democratic controlled Congress, and well, John McCain being John McCain would have made passage of cap and trade and amnesty almost inevitable. Even with the obvious outrage present in this country (which would have been very unlikely under McCain) these scoundrels in Congress are still likely going to pass a calamitous health care reform bill. The difference is that were McCain in office the Republicans (and by extension conservatives) would have received all the blame when these liberal reforms went all wrong. As it stands now, blaming us limited government types won’t be so easy.
In the last 76 plus years the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress 71% of the time. During this time the Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress for only 14 years, and 10 of these years have come after Jimmy Carter left office. In the 76 years before Obama took office the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress and the White House 42% of the time, but only two of these years came after Carter left office in 1981. In the 44 years before Carter took office the Republicans held the White House and/or both houses of Congress 41% of the time. By stark contrast they have only failed to accomplish this feat once between Carter’s leaving office and Obama’s entering this year. Thus I think it’s safe to say that relative to the success they enjoyed before he took office in 1977, the Democrats have suffered greatly as a result of Carter’s badly failed attempt at leading the free world.
So what will happen to Obama? Will he fail? Well it’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where he doesn’t; and if he gets just a few of his “rebuild America” ideas enacted he will fail miserably. The real question is whether the land of the free and the home of the brave will be mortally wounded in the process or will the decisive blow in fact be dealt to liberalism?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
I'm Proud, What About You?
I’ve never been much of a gawker. So maybe that's why my first impulse was to avoid writing a piece about the car wreck that was yesterday’s Nobel Peace Prize announcement. That was before, however, I came across Rachel Maddow’s take on the situation (I know, I know, I shouldn’t have even gone there). On her show yesterday, Ms. Maddow asserted the following: "The American President just won the Nobel Peace Prize. By any reasonable measure all Americans should be proud."
Proud of WHAT?
Proud that we have a President who has seen unemployment rise from 7.2% to 9.8% (though he claimed it would not rise above 8%) DESPITE a $787 billion "stimulus package"?
Proud that we have a President that is on track to do this (or worse)?
Proud that we have a President who supports, both in word and deed, an aspiring dictator like Manuel Zelaya?
Proud that we have a President whose administration includes more anti-capitalist left-wing radicals, serving in prominent positions, than you would find on the faculty at Harvard; or czars than you would find in a Russian history textbook?
Proud that we have a President utterly naive and narcissistic enough to believe that he can talk Iran out of its ambition to develop nuclear weapons -- a nation whose "dubiously elected president" has on more than one occasion questioned whether the Holocaust actually happened?
Proud that we have a President who is as disposed to speak to the General in charge of the war in Afghanistan as he is to speak without a teleprompter (Mr. President, if you ACTUALLY care at all about our troops in Afghanistan, you are doing a piss poor job of showing it)?
Proud that we have a President whose leading diplomat is her?
Proud that we have a President who has taken a LARGE step towards the complete nationalization of our auto industry?
Proud that we have a President with these -http://tiny.cc/0GlwJ - ties to ACORN (Sure, The One claims that he never worked for ACORN. But let's put it this way, Barack Obama knows a lot more about ACORN than he does about General McCrystal)?
Proud that we have a President who proved to be as capable of going toe to toe with the Russians, in negotiations over the anti-ballistic missile shield, as Bill Clinton is of playing a round of golf without taking a mulligan?
Proud that we have a President whose administration whines enough that Chris Wallace (who "by any reasonable measure" is not a Republican attack dog) felt the need to call them "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington"?
Proud of a President whose Secretary of Staff is him?
Proud of a President who would be more than happy to pass a cap-and-trade bill that would have seriously harmful effects on an economy that is in pretty bad shape as it is (in HIS words, “under a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”)?
Proud that we have a President who has been in a seemingly endless all out push to remake our health care system despite opposition by a considerable majority of Americans who at the very least are in favor of a much less drastic approach?
Proud that we have a President whose Department of Homeland Security thinks little enough of our soldiers that they would issue a report stating that “troops returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at risk for being recruited by right-wing extremists” (I wonder, have they since released a report that says that residents of the inner city are at risk for being recruited by criminal organizations like ACORN?)?
Proud that we have a President who puts more sincere effort into apologizing for the greatest nation in the history of the world than he does into applauding it?
No ma’am, I’m not PROUD of that at all.
Proud of WHAT?
Proud that we have a President who has seen unemployment rise from 7.2% to 9.8% (though he claimed it would not rise above 8%) DESPITE a $787 billion "stimulus package"?
Proud that we have a President that is on track to do this (or worse)?
Proud that we have a President who supports, both in word and deed, an aspiring dictator like Manuel Zelaya?
Proud that we have a President whose administration includes more anti-capitalist left-wing radicals, serving in prominent positions, than you would find on the faculty at Harvard; or czars than you would find in a Russian history textbook?
Proud that we have a President utterly naive and narcissistic enough to believe that he can talk Iran out of its ambition to develop nuclear weapons -- a nation whose "dubiously elected president" has on more than one occasion questioned whether the Holocaust actually happened?
Proud that we have a President who is as disposed to speak to the General in charge of the war in Afghanistan as he is to speak without a teleprompter (Mr. President, if you ACTUALLY care at all about our troops in Afghanistan, you are doing a piss poor job of showing it)?
Proud that we have a President whose leading diplomat is her?
Proud that we have a President who has taken a LARGE step towards the complete nationalization of our auto industry?
Proud that we have a President with these -http://tiny.cc/0GlwJ - ties to ACORN (Sure, The One claims that he never worked for ACORN. But let's put it this way, Barack Obama knows a lot more about ACORN than he does about General McCrystal)?
Proud that we have a President who proved to be as capable of going toe to toe with the Russians, in negotiations over the anti-ballistic missile shield, as Bill Clinton is of playing a round of golf without taking a mulligan?
Proud that we have a President whose administration whines enough that Chris Wallace (who "by any reasonable measure" is not a Republican attack dog) felt the need to call them "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington"?
Proud of a President whose Secretary of Staff is him?
Proud of a President who would be more than happy to pass a cap-and-trade bill that would have seriously harmful effects on an economy that is in pretty bad shape as it is (in HIS words, “under a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”)?
Proud that we have a President who has been in a seemingly endless all out push to remake our health care system despite opposition by a considerable majority of Americans who at the very least are in favor of a much less drastic approach?
Proud that we have a President whose Department of Homeland Security thinks little enough of our soldiers that they would issue a report stating that “troops returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at risk for being recruited by right-wing extremists” (I wonder, have they since released a report that says that residents of the inner city are at risk for being recruited by criminal organizations like ACORN?)?
Proud that we have a President who puts more sincere effort into apologizing for the greatest nation in the history of the world than he does into applauding it?
No ma’am, I’m not PROUD of that at all.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Destroying Private Health Insurance Without the Public Option
If the behavior of the democrats on the Hill was any more bizarre I'd begin to think that they were intentionally trying to screw......................WAIT A MINUTE.
Take the Baucus Bill for example. According to the CBO, under the Baucus plan, "insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees' health." Now that really is peculiar, you say -- mandating that insurers charge the person who is in perfect health at the same rate as the person with a serious illness. Well yes it is. In fact it doesn't really sound like INSURANCE at all, does it? I think we need to check the dictionary on this.
Merriam-Webster's defines insurance (noun) as:
Take the Baucus Bill for example. According to the CBO, under the Baucus plan, "insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees' health." Now that really is peculiar, you say -- mandating that insurers charge the person who is in perfect health at the same rate as the person with a serious illness. Well yes it is. In fact it doesn't really sound like INSURANCE at all, does it? I think we need to check the dictionary on this.
Merriam-Webster's defines insurance (noun) as:
1: a the business of insuring persons or property b : coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c : the sum for which something is insuredHow can there be any possible loss if the person wouldn't be required to pay an extra price should this contingency arise? Under the Baucus plan there would be no penalty for not buying insurance, should one become ill.
2: a means of guaranteeing protection or safety insurance againstprice changes
It seems to me that under Max Baucus' Bill, health insurance isn't really health insurance at all anymore, is it? I know what you're saying -- health insurance isn't really health insurance now. Right, it's more like health maintenance/insurance. Much of what is deducted from your paycheck is pre-payment for routine maintenance. Routine visits to the doctor that everyone makes. A move TOWARD "pure health insurance", not away from it, would actually be a positive step to take in improving our health care system.
So though part of what is deducted from your paycheck is NOT for health INSURANCE, part of what is deducted IS. And if the Baucus Bill goes through there will be a strong disincentive to purchase this health maintenance/insurance, because you could simply just wait until you need it and buy it then. And as for the routine maintenance, you could just pay out-of-pocket at the local clinic. Despite what our esteemed representatives on Capitol Hill believe, Americans are rather resourceful when it comes to matters of the pocketbook. You think they aren't going to figure this out? Dream on.
Younger people will have an especially easy time figuring this out, as their rates will almost certainly rise due to the Baucus' requirement that they pay 1/4 as much in premiums as older people. Young people in some states cost as little as 1/17 the amount to insure as older people. Even older folks will have an incentive to jump ship, because though they spend more time in the doctors office, they also pay higher premiums.
They had better set the fines high, because the health insurance industry is going to be losing customers right and..........................WAIT A MINUTE. Aren't these donkeys in DC always talking about how evil those health insurance companies are? Making obscene profits off the back of hardworking Americans. They wouldn't place blame for the skyrocketing premiums that would necessarily result from this exodus (an exodus that THEY would have caused), on these evil private insurers? They wouldn't see this as the perfect opportunity to nationalize the entire health care system, would they? No, they wouldn't do that. Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel would NEVER try to take advantage of a crisis like that?
And there you have it, the poison pill. The other, MORE devious way to skin this capitalist cat. Perhaps they should have taken this approach right from the get go. Why not delay the talk of a public option until such time where any discussion of its efficacy would simply be a moot point? Was it a preoccupation with shoving it in the face of conservatives that had them pursuing a public option (those damn knuckle-draggers and their townhallls)? Did they believe that their base was too stupid to understand (wink, nod) that this would, indeed, accomplish their goals of nationalized health care?
But alas, even without a public option, this gang of merry saboteurs has succeeded in devising a plot that will fatally poison the private insurance market as sure as you can say, "the Obama's tend to stretch the truth a bit." Looking to save some money in a very tough economic time, people will start leaping out of the private insurance market. As a consequence of this, costs to private insurers go up, and they in turn raise the price of premiums to recoup this lost revenue. This rise in rates then drives more people out of the market--the snowballing begins--and in comes Uncle Sam on his big white horse (red, painted white actually) with the answer. And the answer won't be a public option. More like a public takeover.
What's truly breathtaking to behold, is that this bill would succeed in this regard, were it only to have this ONE provision: making insurers accept all applicants, and offer them full coverage at the same rate, regardless of whether or not they have a pre-existing condition.
So why deal with the hassle of all of those inane republican complaints that accompany this current larger version (no one can read it, no one can understand it, etc.)? Well, because they think you're dumb, but not THAT dumb (and obfuscation is their game). And besides being able to hide this little kernel of fiendish genius, this colossal bill allows them to throw a few more wrenches into the system (i.e. taxes) that absolutely insure (pardon the pun) the plans success in sabotaging the private health insurance industry.
Now the passage of this bill and it's implementation are by no means inevitable, but given the lack of political awareness in this country, and with the presence of a complicit MSM, it may just be a stroke of Machiavellian brilliance. Leave it to a democratic politician to come up with a scheme like this. Hide the women and children and oppose EVERYTHING these people try to pass off on you, because they are playing for keeps.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Pride and Indecision
"Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan" is the title of an article by Alex Spillius appearing in todays UK Telegraph. Translation: General McCrystal is not willing to go (quietly at least) under Obama's bus and The One is not HAPPY. Ofcourse, this is the kind of thing that is likely to happen when you put a pathological narcissist from Chicago in the White House.
In the article Spillius writes that: "According to sources close to the adiministration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week." Spillius goes on to quote an adviser to the administration as saying: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly." Well this writer could go off in all kinds of different directions just simply in response to that last piece of breathtaking hypocrisy. But I feel the need to stay on course here. And besides, there is a whole lot more projection where that came from.
So after reading this article, given the very short nature of the encounter and having seen our paper-thin skinned president in action for over 8 months, one can only conclude that the main motivation for this meeting was Obama's displeasure with the General's public comments. Ofcourse, I could be wrong and it could be just another one of those whacky wingnut theories. Like the one that says that conservatives AREN'T racist. Well I'll let you be the judge. But honestly, if it looks like a tyrant, and smells like a tyrant, it probably...............
When I first heard that the meeting was only 25 minutes long, I thought to myself, that's all this guy can spare for the General that is leading our troops on the ground in a terrifically important conflict in the war against radical Islam (from this writer's perspective war against radical Islam is putting it as politically correct as possible, but that is a discussion for another time). A war against people that would like to see all of us infidels dead (and yes, that includes you lefties). But as is so often the case with our fearless leader, I was not so shocked to find out that his actions were actually more distressing than I had first suspected.
So Obama is miffed that General McCrystal will not tell him what he wants to hear. That he won't endorse the plan that is least politically painful for the president. Or to put it more colorfully, that the he won't prostrate his body upon the scapegoat alter. Offering himself as a sacrifice to all that is good and Obama.
One thing is for certain, despite this guys obvious ineptness, in the four or God help us eight or more years that he is president/king he will have at least perfected the art of the blame game. Not to mention becoming very adept at eviscerating straw men.
You'd think, given the attitude of the White House portrayed by Spillius in this article, that General McCrystal directly questioned the Presidents manhood and challenged him to a cage match. Chris Wallace isn't kidding. These people take EVERYTHING personally. And in this case it's a war where our men and women are fighting and dying.
If the man who has the preeminent responsibility to advise the president on these matters (a man put there by Obama himself) is wrong and the president has a better idea as to how to achieve success in Afghanistan (he doesn't seem to like the word victory), than he needs to go that direction NOW. That is your job. You are Commander in Chief. You outrank General McCrystal. Remove General McCrystal and get on with it.
On the other hand, if the President believes that the discussion about how best to proceed in Afghanistan is pointless, because he believes that we WON'T likely achieve success there no matter what we do, than he needs to GET OUR TROOPS OUT. General McCrystal's sole concern is how to successfully complete the mission he has been given. That mission does not entail figuring out what the political costs of different courses of action are to the President, and advising him to take the least painful course. He has a military advisory role, NOT a political advisory role. Now sure, if the General believes that we CANNOT achieve success in Afghanistan, then that is something he should advise the president on (ofcourse getting face time seems to be rather difficult). But there is no reason to believe that General McCrystal does not fully believe that they can achieve success given the resources he is asking for. Crying about the fact that a General is trying to get you to make an important decision that you should have made by now, is simply bizarre coming from the President of the United States.
The one thing that is certain in all this, is that the current path we are on is not a good one. But given the Presidents proclivity for indecision and his overwhelming instinct to first and foremost save his ass, he will likely vote present. That is, until some glorious path that allows for his complete salvation in this matter avails itself.
In the article Spillius writes that: "According to sources close to the adiministration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week." Spillius goes on to quote an adviser to the administration as saying: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly." Well this writer could go off in all kinds of different directions just simply in response to that last piece of breathtaking hypocrisy. But I feel the need to stay on course here. And besides, there is a whole lot more projection where that came from.
So after reading this article, given the very short nature of the encounter and having seen our paper-thin skinned president in action for over 8 months, one can only conclude that the main motivation for this meeting was Obama's displeasure with the General's public comments. Ofcourse, I could be wrong and it could be just another one of those whacky wingnut theories. Like the one that says that conservatives AREN'T racist. Well I'll let you be the judge. But honestly, if it looks like a tyrant, and smells like a tyrant, it probably...............
When I first heard that the meeting was only 25 minutes long, I thought to myself, that's all this guy can spare for the General that is leading our troops on the ground in a terrifically important conflict in the war against radical Islam (from this writer's perspective war against radical Islam is putting it as politically correct as possible, but that is a discussion for another time). A war against people that would like to see all of us infidels dead (and yes, that includes you lefties). But as is so often the case with our fearless leader, I was not so shocked to find out that his actions were actually more distressing than I had first suspected.
So Obama is miffed that General McCrystal will not tell him what he wants to hear. That he won't endorse the plan that is least politically painful for the president. Or to put it more colorfully, that the he won't prostrate his body upon the scapegoat alter. Offering himself as a sacrifice to all that is good and Obama.
One thing is for certain, despite this guys obvious ineptness, in the four or God help us eight or more years that he is president/king he will have at least perfected the art of the blame game. Not to mention becoming very adept at eviscerating straw men.
You'd think, given the attitude of the White House portrayed by Spillius in this article, that General McCrystal directly questioned the Presidents manhood and challenged him to a cage match. Chris Wallace isn't kidding. These people take EVERYTHING personally. And in this case it's a war where our men and women are fighting and dying.
If the man who has the preeminent responsibility to advise the president on these matters (a man put there by Obama himself) is wrong and the president has a better idea as to how to achieve success in Afghanistan (he doesn't seem to like the word victory), than he needs to go that direction NOW. That is your job. You are Commander in Chief. You outrank General McCrystal. Remove General McCrystal and get on with it.
On the other hand, if the President believes that the discussion about how best to proceed in Afghanistan is pointless, because he believes that we WON'T likely achieve success there no matter what we do, than he needs to GET OUR TROOPS OUT. General McCrystal's sole concern is how to successfully complete the mission he has been given. That mission does not entail figuring out what the political costs of different courses of action are to the President, and advising him to take the least painful course. He has a military advisory role, NOT a political advisory role. Now sure, if the General believes that we CANNOT achieve success in Afghanistan, then that is something he should advise the president on (ofcourse getting face time seems to be rather difficult). But there is no reason to believe that General McCrystal does not fully believe that they can achieve success given the resources he is asking for. Crying about the fact that a General is trying to get you to make an important decision that you should have made by now, is simply bizarre coming from the President of the United States.
The one thing that is certain in all this, is that the current path we are on is not a good one. But given the Presidents proclivity for indecision and his overwhelming instinct to first and foremost save his ass, he will likely vote present. That is, until some glorious path that allows for his complete salvation in this matter avails itself.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Armisen Doesn't Do Obama
Could SNL have put less heart into that opening skit last night? Tell me that was NOT an honest attempt to impersonate/spoof Barack Obama. If it was, Fred Armisen is in desperate need of some tips from Paul Shanklin. Rich Little could have done a better job with 5 minutes prep after coming out of a coma.
Perhaps they were taking a page out of the Phil Hendrie school of celebrity impersonations. The difference is Phil purposely uses his own voice, or some reasonable approximation thereof, for COMEDIC effect, because it contrasts with the other outlandish fictional voices he does on a daily basis. NOT in an attempt to pull punches as they would have HAD to be doing in last nights opener.
If SNL showed that kind of lack of spirit when satirizing those on the right side of the political spectrum, the leftist freaks would have had their "SNL has POLE VAULTED the shark NOW" articles/tweets/facebook entries written before they could say vast right-wing conspiracy.
I know. You're saying, hey, at least they poked fun at the guy, right. Yeah, sure, they poked some fun at their Dear Leader. And in doing so they have proven yet again that those of us on the right, that think that Obama has been given a virtual free pass by the SRM and Hollywood, are indeed off our rockers.
Well sorry my CO2 hating countryfolk (term used as loosely as possible), but THAT disingenuous attempt to make fun of one of the most ridicule-worthy presidents we've ever had just isn't going to cut it. If you want to prove that NBC is not the radically pro-government orgainization that we say it is, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. Ofcourse I'm sure you'll try again AND try to fail again.
Apart from the disaster that was Armisen's impersonation attempt, their were as many subtle and not so subtle jabs at the right as there were shots taken at what one would have first thought was the intended target of this parody.
So SNL, if you're unsure as to what an honest attempt to spoof your Dear Leader is, listen to Rush (although many of you probably do already). Paul Shanklin makes an honest heartfelt attempt to lampoon our joke of a president and more often than not, he succeeds brilliantly. So it is possible. It really is.
Perhaps they were taking a page out of the Phil Hendrie school of celebrity impersonations. The difference is Phil purposely uses his own voice, or some reasonable approximation thereof, for COMEDIC effect, because it contrasts with the other outlandish fictional voices he does on a daily basis. NOT in an attempt to pull punches as they would have HAD to be doing in last nights opener.
If SNL showed that kind of lack of spirit when satirizing those on the right side of the political spectrum, the leftist freaks would have had their "SNL has POLE VAULTED the shark NOW" articles/tweets/facebook entries written before they could say vast right-wing conspiracy.
I know. You're saying, hey, at least they poked fun at the guy, right. Yeah, sure, they poked some fun at their Dear Leader. And in doing so they have proven yet again that those of us on the right, that think that Obama has been given a virtual free pass by the SRM and Hollywood, are indeed off our rockers.
Well sorry my CO2 hating countryfolk (term used as loosely as possible), but THAT disingenuous attempt to make fun of one of the most ridicule-worthy presidents we've ever had just isn't going to cut it. If you want to prove that NBC is not the radically pro-government orgainization that we say it is, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. Ofcourse I'm sure you'll try again AND try to fail again.
Apart from the disaster that was Armisen's impersonation attempt, their were as many subtle and not so subtle jabs at the right as there were shots taken at what one would have first thought was the intended target of this parody.
So SNL, if you're unsure as to what an honest attempt to spoof your Dear Leader is, listen to Rush (although many of you probably do already). Paul Shanklin makes an honest heartfelt attempt to lampoon our joke of a president and more often than not, he succeeds brilliantly. So it is possible. It really is.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Dumb, Dishonest, or Some Combination of Both?
Well I just saw this little nugget of leftist propaganda on twitter. An unnamed tweeter posted the following: "Doctors Say Congress Must Include Public Option In Health Care Reform". Followed by a link.
I know, I know, she posts this and in her bio she mentions "working to make the world a better place" and that she is "favoring health care reform". So why did I open the link (as you would rightly ask), knowing full well what I would find? Well, truth be told, because I've been forced to develop a taste for liberal propaganda. This affliction is almost certainly related in some way to the Stockholm Syndrome. Not that I am in any way LOYAL to our leftist oppressors. But I do enjoy the comic relief that they provide. I guess you could say that I've made a strategic choice to suffer these fools as gladly as possible.
So, not surprisingly, the link is to a Huffington Post Article (who'd a thunk it). And if the tweet and identity of the tweeter was not enough, this should definitely have provided a large clue as to the deception afoot here. But, if you're one of those notoriously "open minded" undecideds you would undoubtedly need to research further.
So I begin to read, and not more than 2 sentences in I find this: "More than 80% of the America's largest doctors' union-- the Union of American Physicians & Dentists-- consider some form of public insurance to be essential. Well there are not one, but two tells here. The presence of the word union and the absence of correct grammar. Is there a doctors' union called America's largest doctors' union? In that case there is a missing conjunction here. But, I know, everybody makes grammatical mistakes (and perhaps the grammar employed is fine) and not all unions are like the SEIU.
So I read a little further and lo and behold guess who the Union of American Physicians & Dentists (UAPD) is affiliated with, according to the author of this fine article? No, not the SEIU. But a couple of terrific stand-ins indeed. The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the AFL-CIO.
And guess where this noble group of doctors chose to hold their Triennial Convention at which they released the results of this telling internal survey? You guessed it. That hotbed of moderate political thought..............................San Francisco.
Now I could do some independent research in an attempt to find out more about the UAPD and how representative they really are of American doctors. But do I really need to do that? I think that I have gone well beyond the call of analytical duty to have gotten this far.
An obviously crazed "knuckle-dragging neanderthal" commenter put it quite nicely: "The Union of American Physicians and Dentists? I'm in practice for 20 yrs and I've never heard of them."
Doc, something tells me you're not the only one.
I know, I know, she posts this and in her bio she mentions "working to make the world a better place" and that she is "favoring health care reform". So why did I open the link (as you would rightly ask), knowing full well what I would find? Well, truth be told, because I've been forced to develop a taste for liberal propaganda. This affliction is almost certainly related in some way to the Stockholm Syndrome. Not that I am in any way LOYAL to our leftist oppressors. But I do enjoy the comic relief that they provide. I guess you could say that I've made a strategic choice to suffer these fools as gladly as possible.
So, not surprisingly, the link is to a Huffington Post Article (who'd a thunk it). And if the tweet and identity of the tweeter was not enough, this should definitely have provided a large clue as to the deception afoot here. But, if you're one of those notoriously "open minded" undecideds you would undoubtedly need to research further.
So I begin to read, and not more than 2 sentences in I find this: "More than 80% of the America's largest doctors' union-- the Union of American Physicians & Dentists-- consider some form of public insurance to be essential. Well there are not one, but two tells here. The presence of the word union and the absence of correct grammar. Is there a doctors' union called America's largest doctors' union? In that case there is a missing conjunction here. But, I know, everybody makes grammatical mistakes (and perhaps the grammar employed is fine) and not all unions are like the SEIU.
So I read a little further and lo and behold guess who the Union of American Physicians & Dentists (UAPD) is affiliated with, according to the author of this fine article? No, not the SEIU. But a couple of terrific stand-ins indeed. The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the AFL-CIO.
And guess where this noble group of doctors chose to hold their Triennial Convention at which they released the results of this telling internal survey? You guessed it. That hotbed of moderate political thought..............................San Francisco.
Now I could do some independent research in an attempt to find out more about the UAPD and how representative they really are of American doctors. But do I really need to do that? I think that I have gone well beyond the call of analytical duty to have gotten this far.
An obviously crazed "knuckle-dragging neanderthal" commenter put it quite nicely: "The Union of American Physicians and Dentists? I'm in practice for 20 yrs and I've never heard of them."
Doc, something tells me you're not the only one.
Don "play it safe with the satire" Imus
Stop killing yourself man! We are all aware of the public flogging that you endured at the hands of the State Run Media (SRM), but the person doing most, if not all, of the flogging now is you. Quit beating yourself up. You made a dumb comment, you've apologized profusely for the mistake, and now it's history. All this ad nauseam prostration before black America is accomplishing, is making your contrition seem less plausible.
"There is not much to dislike about him (Obama)". No one in their right mind believes that YOU believe that. Please.
Let me get this straight. In an interview with Neil Cavuto, you call David Letterman an angry mean-spirited jerk, Sarah Palin a dope who can't read a book, Katie Couric a cute little rodent, Dan Rather insane, Jimmy Carter a mean-spirited little weasel, BUT you have NO jabs to throw at the most jab-worthy person on the planet. Talk about ridiculous.
Hmm. What IS IT about BHO that would make you completely break character. What makes him different from the others that you so enjoyed skewering. Gee, what ever could it be.
Imagine the butt-kissing that would take place if Barry was ALL black.
Given Imus' very odd benign treatment of Howard Stern during this interview as well, one can only conclude that his edgy commentary is now being doled out rather cautiously these days.
"There is not much to dislike about him (Obama)". No one in their right mind believes that YOU believe that. Please.
Let me get this straight. In an interview with Neil Cavuto, you call David Letterman an angry mean-spirited jerk, Sarah Palin a dope who can't read a book, Katie Couric a cute little rodent, Dan Rather insane, Jimmy Carter a mean-spirited little weasel, BUT you have NO jabs to throw at the most jab-worthy person on the planet. Talk about ridiculous.
Hmm. What IS IT about BHO that would make you completely break character. What makes him different from the others that you so enjoyed skewering. Gee, what ever could it be.
Imagine the butt-kissing that would take place if Barry was ALL black.
Given Imus' very odd benign treatment of Howard Stern during this interview as well, one can only conclude that his edgy commentary is now being doled out rather cautiously these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)