This Country is Sooooo Screwed, Part II...
There is a running argument between my mother and I, and it has to do with which jerk manages to scam his way into the White House this fall. My mother enthusiastically supports Barack Obama, and I, reluctantly, John McCain. There is an interesting dialectic at work here between the words 'enthusiastically' and 'reluctantly'.
My mother is enthused because Barack Obama claims to have the answers to her immediate needs; she is near retirement-age, has had her pension and retirement funds ravaged by the recent market turmoil, lives on disability insurance payments and requires expensive medication. Obama, basically, promises her the following;
a) More Social Security money than you can shake a stick at. The system will continue to pay out, even if we have to short-dick every cannibal on the Congo, and the longer you live (medical science is keeping us all alive longer than we perhaps have a right to), the more you will get. Don't worry about who has to pay for it so long as you don't have to, nor I, Barack Obama. Free money is yours for the taking.
b) You have a right to government-funded Claritin and Preparation H, and if you decide you want that abortion or breast enlargement for your 65th birthday, be our guest. Whatever your tiny ache or pain, whatever your fake Baby-Boomer malady (like Restless Leg Syndrome), or how many expensive prescription drugs you take to mask the side-effects of all the other expensive prescription drugs you're taking for your bunions and the other pitfalls of what used to be called Old Age, I will give you insurance for it. Even if I have to brazenly steal from the productive to give it to you.
c) Even though you pay next to nothing in taxes (since your disability payments are tax free), I'm still going to give you a tax cut (i.e. bribe paid for by someone else), even though you don't work!
Given that set of promises, I might be enthusiastic, too.
However, it is more than likely my generation of taxpayers (and my children's, if I ever have any) who will have to pay for it. We already are, in more than one way. I'll explain;
At the moment, this country is being run by the folks of my mother's generation. These are the folks who went to Woodstock. It is the generation that dodged the Draft. It is the generation who said 'if it feels good, do it' and who thought taking acid to 'expand your mind' was a good idea. It is the generation that believed (suckers!) that John F. Kennedy was the next best thing to God. It is the generation that invented Disco, the Pet Rock, and who thought bell-bottoms were cool. It is the generation that once boasted that it 'spoke truth to power' and 'challenged the status quo', until, of course, it became the status quo, and then truth took a backseat to power. It will be, even with the recent disasters on Wall Street, one of the two richest generations of retirees in the history of the world (their parents, the 'Greatest Generation', is the first).
In other words, the country is being run by self-indulgent, instant-gratification-is-our-motto, greedy, mollycoddled, infantile, selfish, retards who can't get over themselves. The Congress is full of them. The last two occupants of the White House have been counted amongst their members. They are the generation of managers who run the corporations, the media, academia, state and local government. They are incredibly narrow-minded, despite the pretense of education many of them display; every problem to a Baby Boomer, in my experience, is always examined in light of the two greatest experiences in their lives: The Vietnam War (remember how Iraq was another Vietnam, not only in 2003-8, but way back in 1991?) and the Sexual Revolution (all that hullabaloo about Hillary being 'cheated' because of her gender, and all the crap about Sarah Palin not truly representing the feminazi ideal because she's a pro-life republican?) . No matter what the topic, they keep coming back to these two events. They can't help themselves, as these were the defining moments of their existence, probably just as 9/11 will be the defining experience of mine. These are the people who elevated the art of hypocrisy to a fine art, the 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' generation who has lived their life by a frightening creed; all ethics are situational, no truth is definitive and depends on your point-of-view-at-the-moment, the future will consist of an endless existence of living in the immediate present, tinged by nostalgia for the Summer of Love.
This is who runs America, folks, and they're about to retire. By the tens of millions. And they have a vested interest in keeping themselves comfortable, and in keeping themselves, and their worldview, relevant (by which we mean, the center of attention, particularly political attention). In the next decade, 'Senior Citizen' will be the new 'African-American' of government entitlement. Barack Obama promises to scratch these particular itches for them, come hell or high water, thus all the fainting and fawning over him. Thus, the enthusiastic support.
Now, for my reluctance.
John McCain is not my first choice for anything. I think I have made that abundantly clear in this screed. Given a choice between an enema and McCain, the enema looks like an interesting experience. However, Barack Obama is even less attractive, and potentially more destructive. Therefore, McCain is clearly the lesser of two evils (the two evils being that the American political landscape is so completely fucked up that these two are the best we could come up with; one guy who spent 30 years in a system that encourages and rewards either mediocrity or mendacity, and another who wouldn't have a thick enough resume to run your local PizzaHut).
Both men, despite what either says about themselves, represents anything new in American politics; McCain's 'maverick' reputation is little more than posturing and self-promotion, and Obama's 'transcendence' is little more than a slick marketing campaign designed to appeal to those who can't think and chew gum at the same time. McCain, if he stands for anything, at least stands as the Anti-Obama, and by extension, the Anti-Baby-Boomer. That is why I will support him, but unfortunately, he hasn't offered enough after that (although I do have high hopes for Sarah Palin...someone of both my generation and my political leanings. Obama might be of my generation, but his political leanings have their roots in the 1960's, and some harken back to Karl Marx). Therefore, my support is grudging, at best, reluctant at worst.
Well anyway, the greatest threat to American society in the foreseeable future is the Baby-Boomers, who are in charge at the moment -- and their numbers are legion. They will vote themselves a permanent place at the government teat if they aren't stopped. John McCain, even if he is one of them, at least represents some of the forces that will resist their further advance towards bankrupting their children and grandchildren for their own personal wants and needs. It has to be done now. It has to be done by my generation, as well, since I have absolutely no faith at all in the generation of slackers behind me; they are uniformly misinformed, typically just as short-sighted as their grandparents, and apparently happy to be both. But they care, you know. Ask them what they care about, and they can't explain it, but their earnestness is still touching (and hilarious).
If this country is to be saved (and by that I mean returned to constitutional government and common sense), it will have to be done by clear-thinking people who are not romantically-attached to a mythical past (for all their claims of achievement, the Flower children did very little -- they didn't stop a war, and they only accelerated the decay of moral and civil society), or who take it as an article of faith that they are entitled to everything by virtue of being alive. It will be done by people who know that you have only yourself to rely on...not your parents, not the government, not slick-talking politicians who couldn't lead a three year old to the crapper without cajolling a campaign contribution from him first. The greatest lesson ever taught to me by my mother's generation was that personal responsibility was something for other people to worry about. But then I grew up. They never did.
Until we return to those virtues of self-reliance, personal responsibility and constitutional government, and we begin to rebuild a culture where informed discourse -- not bribery, not the ability to survive within a crooked system, not You-Tube, DailyKos or FreeRepublic -- rules our political life, where American Idol and Sex With Mom and Dad are not the height of intellectual stimulation, we're fucked. We're fucked because our future is being dictated by an entire generation of wrong-thinking, self-absorbed, double-talking people who will do nothing but consume the fruits of other people's labor, are convinced they are entitled to it, and who will use the ballot box to secure it.
Friday, October 17, 2008
This Country is Sooooo Screwed, Part I...
I really didn't want to write about the economic crisis because I would simply be repeating many of the things I've already written here; the crisis was caused by the same triad of bugbears that is always at the bottom of any tragedy: greed, stupidity and appalling lack of oversight. Anyone who's followed this rant for any appreciable amount of time knows how I feel about Wall Street -- it's legalized gambling -- and how I feel about 'financial professionals' -- they're (mostly) self-inflated, egotistical crooks with inferiority complexes that can only be satiated by Pavlovian- reflexive acts of mere acquisition and accumulation, and the only differences between them and your neighborhood bookie are a federal license, and a better suit. Anything I would have to say on the subject would be tainted by this view, and would only present me with little more than an "I-told-you-so" opportunity which doesn't put me in the mood to do the Snoopy-happy-dance.
But, unfortunately, I can't ignore it any longer. Particularly not when the American government resorts to nationalization in order to (they think) correct a problem with supposedly-free markets (itself a misnomer to begin with), and decides the right tonic is the transfer of $700 billion from public coffers (you know, money that would have otherwise been wasted on something like, oh, national defense...) to the private sector to, in effect, save the financial whiz-kid's collective ass from their own stupidity. Why? Because without it there would economic turmoil, in which the earth might spin off it's axis and hurtle into the sun.
Of course, even though Wall Street got what it wanted (someone else to pay for their mistakes), the markets are still tanking because the same jerks who caused the meltdown are still at work. The markets are dominated by speculators and short-sellers, and fueled by easy-to-obtain credit. The government just handed them $700 billion to keep the credit markets afloat, and the Federal Reserve bank just lowered rates again to make borrowing almost free (I think the Fed rate now is 1.5% or something), and the markets still fluctuate wildly. Why? Because the lesson that has been learned is not 'make-a-serious-mistake-and-lose-your-job', it's 'make-a-boo-boo-of-galactic-proportions-and-some-idiot-with-the-title-Congressman-or-Senator-will-cover-your-losses'. Short selling is still going on, speculation is still rampant -- and it's still other people's money.
This is the mechanism which is at the root of the current financial crisis; money was too easy to come by when times were good, and it's still too easy to come by when you screw the pooch. If we had a truly free market, which was run by people who were truly held accountable (like being taken out and hung in the public square, instead of being just fired with Golden Parachutes totalling millions in cash and perks), this could not have happened. Not in a million years. If the rules which prevailed in American markets before the 1990's were still in place, this could not have happened. The American government has catered to business for far too long. Government gave business what it said it wanted; it removed regulations, it made credit easy to come by with Fed policies, it has allowed business to ship jobs and capital safely out of the country without any stigma or penalty, it has bribed and bought politicians (allegedly) to run interference for them with the media and the regulatory bodies. In short, it has gotten every advantage (other people's) money could buy, and what did it do with those advantages?
A few at the top enriched themselves, got arrogant, and then engaged in risky behavior that defied logic and the immutable laws of basic economics. And look where it got us. The next time I hear a CEO complain on the idiot box that American corporations 'can't compete in the global marketplace' because of some law or regulation or somesuch, I'm going to personally shove his gold-plated Blackberry down his throat. Instead of worrying about whether the Chinese or Ethiopians can afford American goods and products, perhaps they should start worrying about whether Americans can afford them now. There's no point in being able to 'compete globally' if the price is poverty at home, and particularly when that poverty is caused by business policies that eliminate jobs, encourage crippling debt, allow stupid and unscrupulous people to rise to the top, and then destroy the wealth of the people who aren't fortunate enough to have the option of resigning (therefore dodging the consequences attendant with responsibility) with a 'two-comma' severance package which some other sucker has to pay for.
Another lesson Americans will learn, painfully, in the next few years is this: the American government, despite what it says or the mystical powers granted to it by a mostly-ignorant populace, does *not* run 'the Economy'. The President of the United States does not run it, the Congress does not run it. The Fed doesn't either. True, they have the ability to affect it with regulations, tax and monetary policy, but they don't have a handle on it. When people demand that government 'do something about the economy' there is very little that any individual, or even a collective group like Congress, can do. The primary reason is because economic activity often takes place in a realm outside the political. True, political factors may condition the practice of capitalism, but capitalism takes place no matter who is in charge or what policies they espouse. One need only need to note that drug dealing, prostitution, illicit gambling, and other criminal behaviors still continue, despite legal sanction -- because there's money to be made in them for the individual who is willing to take the risks associated with making his/her money in those endeavors. Despite the dictates and policies of government, these trades still flourish, proving that government is often irrelevant when it comes to economic activity. That such activity takes place 'under the radar' and with the general acceptance of many in government, only futher bolsters the case; they can't stop it, regulate it or tax it, for a variety or reasons (mostly sloth), so they pretty much leave it alone. Much of the 'legitimate' market operates on the same prinicples, whether anyone likes to admit so openly or not.
And for those who might argue the analogy; pimps, whores, pushers, and organized crime are all words that can be used to adequately, and accurately, describe any aspect of what has just transpired in the markets, the people who caused it, and the people who purportedly 'addressed' this issue by obligating the taxpayer to pay for someone else's bad bets. The comparison, I think, is appropos. But I digress.
The second reason is that collective, effective (key word), action is mostly impossible because of a dazzling array of personal and political factors in play (like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd trying to avoid jail time, and the Congressional Republicans trying to score points with the so-called Freemarketeers). These often-petty turf, perquisite and ideological battles conspire to ensure that no one side of the poltical-ecenomic debate is dominated by any one view which might further prejudice the system. It also ensures that when Congress does take up collective action, it's eventual scope is, hopefully, constrained.
Americans are about to learn that the government couldn't organize a gang-bang in a whorehouse, let alone run the American economy. And run the economy it shall attempt to do: it now owns (or will soon assume responsibility for) major stakes in banks, mortgage markets, insurance and brokerage firms, and it's tentacles will sink deeper into the economic soil as that $700 billion begins to get disbursed. We're about to find out that we were probably better off, in the long run, letting AIG and Morgan-Stanley, and the rest fail on their own (de-)merits than have the Federal Government throw good money after bad and then take control of many institutions in the process.
Whichever idiot takes the White House next January has to consider this, and has to make it a centerpiece of his administration: that bailout package has to be reworked, and it has to be done in such a way as to:
a) Ensure that $700 billion gets paid back, with interest
b) Ensure that $700 billion gets paid back as quickly as possible so that the institutions rescued can get the government out of it's offices ASAP.
c) Scrutiny of corporate activities must be intensified. Particularly executive compensation and the practice of tying compensation to stock prices -- this not only invites fraud, it actively encourages it, not to mention having a corporation use common-sense accounting and reporting tools, and the demand for transparency to the public and shareholders.
d) True and effective reform of Social Security and Medicare, because $1 trillion dollars of retirement wealth just got wiped out. This means taking a peek at every item int he Fed'ral budget, top to bottom, and taking both the hatchet and the scalpel to it.
I really didn't want to write about the economic crisis because I would simply be repeating many of the things I've already written here; the crisis was caused by the same triad of bugbears that is always at the bottom of any tragedy: greed, stupidity and appalling lack of oversight. Anyone who's followed this rant for any appreciable amount of time knows how I feel about Wall Street -- it's legalized gambling -- and how I feel about 'financial professionals' -- they're (mostly) self-inflated, egotistical crooks with inferiority complexes that can only be satiated by Pavlovian- reflexive acts of mere acquisition and accumulation, and the only differences between them and your neighborhood bookie are a federal license, and a better suit. Anything I would have to say on the subject would be tainted by this view, and would only present me with little more than an "I-told-you-so" opportunity which doesn't put me in the mood to do the Snoopy-happy-dance.
But, unfortunately, I can't ignore it any longer. Particularly not when the American government resorts to nationalization in order to (they think) correct a problem with supposedly-free markets (itself a misnomer to begin with), and decides the right tonic is the transfer of $700 billion from public coffers (you know, money that would have otherwise been wasted on something like, oh, national defense...) to the private sector to, in effect, save the financial whiz-kid's collective ass from their own stupidity. Why? Because without it there would economic turmoil, in which the earth might spin off it's axis and hurtle into the sun.
Of course, even though Wall Street got what it wanted (someone else to pay for their mistakes), the markets are still tanking because the same jerks who caused the meltdown are still at work. The markets are dominated by speculators and short-sellers, and fueled by easy-to-obtain credit. The government just handed them $700 billion to keep the credit markets afloat, and the Federal Reserve bank just lowered rates again to make borrowing almost free (I think the Fed rate now is 1.5% or something), and the markets still fluctuate wildly. Why? Because the lesson that has been learned is not 'make-a-serious-mistake-and-lose-your-job', it's 'make-a-boo-boo-of-galactic-proportions-and-some-idiot-with-the-title-Congressman-or-Senator-will-cover-your-losses'. Short selling is still going on, speculation is still rampant -- and it's still other people's money.
This is the mechanism which is at the root of the current financial crisis; money was too easy to come by when times were good, and it's still too easy to come by when you screw the pooch. If we had a truly free market, which was run by people who were truly held accountable (like being taken out and hung in the public square, instead of being just fired with Golden Parachutes totalling millions in cash and perks), this could not have happened. Not in a million years. If the rules which prevailed in American markets before the 1990's were still in place, this could not have happened. The American government has catered to business for far too long. Government gave business what it said it wanted; it removed regulations, it made credit easy to come by with Fed policies, it has allowed business to ship jobs and capital safely out of the country without any stigma or penalty, it has bribed and bought politicians (allegedly) to run interference for them with the media and the regulatory bodies. In short, it has gotten every advantage (other people's) money could buy, and what did it do with those advantages?
A few at the top enriched themselves, got arrogant, and then engaged in risky behavior that defied logic and the immutable laws of basic economics. And look where it got us. The next time I hear a CEO complain on the idiot box that American corporations 'can't compete in the global marketplace' because of some law or regulation or somesuch, I'm going to personally shove his gold-plated Blackberry down his throat. Instead of worrying about whether the Chinese or Ethiopians can afford American goods and products, perhaps they should start worrying about whether Americans can afford them now. There's no point in being able to 'compete globally' if the price is poverty at home, and particularly when that poverty is caused by business policies that eliminate jobs, encourage crippling debt, allow stupid and unscrupulous people to rise to the top, and then destroy the wealth of the people who aren't fortunate enough to have the option of resigning (therefore dodging the consequences attendant with responsibility) with a 'two-comma' severance package which some other sucker has to pay for.
Another lesson Americans will learn, painfully, in the next few years is this: the American government, despite what it says or the mystical powers granted to it by a mostly-ignorant populace, does *not* run 'the Economy'. The President of the United States does not run it, the Congress does not run it. The Fed doesn't either. True, they have the ability to affect it with regulations, tax and monetary policy, but they don't have a handle on it. When people demand that government 'do something about the economy' there is very little that any individual, or even a collective group like Congress, can do. The primary reason is because economic activity often takes place in a realm outside the political. True, political factors may condition the practice of capitalism, but capitalism takes place no matter who is in charge or what policies they espouse. One need only need to note that drug dealing, prostitution, illicit gambling, and other criminal behaviors still continue, despite legal sanction -- because there's money to be made in them for the individual who is willing to take the risks associated with making his/her money in those endeavors. Despite the dictates and policies of government, these trades still flourish, proving that government is often irrelevant when it comes to economic activity. That such activity takes place 'under the radar' and with the general acceptance of many in government, only futher bolsters the case; they can't stop it, regulate it or tax it, for a variety or reasons (mostly sloth), so they pretty much leave it alone. Much of the 'legitimate' market operates on the same prinicples, whether anyone likes to admit so openly or not.
And for those who might argue the analogy; pimps, whores, pushers, and organized crime are all words that can be used to adequately, and accurately, describe any aspect of what has just transpired in the markets, the people who caused it, and the people who purportedly 'addressed' this issue by obligating the taxpayer to pay for someone else's bad bets. The comparison, I think, is appropos. But I digress.
The second reason is that collective, effective (key word), action is mostly impossible because of a dazzling array of personal and political factors in play (like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd trying to avoid jail time, and the Congressional Republicans trying to score points with the so-called Freemarketeers). These often-petty turf, perquisite and ideological battles conspire to ensure that no one side of the poltical-ecenomic debate is dominated by any one view which might further prejudice the system. It also ensures that when Congress does take up collective action, it's eventual scope is, hopefully, constrained.
Americans are about to learn that the government couldn't organize a gang-bang in a whorehouse, let alone run the American economy. And run the economy it shall attempt to do: it now owns (or will soon assume responsibility for) major stakes in banks, mortgage markets, insurance and brokerage firms, and it's tentacles will sink deeper into the economic soil as that $700 billion begins to get disbursed. We're about to find out that we were probably better off, in the long run, letting AIG and Morgan-Stanley, and the rest fail on their own (de-)merits than have the Federal Government throw good money after bad and then take control of many institutions in the process.
Whichever idiot takes the White House next January has to consider this, and has to make it a centerpiece of his administration: that bailout package has to be reworked, and it has to be done in such a way as to:
a) Ensure that $700 billion gets paid back, with interest
b) Ensure that $700 billion gets paid back as quickly as possible so that the institutions rescued can get the government out of it's offices ASAP.
c) Scrutiny of corporate activities must be intensified. Particularly executive compensation and the practice of tying compensation to stock prices -- this not only invites fraud, it actively encourages it, not to mention having a corporation use common-sense accounting and reporting tools, and the demand for transparency to the public and shareholders.
d) True and effective reform of Social Security and Medicare, because $1 trillion dollars of retirement wealth just got wiped out. This means taking a peek at every item int he Fed'ral budget, top to bottom, and taking both the hatchet and the scalpel to it.
Democracy, indeed...
Just came in on FoxNews: the Supreme Court has ruled today that the Ohio Secretary of State does *not* have to a) turn over a list of 200,000 suspected fraudulent voter registrations, and b) comply with Federal Election law and tie her voter registration database to both the Ohio DMV and the Social Security Administration in order to verify the eligibility of Ohio's voters.
In effect, The Supreme Court has just ruled that Federal Election law, passed by duly-elected representatives, which has passed Constitutional muster, somehow does not matter.
This is significant because of recent (apparently true!) complaints about fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN, a left-oriented organization dedicated to sucking at the government teat and providing a permanent jobs program for those who wouldn't get one otherwise, in the state of Ohio. The Secretary of State in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner (a democrat, it goes without saying) refused to abide by Fed'ral law and use the Social Security and DMV databases in order to verify residence in the State of Ohio, or other requirements for eligibility for voting, on approximately 200,000 applications. Note: in the last two elections, GW Bush carried Ohio by a margin of less than 100,000 votes. Two-hundred thousand fraudulent votes, left unchecked by the officials and system charged with protecting the electoral system against them, might very well decide the contest. That Brunner reportedly has willfully ignored election law by ordering the disconnect between the DMV/SS systems and her own voter registration database, apparently does not matter.
This smells to the heavens.
For those of you who cried that the Supreme Court stole an election for George W. Bush, it just might have allowed the supporters of Barack Obama to steal another one.
Just came in on FoxNews: the Supreme Court has ruled today that the Ohio Secretary of State does *not* have to a) turn over a list of 200,000 suspected fraudulent voter registrations, and b) comply with Federal Election law and tie her voter registration database to both the Ohio DMV and the Social Security Administration in order to verify the eligibility of Ohio's voters.
In effect, The Supreme Court has just ruled that Federal Election law, passed by duly-elected representatives, which has passed Constitutional muster, somehow does not matter.
This is significant because of recent (apparently true!) complaints about fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN, a left-oriented organization dedicated to sucking at the government teat and providing a permanent jobs program for those who wouldn't get one otherwise, in the state of Ohio. The Secretary of State in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner (a democrat, it goes without saying) refused to abide by Fed'ral law and use the Social Security and DMV databases in order to verify residence in the State of Ohio, or other requirements for eligibility for voting, on approximately 200,000 applications. Note: in the last two elections, GW Bush carried Ohio by a margin of less than 100,000 votes. Two-hundred thousand fraudulent votes, left unchecked by the officials and system charged with protecting the electoral system against them, might very well decide the contest. That Brunner reportedly has willfully ignored election law by ordering the disconnect between the DMV/SS systems and her own voter registration database, apparently does not matter.
This smells to the heavens.
For those of you who cried that the Supreme Court stole an election for George W. Bush, it just might have allowed the supporters of Barack Obama to steal another one.
John Murtha is a Big, Fat Idiot...
Congresscritter John Murtha (Gasbag - Penn.) called the inhabitants of the western portion of his state racists the other day. The implication being that Barack Obama may lose in Western Penn, and the reason will be all them hillbillies a-clingin' to their guns and religion, just as St. Barack said they would all them months ago. Murtha went on to say that while the problem (i.e. racism) wasn't as pronounced now as it had been in the past, it still existed, and then mumbled some pablum about old folks being resistant to change, etc, etc, and then he gave every indication of being personally disgusted and appropriately affronted.
Of course, once the resulting uproar began (people don't exactly like being called racists, and they tend to disagree with sweeping generalizations that imply that they may be the worst thing since Ebola, and that tend to call their intelligence and character into question), Murtha ran to take back his comments. Well, not exactly. He did what all politicians do these days, and issued a non-apology which included the words "if anyone was offended..." (I think), and then added some fuel to the fire by 're-framing' his original argument with less-inflammatory language that reiterated the original point -- only with softer, more obscure words.
This is the second time I've heard this sort of thing from a democrat in recent weeks (see Gov. Sebelius' -- "Barak will lose because we're a racist country..." meme). That it comes with less than three weeks left to go before the election is disgusting. That it comes from Murtha is appalling. This is the man who wanted the Marines charged with war crimes at Haditha (all of whom, incidentally, were found innocent of the charges made against them by Iraqi provacateurs) all but drawn-and-quartered. John Murtha is not a good man; John Murtha is a self-serving parasite, and political sycophant, who will say anything, do anything which he believes is required by the dictates of party loyalty, or made necessary by political opportunism.
We'll hear much more of the "America is a racist country, and therefore, Barack Obama lost the election" nonsense in the coming weeks. And it won't matter if he does manage to win, either; any opposition to Obama's disasterous policies will be framed in racist terms; there can be no doubt about this, since democrats seem ready to play the race card whenever the man is questioned or challenged, usually fairly. The politician who is supposed to have transcended race will, in fact, widen the racial divisions in this country. This will be because democrats can't think except in terms of grievance groups and identity politics, and because Obama has done nothing but tap into the racial sympathy and guilt of his liberal supporters from the day he announced his candidacy.
As for John Murtha, the sooner Alzheimers or clogged arteries takes this aging Baby-Boomer, crap-speaking loudmouth, the better off this country will be.
Congresscritter John Murtha (Gasbag - Penn.) called the inhabitants of the western portion of his state racists the other day. The implication being that Barack Obama may lose in Western Penn, and the reason will be all them hillbillies a-clingin' to their guns and religion, just as St. Barack said they would all them months ago. Murtha went on to say that while the problem (i.e. racism) wasn't as pronounced now as it had been in the past, it still existed, and then mumbled some pablum about old folks being resistant to change, etc, etc, and then he gave every indication of being personally disgusted and appropriately affronted.
Of course, once the resulting uproar began (people don't exactly like being called racists, and they tend to disagree with sweeping generalizations that imply that they may be the worst thing since Ebola, and that tend to call their intelligence and character into question), Murtha ran to take back his comments. Well, not exactly. He did what all politicians do these days, and issued a non-apology which included the words "if anyone was offended..." (I think), and then added some fuel to the fire by 're-framing' his original argument with less-inflammatory language that reiterated the original point -- only with softer, more obscure words.
This is the second time I've heard this sort of thing from a democrat in recent weeks (see Gov. Sebelius' -- "Barak will lose because we're a racist country..." meme). That it comes with less than three weeks left to go before the election is disgusting. That it comes from Murtha is appalling. This is the man who wanted the Marines charged with war crimes at Haditha (all of whom, incidentally, were found innocent of the charges made against them by Iraqi provacateurs) all but drawn-and-quartered. John Murtha is not a good man; John Murtha is a self-serving parasite, and political sycophant, who will say anything, do anything which he believes is required by the dictates of party loyalty, or made necessary by political opportunism.
We'll hear much more of the "America is a racist country, and therefore, Barack Obama lost the election" nonsense in the coming weeks. And it won't matter if he does manage to win, either; any opposition to Obama's disasterous policies will be framed in racist terms; there can be no doubt about this, since democrats seem ready to play the race card whenever the man is questioned or challenged, usually fairly. The politician who is supposed to have transcended race will, in fact, widen the racial divisions in this country. This will be because democrats can't think except in terms of grievance groups and identity politics, and because Obama has done nothing but tap into the racial sympathy and guilt of his liberal supporters from the day he announced his candidacy.
As for John Murtha, the sooner Alzheimers or clogged arteries takes this aging Baby-Boomer, crap-speaking loudmouth, the better off this country will be.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Just What the #$&% Do they Want Then?
This should infuriate you:
www.futurepundit.com/archives/005596.html
Look, even when you do something the Greenie Meanies want, they still find something wrong with it. Which is why, in my opinion, we shouldn't be placating them at all. This whole nonsese about Global Warming/Cooling is nothing more than a boondoggle, designed to destroy capitalism and redistribute Western resources amongst the dregs of the Third World. Oh, but it does make Western enviorn-MENTAL-ists feel good about themselves. So, perhaps it does have a point, after all. Without PETA, World Wildlife Fund and the rest, these folks would be sitting home on Saturday nights, watching Titanic and masturbating. Thank GOD they have something else to do....
From where I sit; it's already apparent that Enviornmentalists consider both Man and Capitalism to be Public Enemy Number One. And just in case you can't decide which is the greater evil, they've developed a caricature at which you might direct your hatred. They call him Republican, and he's an amalgam of the worse offenses of both. Now, Enviornmentalists are usually tofu-eating pussies who can't take on either Man or Capitalism (or Republican) in a test of strength -- people who eat grass have no strength to begin with -- but, they do have major tools which allow for the slow sapping of strength from, and weakening the will, resolve and foundation of their opponents: the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party.
Can't beat Capitalism? Then make it too expensive to practice by artificially restricting it's energy supply. No drilling in this country. Import all the Arab oil we can and enrich them (after all, those people may have no political rights, might still be piss-poor despite $700 billion a year in transferred wealth to OPEC -- but at least they get Universal Health Care! Aspirin is Free in the UAE!), while bankrupting Americans who do nothing but consume, anyway. Better we should be unable to afford to continue to consume. Thank you democrats and Greens! And with this nonsense the dems have just pulled with sub-prime mortgages and forcing banks to make bad loans, we'll be sure to be unable to afford any more energy, and the whole solar-panels-in-the-Mojave argument will be moot.
Which is just what the Greens want anyway!
I'm telling you, this is one of those times when it should be legal to hunt a certain class of people. I'd put dems and Greens at the top of the list.
This should infuriate you:
www.futurepundit.com/archives/005596.html
Look, even when you do something the Greenie Meanies want, they still find something wrong with it. Which is why, in my opinion, we shouldn't be placating them at all. This whole nonsese about Global Warming/Cooling is nothing more than a boondoggle, designed to destroy capitalism and redistribute Western resources amongst the dregs of the Third World. Oh, but it does make Western enviorn-MENTAL-ists feel good about themselves. So, perhaps it does have a point, after all. Without PETA, World Wildlife Fund and the rest, these folks would be sitting home on Saturday nights, watching Titanic and masturbating. Thank GOD they have something else to do....
From where I sit; it's already apparent that Enviornmentalists consider both Man and Capitalism to be Public Enemy Number One. And just in case you can't decide which is the greater evil, they've developed a caricature at which you might direct your hatred. They call him Republican, and he's an amalgam of the worse offenses of both. Now, Enviornmentalists are usually tofu-eating pussies who can't take on either Man or Capitalism (or Republican) in a test of strength -- people who eat grass have no strength to begin with -- but, they do have major tools which allow for the slow sapping of strength from, and weakening the will, resolve and foundation of their opponents: the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party.
Can't beat Capitalism? Then make it too expensive to practice by artificially restricting it's energy supply. No drilling in this country. Import all the Arab oil we can and enrich them (after all, those people may have no political rights, might still be piss-poor despite $700 billion a year in transferred wealth to OPEC -- but at least they get Universal Health Care! Aspirin is Free in the UAE!), while bankrupting Americans who do nothing but consume, anyway. Better we should be unable to afford to continue to consume. Thank you democrats and Greens! And with this nonsense the dems have just pulled with sub-prime mortgages and forcing banks to make bad loans, we'll be sure to be unable to afford any more energy, and the whole solar-panels-in-the-Mojave argument will be moot.
Which is just what the Greens want anyway!
I'm telling you, this is one of those times when it should be legal to hunt a certain class of people. I'd put dems and Greens at the top of the list.
Not Allowed to Reproduce, Part I...
Announcing the beginning of a new series, The 'Not Allowed To Reproduce Chronicles', where I shall be pointing out some seriously disturbing things from around the Web, and the distrubing people who are responsible for them, and identifying those people too obviously stupid to be allowed to reproduce. When you, loyal reader, see this sort of person, you are required to hit them with a shovel, or reach for the nearest firearm. We must save the human race.
Today's Enemy of the Species tag goes to overindulgent pet owners. You know the ones I mean. The ones who treat their dogs like their children (or often, better than their children) and who can be reliably counted upon to open their wallets for the most ridiculous reasons when it comes to animals. Such people are a dire threat to the human gene pool; they are sickening, they are mentally retarded, and worse, they have the ability to make a Golden Retriever look gayer than Sigfried and Roy. This sort of person must be stopped -- the Survival of the Human Race may depend on it, because one day all Golden Retrievers in electric pink cashmere sweaters may simultaneously rise in open revolt, mightily pissed that they've been dressed so gaily that even poodles laugh at them.
But, you say, you can't just take my word for it? You mean, well, actually whacking people on little more than my say-so strikes you as, well, rather....severe. You say you require more proof as to the danger to the human gene pool posed by such a person? Well, here you go;
http://www.wagreflex.com/2008/10/pet-costumes-go.html (Via Instapundit)
There. All the proof you could ever need. Now, if you know someone like this, you know what you must do. The future of humanity depends upon it.
Announcing the beginning of a new series, The 'Not Allowed To Reproduce Chronicles', where I shall be pointing out some seriously disturbing things from around the Web, and the distrubing people who are responsible for them, and identifying those people too obviously stupid to be allowed to reproduce. When you, loyal reader, see this sort of person, you are required to hit them with a shovel, or reach for the nearest firearm. We must save the human race.
Today's Enemy of the Species tag goes to overindulgent pet owners. You know the ones I mean. The ones who treat their dogs like their children (or often, better than their children) and who can be reliably counted upon to open their wallets for the most ridiculous reasons when it comes to animals. Such people are a dire threat to the human gene pool; they are sickening, they are mentally retarded, and worse, they have the ability to make a Golden Retriever look gayer than Sigfried and Roy. This sort of person must be stopped -- the Survival of the Human Race may depend on it, because one day all Golden Retrievers in electric pink cashmere sweaters may simultaneously rise in open revolt, mightily pissed that they've been dressed so gaily that even poodles laugh at them.
But, you say, you can't just take my word for it? You mean, well, actually whacking people on little more than my say-so strikes you as, well, rather....severe. You say you require more proof as to the danger to the human gene pool posed by such a person? Well, here you go;
http://www.wagreflex.com/2008/10/pet-costumes-go.html (Via Instapundit)
There. All the proof you could ever need. Now, if you know someone like this, you know what you must do. The future of humanity depends upon it.
Someone Explain the Logic, Please?
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3Q3AFLBNEGKMH
And then see if you can follow this line of reasoning: Northeastern energy companies have either a) paid for a license to pollute -- up to a certain point , or, b) paid $40 million for something which does not exist, but which the government mandates that they buy (i.e. a carbon credit).
On the one hand, that $40 milion probably bought them the means by which to avoid actually paying for technology and such which would actually reduce CO2 emissions (which, despite what the Greenie Meanies tell you is *not* the reason behind Global Warming/Cooling), in which case, that $40 probably saved them $80 million in clean-up costs.
On the other hand, this sounds more like government as neighborhood mugger, sticking a gun in the energy companies' faces, and then terrorizing them, adding insult to injury. I wonder what will happen if these companies exceed their cap-levels; Do they get closed down? If they close down and deprive New York or Boston of electricity, resulting in rolling blackouts and lost productivity, does the government let them exceed the caps they've just extorted money for? I mean, if it came down to it, which does a politician really care more about: votes from people who need electricty thet they could provide by fixing a law, or sparing the atmosphere a few tons of CO2?
When this nonsense comes back to haunt us (in the form of energy shortages), I wonder how quickly this sort of crap stops?
Forty million for persmission to stay in business is what this sounds like to me. The fact that you can attempt to make an excuse for it by saying you're defending Mother Earth doesn't make it stink any less.
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3Q3AFLBNEGKMH
And then see if you can follow this line of reasoning: Northeastern energy companies have either a) paid for a license to pollute -- up to a certain point , or, b) paid $40 million for something which does not exist, but which the government mandates that they buy (i.e. a carbon credit).
On the one hand, that $40 milion probably bought them the means by which to avoid actually paying for technology and such which would actually reduce CO2 emissions (which, despite what the Greenie Meanies tell you is *not* the reason behind Global Warming/Cooling), in which case, that $40 probably saved them $80 million in clean-up costs.
On the other hand, this sounds more like government as neighborhood mugger, sticking a gun in the energy companies' faces, and then terrorizing them, adding insult to injury. I wonder what will happen if these companies exceed their cap-levels; Do they get closed down? If they close down and deprive New York or Boston of electricity, resulting in rolling blackouts and lost productivity, does the government let them exceed the caps they've just extorted money for? I mean, if it came down to it, which does a politician really care more about: votes from people who need electricty thet they could provide by fixing a law, or sparing the atmosphere a few tons of CO2?
When this nonsense comes back to haunt us (in the form of energy shortages), I wonder how quickly this sort of crap stops?
Forty million for persmission to stay in business is what this sounds like to me. The fact that you can attempt to make an excuse for it by saying you're defending Mother Earth doesn't make it stink any less.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Der Fuhrer...
Yesterday, Michael Bloomberg (Stuffed Shirt-NY) of Noo Yawk City announced that he desires a third term as Mayor of Sodom-on-the-Hudson, because his sage financial advice and guidance is required in this time of bankrupt Wall Street dinosaurs, despite the fact that such a scenario is a) illegal thanks to term limit laws, and b) conveniently forgetting that Bloomberg himself had once thrown a near-menstrual hissy fit when Rudy Guiliani tried a similar thing (trying to make the argument that only his leadership could hold the city together in the face of tragedy) during another dire crisis (September 11th).
Bloomberg should go away. Bloomberg should not be allowed back onto the public stage after he exits. Bloomberg should be taken out and flogged for even thinking this way.
Michael Bloomberg may, indeed, be a financial genius, but this does not give him carte blanche to take this opportunity to aggrandize himself. Perhaps all that yacking by the political class earlier in the Presidential primaries (when Bloomberg was practically gushed over as a potential third-party candidate) has gone to his head.
Michael Bloomberg is no Rudy Guiliani. Micheal Bloombergs isn't even Hillary Clinton on her best day (when she forgets that she's a communist and accidentally says something that makes sense). All Michael Bloomberg has done is preside over what Rudy Guiliani has wrought...and raised the price of a pack of cigarettes to $8.95.
Never mind having to try and revise New York City laws and charters and so forth to allow this naked grab at power to continue -- someone should try and figure out how we can get self-important rich nonentities out of American politics altogether.
Let Wall Street choke. It deserves it. It's served the American public a steady diet of shit sandwiches -- let it take a great big bite of this one. It's not as if Bloomberg is actually in a position, as Mayor of New York, to actually fix the systemic corruption and remedy the underlying greedy-scum culture that permeates the financial industry. When Bloomberg says, paraphrasing, that "his financial knowledge and experience are necessary to help guide New York and Wall Street through these tough, economic times", what he's really saying is "Hey, you fat cats, you'd better help find some way of keeping me, a pro-business dude like you, in power, because my potentially-democratic successor will tax the bejesus out of you while you try to recover from your self-inflicted gunshot wound."
Yesterday, Michael Bloomberg (Stuffed Shirt-NY) of Noo Yawk City announced that he desires a third term as Mayor of Sodom-on-the-Hudson, because his sage financial advice and guidance is required in this time of bankrupt Wall Street dinosaurs, despite the fact that such a scenario is a) illegal thanks to term limit laws, and b) conveniently forgetting that Bloomberg himself had once thrown a near-menstrual hissy fit when Rudy Guiliani tried a similar thing (trying to make the argument that only his leadership could hold the city together in the face of tragedy) during another dire crisis (September 11th).
Bloomberg should go away. Bloomberg should not be allowed back onto the public stage after he exits. Bloomberg should be taken out and flogged for even thinking this way.
Michael Bloomberg may, indeed, be a financial genius, but this does not give him carte blanche to take this opportunity to aggrandize himself. Perhaps all that yacking by the political class earlier in the Presidential primaries (when Bloomberg was practically gushed over as a potential third-party candidate) has gone to his head.
Michael Bloomberg is no Rudy Guiliani. Micheal Bloombergs isn't even Hillary Clinton on her best day (when she forgets that she's a communist and accidentally says something that makes sense). All Michael Bloomberg has done is preside over what Rudy Guiliani has wrought...and raised the price of a pack of cigarettes to $8.95.
Never mind having to try and revise New York City laws and charters and so forth to allow this naked grab at power to continue -- someone should try and figure out how we can get self-important rich nonentities out of American politics altogether.
Let Wall Street choke. It deserves it. It's served the American public a steady diet of shit sandwiches -- let it take a great big bite of this one. It's not as if Bloomberg is actually in a position, as Mayor of New York, to actually fix the systemic corruption and remedy the underlying greedy-scum culture that permeates the financial industry. When Bloomberg says, paraphrasing, that "his financial knowledge and experience are necessary to help guide New York and Wall Street through these tough, economic times", what he's really saying is "Hey, you fat cats, you'd better help find some way of keeping me, a pro-business dude like you, in power, because my potentially-democratic successor will tax the bejesus out of you while you try to recover from your self-inflicted gunshot wound."
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Starting Already...
Echoing a recently-ubiquitous theme, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Moron - Kansas), has already begun throwing out the ready-made excuse for barack Obama's eventual defeat in November. Apparently, Obama will loose because his foes "speak in code". Having once been on the receiving end of an accusation of code talking, I'll translate what that means for you.
It means that: (White) People are saying things which can be construed as being 'racist' (so long as you have the time and mental deficiency required to spend hours torturing racism from the context and subtext of their words), but which cannot be called racist at first glance, because there is no evidence to back that accusation up. However, since all white people speak a secret language (English is now a secret language?), anything they say can be construed as 'talking in code', and is therefore proof positive of their overt racism. After all, if they were talking to real people, they'd be using Ebonics or Spanglish (/sarcasm tag on).
This is the same thrust of most Diversity Training programs (Re-education classes), by the way -- you (White Person) are racist and don't even know it. We (minorities, gays, feminazis, transgendered tree frogs) hear it every time you open your mouth to speak. But that's okay: you can't help it -- it's cultural. Or embeddied in your DNA. We're not sure..Just believe it's true and we'll all get along better.
Here's the report, from AP (take it with a grain of salt), via Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_race_2
Uh-huh. The last refuge of a scoundrel is an accusation of racism, particularly an unfounded one. This is such a racist country that Barack Obama managed to garner a gazillion votes and be nominated for the highest office in the land. Facts are stubborn things, but never discount the abilitgy of a democrat to miss the obvious; they'll still make wildly innacurrate accusations, anyway. Especially if they're losing. Of course, if Obama came out and said something like this (actually, I'm certain Michelle Obama already has), he would be accused of whining, so they send a surrogate out to say it. And a white one at that, because, you know, she knows the 'code' (it's not strictly limited to use by white men). A wonderful little ploy: the candidate gets to accuse the American public of racism, and he can always say "Gov. Sebelius is entitled to her own opinion, and to express it. I've never asked her to say anything. But I abhor this injection of race into the campaign...the American people are better than that." Or words to that effect.
They call it 'plausible deniability'.
Expect riots in the streets on November 4th, when the aspirations of 90% of the black electorate, who show every sign of backing Obama even if it were suddenly discovered that he ate babies and kicked puppies for sport, have their demi-god go down in ignominious defeat. The stage is being set for a reprise of "Burn, Baby, Burn".
Couretesy of Kathleen Sebelius and the democratic party.
Echoing a recently-ubiquitous theme, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Moron - Kansas), has already begun throwing out the ready-made excuse for barack Obama's eventual defeat in November. Apparently, Obama will loose because his foes "speak in code". Having once been on the receiving end of an accusation of code talking, I'll translate what that means for you.
It means that: (White) People are saying things which can be construed as being 'racist' (so long as you have the time and mental deficiency required to spend hours torturing racism from the context and subtext of their words), but which cannot be called racist at first glance, because there is no evidence to back that accusation up. However, since all white people speak a secret language (English is now a secret language?), anything they say can be construed as 'talking in code', and is therefore proof positive of their overt racism. After all, if they were talking to real people, they'd be using Ebonics or Spanglish (/sarcasm tag on).
This is the same thrust of most Diversity Training programs (Re-education classes), by the way -- you (White Person) are racist and don't even know it. We (minorities, gays, feminazis, transgendered tree frogs) hear it every time you open your mouth to speak. But that's okay: you can't help it -- it's cultural. Or embeddied in your DNA. We're not sure..Just believe it's true and we'll all get along better.
Here's the report, from AP (take it with a grain of salt), via Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_race_2
Uh-huh. The last refuge of a scoundrel is an accusation of racism, particularly an unfounded one. This is such a racist country that Barack Obama managed to garner a gazillion votes and be nominated for the highest office in the land. Facts are stubborn things, but never discount the abilitgy of a democrat to miss the obvious; they'll still make wildly innacurrate accusations, anyway. Especially if they're losing. Of course, if Obama came out and said something like this (actually, I'm certain Michelle Obama already has), he would be accused of whining, so they send a surrogate out to say it. And a white one at that, because, you know, she knows the 'code' (it's not strictly limited to use by white men). A wonderful little ploy: the candidate gets to accuse the American public of racism, and he can always say "Gov. Sebelius is entitled to her own opinion, and to express it. I've never asked her to say anything. But I abhor this injection of race into the campaign...the American people are better than that." Or words to that effect.
They call it 'plausible deniability'.
Expect riots in the streets on November 4th, when the aspirations of 90% of the black electorate, who show every sign of backing Obama even if it were suddenly discovered that he ate babies and kicked puppies for sport, have their demi-god go down in ignominious defeat. The stage is being set for a reprise of "Burn, Baby, Burn".
Couretesy of Kathleen Sebelius and the democratic party.
Bring The Boys Back Home...After I Win, Of Course...
Amir Taheri recently wrote this column in the NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/);
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
The gist of the article is that while Barack Obama was publicaly telling Americans he wanted the troops home, post-haste, he was begging the Iraqi government, on the Q.T., to not negotiate a timetable for American withdrawl with the Bush Administration. He asked them to do this, apparently on the assumption that he would win the election, and therefore, take credit for the Troops Coming Home. God forbid, if you're Obama, that Geroge W. Bush succeed in bringing (any) troops home before Nov. 4, 2008; you've already pencilled that into the To Do List in your Day Planner for Jan 21, 2009.
The Obama campaign issued this denial, which will later be corrected and reissued as a statement, which will again be further refined and reissued as a clarification of Sentaor Obama's Position, which will later be further amended until Obama takes McCain's position on Iraq by officially saying "Yeah, what McCain said. me too!". That's how things work in Obamaland:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
This is pretty thin as far as a defense for the indefensible goes. Once again, the stark contrasts between McCain and Obama; McCain is a leader, Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer (contradiction in terms), and this becomes ever-more evident with each passing day as his campaign must continually issue statements like this one, coded in carefully-crafted, lawyer-quality Crapspeak.
McCain would never go, hat-in-hand, to the Iraqi government (two lies for the price of one) and beg them not to kick us out -- and then parade around in front of the American People saying we should leave Iraq, and oh, by the way, the Iraqis themselves want us to leave. Obama has beaten that drum far too many times, so when something like this is suggested he has a very difficult time squaring the stated policy with the known facts.
That's a bad thing if you want to be President of the United States.
Amir Taheri recently wrote this column in the NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/);
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
The gist of the article is that while Barack Obama was publicaly telling Americans he wanted the troops home, post-haste, he was begging the Iraqi government, on the Q.T., to not negotiate a timetable for American withdrawl with the Bush Administration. He asked them to do this, apparently on the assumption that he would win the election, and therefore, take credit for the Troops Coming Home. God forbid, if you're Obama, that Geroge W. Bush succeed in bringing (any) troops home before Nov. 4, 2008; you've already pencilled that into the To Do List in your Day Planner for Jan 21, 2009.
The Obama campaign issued this denial, which will later be corrected and reissued as a statement, which will again be further refined and reissued as a clarification of Sentaor Obama's Position, which will later be further amended until Obama takes McCain's position on Iraq by officially saying "Yeah, what McCain said. me too!". That's how things work in Obamaland:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
This is pretty thin as far as a defense for the indefensible goes. Once again, the stark contrasts between McCain and Obama; McCain is a leader, Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer (contradiction in terms), and this becomes ever-more evident with each passing day as his campaign must continually issue statements like this one, coded in carefully-crafted, lawyer-quality Crapspeak.
McCain would never go, hat-in-hand, to the Iraqi government (two lies for the price of one) and beg them not to kick us out -- and then parade around in front of the American People saying we should leave Iraq, and oh, by the way, the Iraqis themselves want us to leave. Obama has beaten that drum far too many times, so when something like this is suggested he has a very difficult time squaring the stated policy with the known facts.
That's a bad thing if you want to be President of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)