Thoughts go out to the millioins -- literally -- of people affected by Hurricane Sandy, or post-tropical sub-hurricane Sandy, or whatever the government's decided to call it now. Can you picture them? "Hmmm, we've changed the names of everything else to confuse people. What can we call this thing?" Ordinary citizens are much smarter. They call it a hurricane.
Even when it reaches Chicago.
Really high waves here. I'd go over to the beach to check it out, but where I live, the beach is on the other side of a large sort of wilderness park, and I'm sure the entrance is blocked off. It was blocked off for a whole season last year when we had our deroche -- straight winds -- thing that knocked out our electricity for a week or more.
So the residents of Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, etc -- they have my sympathy. And West Virginia, too, with two feet of snow. Life does not go on with no electricity.
Something to think about when pondering the shut-down of coal as a fuel by the EPA. As if the EPA can do a damn thing to change the climate. If the EPA wants to take credit for the apparenly huge and extremely destructive storms we've had over the past decade or so, while the EPA has been mandating and "fixing" things -- they can go right ahead. Otherwise, why not just shut your ugly regulatory face and find a real job?
Our best local weather guy, Tom Skilling, is on TV right now, giving the predictions. It's cold here -- probably in the 40s, if you live in Florida and consider that cold. Also windy here, and that could be a problem.
Very interesting, too, that Hurricane Sandy gave the Comrade the opportunity to "look presidential" during this last week before the election. Hey folks, don't you find it interesting that he's only "looked presidential" this last week -- out of four years.
You know what to do.
Save the Republic
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
March to the sound of the... winds?
In a rather peculiar statement the other day, Leon Panetta said that the miliatry was not deployed to help defend the Benghazi consulate because he didn't have much information about the situation on the ground, and he didn't want to send US troops into harm's way.
I'm sorry, even with the gravity of the situation in mind, this is kinda funny. First of all, the sole purpose of the military is to go into harm's way. That's their job. They're equipped to handle it. They train for it every day.
Second, General Scales was on Fox commenting on this, and he noted that a long-standing military principle is that if you don't exactly know where the battle is, you "march to the sound of the guns." That is to say, you head directly into harm's way.
Third, if you have two drones over Benghazi collecting information, including night visual and infrared images -- and at least one of them might well be armed -- as well as two experienced people on the ground who can target enemy weapons with laser systems, what more information do you need, exactly? Advice from the White House as to the political correctness of the whole thing? And really, would that come under the heading of "intelligence" after all?
Leon, were you ever in the army? Have you ever even read anything about military tactics? Intelligence on troop and weapons deployment is more a less a "nice-to-have" in a combat situation, but it's only been available for the last 100 years or so on a reliable basis -- only since aircraft has been able to do fly-overs, really. You can't even really trust spies all the time, spies being notoriously motivated by money rather than by any national allegiance.
Or, more to the point, does Panetta know nothing about military honor? About guys like Ty Woods and Glen Dougherty, who will rush to provide assistance even when ordered to "stand downn"? You don't even leave your own dead on the ground in enemy territory. What about that, Mr. Panetta, Comrade, Mdm. Hillary, and the whole pack of idiots. Didn't take that into account, did you? Possibly because it's a notion so far from your own thought processes.
But the Comrade is right on his toes in combatting Hurricane Sandy. As the storm works its way up the coast, the Big Zero is touring FEMA headquarters and making sure aid and assistance is standing by.
It's OK to write off an ambassador, his aide, and two former Navy SEALS, but God forbid the lights go out on the Jersey shore. Is that it?
Yup. Right on his toes.
Save the Republic.
I'm sorry, even with the gravity of the situation in mind, this is kinda funny. First of all, the sole purpose of the military is to go into harm's way. That's their job. They're equipped to handle it. They train for it every day.
Second, General Scales was on Fox commenting on this, and he noted that a long-standing military principle is that if you don't exactly know where the battle is, you "march to the sound of the guns." That is to say, you head directly into harm's way.
Third, if you have two drones over Benghazi collecting information, including night visual and infrared images -- and at least one of them might well be armed -- as well as two experienced people on the ground who can target enemy weapons with laser systems, what more information do you need, exactly? Advice from the White House as to the political correctness of the whole thing? And really, would that come under the heading of "intelligence" after all?
Leon, were you ever in the army? Have you ever even read anything about military tactics? Intelligence on troop and weapons deployment is more a less a "nice-to-have" in a combat situation, but it's only been available for the last 100 years or so on a reliable basis -- only since aircraft has been able to do fly-overs, really. You can't even really trust spies all the time, spies being notoriously motivated by money rather than by any national allegiance.
Or, more to the point, does Panetta know nothing about military honor? About guys like Ty Woods and Glen Dougherty, who will rush to provide assistance even when ordered to "stand downn"? You don't even leave your own dead on the ground in enemy territory. What about that, Mr. Panetta, Comrade, Mdm. Hillary, and the whole pack of idiots. Didn't take that into account, did you? Possibly because it's a notion so far from your own thought processes.
But the Comrade is right on his toes in combatting Hurricane Sandy. As the storm works its way up the coast, the Big Zero is touring FEMA headquarters and making sure aid and assistance is standing by.
It's OK to write off an ambassador, his aide, and two former Navy SEALS, but God forbid the lights go out on the Jersey shore. Is that it?
Yup. Right on his toes.
Save the Republic.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Obama, you are no Abraham Lincoln
During the Civil War, the telegraph was a relatively new and high-tech means of communication. Matter of fact, in the vicinity of any battle, it was nearly impossible, even for reporters, to use the telegraph because it was held exclusively for military communication. The Army carried cable with them and strung telegraph lines through the trees or whatever they could find, linking to whatever trunk line was available. And you always knew the enemy was about when the lines were cut.
So Lincon was known to spend considerable time hanging around the telegraph office in Washington, DC, when a battle was on or in the making. He wanted the latest news -- and oftentimes it just wasn't forthcoming. General Grant became somewhat notorious for not keeping in close touch -- at one point Lincoln sent a former New York Tribune reporter out to find out what the heck Grant was doing along the Mississippi River.
And keep in mind, too, that the big battles of the Civil War produced casualties -- dead and wounded -- often in the range of 10,000 to 15,000. Three days at Gettysburg racked up more than 40,000 casualties. Of course, that's counting both sides -- both were Americans.
At any rate, after one such horrendous battle, when Lincoln got the telegram regarding the outcome and the number of casualties... he was standing inside the telegraph office and turned to an aide and asked with grave sorrow, "What will we tell the people?"
In just about every case, Lincoln told the people the truth.
In one sense, Lincoln was compelled to tell the truth. Newspsper correspondents traveled with the armies at the time -- though they were despised by most generals and given little comfort -- Sherman even tried to have one hanged at one time -- and it was the correspondents who initially collected the names and numbers of the casualties. Long lists of casualties would be posted outside newspaper offices so people could see if their sons, brothers, husbands, were among them.
And the press, though it rooted noisily for its own side in the war, was often just as loudly critical of Lincoln. While he was in office, Lincoln was probably one of the most unpopular and reviled presidents the US has ever had. After Lincoln showed up at Gettysburg -- 10 months after the battle -- to open the military cemetary there, the brief speech he delivered was dismissed in one newspaper as "the stupid remarks of the president."
But Lincoln told the truth. And he looked at those casualty numbers every damn day, the burden of that no doubt the heaviest responsibility he had to carry.
1864 was an election year -- the campaign running as the war ground on. Grant was stalled outside Richmond, and Sherman was on the march toward Atlanta, very slowly and meeting resistance all along the way.
The Republicans didn't believe Lincoln had even a remote chance to be re-elected, and his democrat challenger, George McClellan, had been a very poipular, if notably ineffectual, war general.
Lincoln let his party know that he'd step down and let them nominate another candidate. Even he didn't think he could win.
Because Lincoln not only told told the truth, but he looked at it closely and accepted it for what it was. And if he didn't tell the truth, the press of the day would happily rat him out.
OK, so right now, all kinds of reports coming out -- by the hour almost -- about the fiasco in Benghazi. Apparently the two SEALS who were the last Americans standing, had repeatedly requested support. There was military in Tripoli, Libya's capitol city, and also an USAF base in Sigorella, Italy, about two hours away.
The fight went on for seven hours. The two former SEALS, among others, requested aid. Ambassador Chris Stevens had, for weeks, requested greater security measures. The consulate in Benghazi had been attacked twice already.
The State Department and the Department of Defense -- and God knows who else -- denied any help or assistance. Leon Panetta, from DoD, says they didn't know what things were like on the ground (despite having access to real-time video of the attack via a hovering drone), and refused to send any assistance. Senator John McCain told Fox News that though there were troops in Tripoli and elsewhere, they had no plan for deployment. They wouldn't know how to assemble themselves to take quick action and were never given any order to do so.
At the White House, the president apparently was sharpening up his blackjack skills in anticipation of his trip to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, the sickening images from the drone playing in the background, emails coming in right and left about the attack.
Stevens and an aide died of asphixiatioin in the "safe haven" of the consulate, which the terrorists had set on fire. The two former SEALS died fighting from rooftops at another "safe house" about a mile from the consulate. All alone. No back-up. No support.
And wht did the Comrade tell the people?
This makes me truly sick and depressed.
And by the way, General W.T. Sherman finally occupied Atlanta in September, 1864, and news of the victory was one key factor in Lincoln's re-nomination and re-election.
Thankfully, it kinda looks like the Comrade is going to get exactly the kind of support and concern he's given to others. He's dropping in the polls and doesn't look like he's going to recover.
Huzzah!
Save the Republic.
So Lincon was known to spend considerable time hanging around the telegraph office in Washington, DC, when a battle was on or in the making. He wanted the latest news -- and oftentimes it just wasn't forthcoming. General Grant became somewhat notorious for not keeping in close touch -- at one point Lincoln sent a former New York Tribune reporter out to find out what the heck Grant was doing along the Mississippi River.
And keep in mind, too, that the big battles of the Civil War produced casualties -- dead and wounded -- often in the range of 10,000 to 15,000. Three days at Gettysburg racked up more than 40,000 casualties. Of course, that's counting both sides -- both were Americans.
At any rate, after one such horrendous battle, when Lincoln got the telegram regarding the outcome and the number of casualties... he was standing inside the telegraph office and turned to an aide and asked with grave sorrow, "What will we tell the people?"
In just about every case, Lincoln told the people the truth.
In one sense, Lincoln was compelled to tell the truth. Newspsper correspondents traveled with the armies at the time -- though they were despised by most generals and given little comfort -- Sherman even tried to have one hanged at one time -- and it was the correspondents who initially collected the names and numbers of the casualties. Long lists of casualties would be posted outside newspaper offices so people could see if their sons, brothers, husbands, were among them.
And the press, though it rooted noisily for its own side in the war, was often just as loudly critical of Lincoln. While he was in office, Lincoln was probably one of the most unpopular and reviled presidents the US has ever had. After Lincoln showed up at Gettysburg -- 10 months after the battle -- to open the military cemetary there, the brief speech he delivered was dismissed in one newspaper as "the stupid remarks of the president."
But Lincoln told the truth. And he looked at those casualty numbers every damn day, the burden of that no doubt the heaviest responsibility he had to carry.
1864 was an election year -- the campaign running as the war ground on. Grant was stalled outside Richmond, and Sherman was on the march toward Atlanta, very slowly and meeting resistance all along the way.
The Republicans didn't believe Lincoln had even a remote chance to be re-elected, and his democrat challenger, George McClellan, had been a very poipular, if notably ineffectual, war general.
Lincoln let his party know that he'd step down and let them nominate another candidate. Even he didn't think he could win.
Because Lincoln not only told told the truth, but he looked at it closely and accepted it for what it was. And if he didn't tell the truth, the press of the day would happily rat him out.
OK, so right now, all kinds of reports coming out -- by the hour almost -- about the fiasco in Benghazi. Apparently the two SEALS who were the last Americans standing, had repeatedly requested support. There was military in Tripoli, Libya's capitol city, and also an USAF base in Sigorella, Italy, about two hours away.
The fight went on for seven hours. The two former SEALS, among others, requested aid. Ambassador Chris Stevens had, for weeks, requested greater security measures. The consulate in Benghazi had been attacked twice already.
The State Department and the Department of Defense -- and God knows who else -- denied any help or assistance. Leon Panetta, from DoD, says they didn't know what things were like on the ground (despite having access to real-time video of the attack via a hovering drone), and refused to send any assistance. Senator John McCain told Fox News that though there were troops in Tripoli and elsewhere, they had no plan for deployment. They wouldn't know how to assemble themselves to take quick action and were never given any order to do so.
At the White House, the president apparently was sharpening up his blackjack skills in anticipation of his trip to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, the sickening images from the drone playing in the background, emails coming in right and left about the attack.
Stevens and an aide died of asphixiatioin in the "safe haven" of the consulate, which the terrorists had set on fire. The two former SEALS died fighting from rooftops at another "safe house" about a mile from the consulate. All alone. No back-up. No support.
And wht did the Comrade tell the people?
This makes me truly sick and depressed.
And by the way, General W.T. Sherman finally occupied Atlanta in September, 1864, and news of the victory was one key factor in Lincoln's re-nomination and re-election.
Thankfully, it kinda looks like the Comrade is going to get exactly the kind of support and concern he's given to others. He's dropping in the polls and doesn't look like he's going to recover.
Huzzah!
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
President fiddles while Benghazi burns
CBS News released copies of emails tonight that reveal that the president and all the other dopes in the White House knew that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked as it was happening, and probably watched the assault from the Oval Office.
No doubt as the Comrade was getting ready to fly to Vegas for his fundraiser.
I'm sorry. I'm so disgusted I can't even think straight.
Who on earth would vote for this pathetic blockhead in the White House? I can't even believe that he managed to sneak his sorry ass past the American public to be elected in the first place.
I mean really -- wouldn't you hope if your house was on fire and you were locked inside that someone would at least call the Fire Department?
The attack went on for seven hours. Seven hours.
And the the Comrade got on a plane and flew to Vegas, leaving his staff to formulate some stupid lie to tell the public to cover up his pathetic incompetence.
Has he not one tiny little particle of human decency?
To paraphrase Mrs. Comrade: This is the first time in my life I'm truly ashamed of my country.
Save the Republic.
No doubt as the Comrade was getting ready to fly to Vegas for his fundraiser.
I'm sorry. I'm so disgusted I can't even think straight.
Who on earth would vote for this pathetic blockhead in the White House? I can't even believe that he managed to sneak his sorry ass past the American public to be elected in the first place.
I mean really -- wouldn't you hope if your house was on fire and you were locked inside that someone would at least call the Fire Department?
The attack went on for seven hours. Seven hours.
And the the Comrade got on a plane and flew to Vegas, leaving his staff to formulate some stupid lie to tell the public to cover up his pathetic incompetence.
Has he not one tiny little particle of human decency?
To paraphrase Mrs. Comrade: This is the first time in my life I'm truly ashamed of my country.
Save the Republic.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Before the last presidential showdown
I wasn't going to write anything until the debate tonight was over, but I just can't resist. Just a few comments.
First, about Senator George McGovern passing away. Kind of an interesting person. When he ran against Nixon in 1972, I was in my first full-time job and was a member of the SEIU labor union -- had to join or you didn't work. At the time, it was part of the AFL-CIO. One of McGovern's campaign promises was to provide every American with a "guaranteed minimum income," no matter what. No matter if they worked, didn't work, etc., we'd al be on the government payroll. That's cradle-to-grave socialism writ large -- and no one since has even approached that.
As a union member, I was informed along with everyone else that SEIU was donating our dues to the McGovern campaign. Where I worked, all of us union members were fuirous over the guarateed minimum income -- I mean why should we work to support others who won't? Because of the anger from the membership, do believe the AFL-CIO didn't donate to either campaign that year. Shortly afterward, SEIU broke away from the AFL to become the loony communist organization it is today.
Back to McGovern, though. After he left politics, he tried to open a restaurant, and publicly complained about all the barriers the government had thrown up against launching a small business. He said he didn't realize while he was in the Senate how destructive those policies were.
Yeah, kinda depends on if you're a master or a slave, doesn't it?
David Axelrod and other of the Comrade's minions were swarming all over TV this weekend with their usual message. Apparently Rep. Darryl Issa released a number of unclassified emails and other communications Ambassador Chris Stevens and others had sent out regarding the security situation in Libya. Axelrod and the merry marxists claim it's very "unfair" using this tragedy as a political tool. So hiding the information from the public and lying about isn't using it as a political tool? Well, we know who the "tools" really are here.
More tools.... The New York Times came out with a story on Saturday claiming that Iran has agreed to sit down one-on-one with the US to negotiate about its nuclear program. However, the Times noted, the story was completely unconfirmed by anyone in the government, and even if there was such an agreement, the meetings wouldn't take place until after the electon. And... they might not ever take place at all.
Had to laugh. Apparently the Times reporter overheard some talk at a cocktail party or something and decided to pass it along. Or maybe the Times just made it all up to promote the Comrade. Based on the paper's recent record, whaddayathink?
Meanwhile, Gallup released its weekly poll results, showing Romney 51%, Comrade, 45%.
Gallup. The organization also says the numbers can fluctuate before the election.
But the "progressives" all have their panties in a twist. Another attack on their fantasies. Oh God! When will it end??
November 6 we can put them all to rest.
Save the Republic.
First, about Senator George McGovern passing away. Kind of an interesting person. When he ran against Nixon in 1972, I was in my first full-time job and was a member of the SEIU labor union -- had to join or you didn't work. At the time, it was part of the AFL-CIO. One of McGovern's campaign promises was to provide every American with a "guaranteed minimum income," no matter what. No matter if they worked, didn't work, etc., we'd al be on the government payroll. That's cradle-to-grave socialism writ large -- and no one since has even approached that.
As a union member, I was informed along with everyone else that SEIU was donating our dues to the McGovern campaign. Where I worked, all of us union members were fuirous over the guarateed minimum income -- I mean why should we work to support others who won't? Because of the anger from the membership, do believe the AFL-CIO didn't donate to either campaign that year. Shortly afterward, SEIU broke away from the AFL to become the loony communist organization it is today.
Back to McGovern, though. After he left politics, he tried to open a restaurant, and publicly complained about all the barriers the government had thrown up against launching a small business. He said he didn't realize while he was in the Senate how destructive those policies were.
Yeah, kinda depends on if you're a master or a slave, doesn't it?
David Axelrod and other of the Comrade's minions were swarming all over TV this weekend with their usual message. Apparently Rep. Darryl Issa released a number of unclassified emails and other communications Ambassador Chris Stevens and others had sent out regarding the security situation in Libya. Axelrod and the merry marxists claim it's very "unfair" using this tragedy as a political tool. So hiding the information from the public and lying about isn't using it as a political tool? Well, we know who the "tools" really are here.
More tools.... The New York Times came out with a story on Saturday claiming that Iran has agreed to sit down one-on-one with the US to negotiate about its nuclear program. However, the Times noted, the story was completely unconfirmed by anyone in the government, and even if there was such an agreement, the meetings wouldn't take place until after the electon. And... they might not ever take place at all.
Had to laugh. Apparently the Times reporter overheard some talk at a cocktail party or something and decided to pass it along. Or maybe the Times just made it all up to promote the Comrade. Based on the paper's recent record, whaddayathink?
Meanwhile, Gallup released its weekly poll results, showing Romney 51%, Comrade, 45%.
Gallup. The organization also says the numbers can fluctuate before the election.
But the "progressives" all have their panties in a twist. Another attack on their fantasies. Oh God! When will it end??
November 6 we can put them all to rest.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
President admits lies about Libya attack
Did you see the Presidential debate last night? Interesting. The Comrade was teed off that anyone should question his judgment or activites -- or lack of them. To paraphrase from Reap the Wild Wind, "God tells Obama and Obama tells the world." Is this whole campaign thing damaging his delusions? Nowhere to hide?
In one interesting moment, when one of the audience members asked about Libya, the Comrade said he had mentioned "acts of terror" in a speech he made in the White House Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the day after the attack at the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdred along with three other people.
Romney asked again, to clarify, did the Comrade just say he knew the attack was an "act of terror" on Sept. 12?
The Comrade noted the words were in his speech.
Modertor Candy Crawly then intervened, claiming that yes, indeed, the Comrade had used those very words, "act of terror" on Sept. 12. She failed to add, however, that he was referencing the World Trade Center attacks, not the ones in Libya.
And all the donkeys cheered. "Haha, Mitt, don't you look good with egg on your face!"
OK... so Romney then began to ask, "Why, then, Mr. President, did you send people out to five different news shows to claim the attack --"
Ms. Crawly decided to change the subject at thus point. And Romney's been criticized for not asking the question -- though God knows, he tried.
So I'll ask the question:
Mr. President, if you knew on Sept. 12 the attack on Libya on Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack, why did you lie about it for the next two weeks?
I'd love to hear his answer, but so far, just crickets.
We ony have to deal with a few more weeks of this crap anyway. Election looming.
Save the Republic.
In one interesting moment, when one of the audience members asked about Libya, the Comrade said he had mentioned "acts of terror" in a speech he made in the White House Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the day after the attack at the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdred along with three other people.
Romney asked again, to clarify, did the Comrade just say he knew the attack was an "act of terror" on Sept. 12?
The Comrade noted the words were in his speech.
Modertor Candy Crawly then intervened, claiming that yes, indeed, the Comrade had used those very words, "act of terror" on Sept. 12. She failed to add, however, that he was referencing the World Trade Center attacks, not the ones in Libya.
And all the donkeys cheered. "Haha, Mitt, don't you look good with egg on your face!"
OK... so Romney then began to ask, "Why, then, Mr. President, did you send people out to five different news shows to claim the attack --"
Ms. Crawly decided to change the subject at thus point. And Romney's been criticized for not asking the question -- though God knows, he tried.
So I'll ask the question:
Mr. President, if you knew on Sept. 12 the attack on Libya on Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack, why did you lie about it for the next two weeks?
I'd love to hear his answer, but so far, just crickets.
We ony have to deal with a few more weeks of this crap anyway. Election looming.
Save the Republic.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Pre-debate incidentals
Just sayin'....
I'm so sick of journalists and pundits and the Comrade's campaign staff whining about Romney and Ryan not revealing exactly what they want to cut from the federal budget.
For journalists and pundits, I suppose it gives them an issue, some point of possible conflict, something to ask about and to use as a form of criticism.
For the Comrade's campaign, it's like they're complaining about, "It's not fair. He's not giving us any material to use against him."
Because you know that's what they'd do. Like Romney's offhand mention of cutting funding to PBS, that Big Bird will have have to go. That was a central campaign issue for two or three days. Pretty pathetic. Although it was pointed out that Big Bird is a multi-million dollar enterprise and really doesn't need federal support via PBS.
During the -- I can't call it a "debate." During the Biden talkathon last week, Paul Ryan said he doesn't want to propose specific cuts during the campaign and get "locked into them." That does make sense to me. But what makes greater sense is that no matter what they mention, it'll be turned against them, may become a huge populist-type "movement," and advocates will come out with picket signs and flaming effigies in defense of it.
Like suppose Romney/Ryan suggests cutting subsitdies to golf courses. Sounds like it would hit the rich, right?
No, next day, you'd have hundreds of Tiger Woods wannabes chaining themselves to the flags on the green, screaming about denying the poor and middle class access to golf courses. The lawnkeepers will have to deploy the sprinklers to keep the place operational.
If you know anything about sales -- not marketing, advertising or public relations, but one-on-one sales -- you know that one of the first principles is to not ever give anyone a reason to say "no."
It's easier to say no than it is to say yes. "No" means doing nothing, sustaining the status quo, even if it's unsustainable. "Yes" means change. Work. Effort. In the case of federal subsidies and other supports, it means somebody is going to lose something,. What? No more shrimp on treadmills? Horrors! They're attacking the academic establishment. Pretty soon not one single American will be able to do algebra.
See what I mean? So yeah, just keep your own counsel until you can get some dems to buy into it and help you secure support.
That's all. Eagerly awaiting the town hall style debates tomorrow. The format is supposed to be better for the Comrade, but I don't know. I think the only thing he's really good at is reading a teleprompter.
Save the Republic.
I'm so sick of journalists and pundits and the Comrade's campaign staff whining about Romney and Ryan not revealing exactly what they want to cut from the federal budget.
For journalists and pundits, I suppose it gives them an issue, some point of possible conflict, something to ask about and to use as a form of criticism.
For the Comrade's campaign, it's like they're complaining about, "It's not fair. He's not giving us any material to use against him."
Because you know that's what they'd do. Like Romney's offhand mention of cutting funding to PBS, that Big Bird will have have to go. That was a central campaign issue for two or three days. Pretty pathetic. Although it was pointed out that Big Bird is a multi-million dollar enterprise and really doesn't need federal support via PBS.
During the -- I can't call it a "debate." During the Biden talkathon last week, Paul Ryan said he doesn't want to propose specific cuts during the campaign and get "locked into them." That does make sense to me. But what makes greater sense is that no matter what they mention, it'll be turned against them, may become a huge populist-type "movement," and advocates will come out with picket signs and flaming effigies in defense of it.
Like suppose Romney/Ryan suggests cutting subsitdies to golf courses. Sounds like it would hit the rich, right?
No, next day, you'd have hundreds of Tiger Woods wannabes chaining themselves to the flags on the green, screaming about denying the poor and middle class access to golf courses. The lawnkeepers will have to deploy the sprinklers to keep the place operational.
If you know anything about sales -- not marketing, advertising or public relations, but one-on-one sales -- you know that one of the first principles is to not ever give anyone a reason to say "no."
It's easier to say no than it is to say yes. "No" means doing nothing, sustaining the status quo, even if it's unsustainable. "Yes" means change. Work. Effort. In the case of federal subsidies and other supports, it means somebody is going to lose something,. What? No more shrimp on treadmills? Horrors! They're attacking the academic establishment. Pretty soon not one single American will be able to do algebra.
See what I mean? So yeah, just keep your own counsel until you can get some dems to buy into it and help you secure support.
That's all. Eagerly awaiting the town hall style debates tomorrow. The format is supposed to be better for the Comrade, but I don't know. I think the only thing he's really good at is reading a teleprompter.
Save the Republic.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Joe Biden, blowhard
Just imagine...
You had to go to this business conference in a small town. You don't know anyone in town or, really, anyone at the convention. You spent all day listeing to boring chatter from the podium. At lunch, a group of folks sharing a single employer invited you to sit at their table-for-eight. They're nice people, but the conversation descended into office gossip, and while you tried to look attentive, who really gives a damn?
So now 5:30, you get back to the hotel. Just want to order a room service dinner, take a shower, watch TV, call the family, go to bed and get up early for the flight home.
But, crossing the lobby, there's the bar off to one side. Dim, bluish lighting. Sounds of ice and glass tinkling. Maybe some kind of music.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice, quiet glass of wine to unwind for a moment?
So you go in. Sit at the sparsely populated end of the bar, order a white Zinfandel or somethuing. Watching the local news and the pathetic, locally-produced TV commercials.
Then some guy walks in, surrounded by what seems like a cloud of dust. Or something. He's loud. He's nicely dressed. You can smell his expensive cologne from across the room. He's stopping at all the tables on his way to the bar, greeting people, joking. However, it becomes apparent that those people don't know him, and while they're friendly -- a few toss a few quips back at him -- they don't really know him.
You assume he's an out of town traveler like yourself. And he must do this all the time, because he's got his act down pat.
The guy goes to the bar, slaps down a $100.00 and orders "Drinks for all my friends." You kinda think in the back of your mind, "Cool. So I get another $6.00 glass of wine for free."
Unfortunately, as the guys glances up and down the bar with mischievous eyes, his gaze falls on you.
Oh, jeez. Here he comes.
He stands next to you, at first. Bangs on the bar to make sure the bartender serves you that second glass of wine chop-chop (his own words.)
"Where ya from?" he asks loudly.
You say, "Chicago, but --"
"Chicago!" he booms with delight. Then begins a 15-minute harangue about all of his adventures in Chicago.
Meanwhile, the bartender brings your second glass of wine.
"So, you have a family?" he asks.
You mention a couple kids.
He launches into a string of anecdotes about his kides and grandkids, his glittering eyes fixed on you and demanding cheerful nods of acknowledgement to ensure that you're following his rather commonplace stories and not very insightful observations. After about 20 mnutes, your face begins to hurt, paralyzed into a compliant smile. You're exhausted emotionally, drained. You gulp down that second wine, looking for an escape.
"Let me buy you dinner!" the guy demands. Not asks. "Don't worry. It's all covered by the expense account." That's his idea of a joke.
"Well, I'm expecting a phone call," you try.
"Go on, take your call, I'll meet you in the dining room."
"Well...."
He's not getting it. But worse -- he is getting it. He knows you find him a rude bore, but he keeps on pushing, knowing you're too polite to suggest he go outside and play in the traffic.
Now he's leaning over you, being confidential, speaking quietly, very serious, his alcoholic sweet-sour breath enough to turn your stomach.
He's got his arm around your shoulder now. On and on about his life experiences, his family, his career. Made up tales freighted with a sloppy sentimentalilty. Absolutely convinced within his own mind that this is just as important to you as it is to him. Oh my God, is he going to cry now?
This is more or less my impression of Joe Biden. He acted like he was drunk or something during the debate with Paul Ryan last night. That is to say, Biden seems to recognize no boundaries of civil society. Or he's drunk or something, his inhibitions vanished. He apparently has no moral compass, except for maybe whatever he remembers from what the nuns taught him 40 or 50 years ago.
He heaves himself at you, his cup running over with a cartoonish sentimentality -- not genuine passion, but sentimentality, like something from a cheap sympathy card.
God, what an ass.
How can we get rid of this guy?
I think you know how.
Save the Republic.
You had to go to this business conference in a small town. You don't know anyone in town or, really, anyone at the convention. You spent all day listeing to boring chatter from the podium. At lunch, a group of folks sharing a single employer invited you to sit at their table-for-eight. They're nice people, but the conversation descended into office gossip, and while you tried to look attentive, who really gives a damn?
So now 5:30, you get back to the hotel. Just want to order a room service dinner, take a shower, watch TV, call the family, go to bed and get up early for the flight home.
But, crossing the lobby, there's the bar off to one side. Dim, bluish lighting. Sounds of ice and glass tinkling. Maybe some kind of music.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice, quiet glass of wine to unwind for a moment?
So you go in. Sit at the sparsely populated end of the bar, order a white Zinfandel or somethuing. Watching the local news and the pathetic, locally-produced TV commercials.
Then some guy walks in, surrounded by what seems like a cloud of dust. Or something. He's loud. He's nicely dressed. You can smell his expensive cologne from across the room. He's stopping at all the tables on his way to the bar, greeting people, joking. However, it becomes apparent that those people don't know him, and while they're friendly -- a few toss a few quips back at him -- they don't really know him.
You assume he's an out of town traveler like yourself. And he must do this all the time, because he's got his act down pat.
The guy goes to the bar, slaps down a $100.00 and orders "Drinks for all my friends." You kinda think in the back of your mind, "Cool. So I get another $6.00 glass of wine for free."
Unfortunately, as the guys glances up and down the bar with mischievous eyes, his gaze falls on you.
Oh, jeez. Here he comes.
He stands next to you, at first. Bangs on the bar to make sure the bartender serves you that second glass of wine chop-chop (his own words.)
"Where ya from?" he asks loudly.
You say, "Chicago, but --"
"Chicago!" he booms with delight. Then begins a 15-minute harangue about all of his adventures in Chicago.
Meanwhile, the bartender brings your second glass of wine.
"So, you have a family?" he asks.
You mention a couple kids.
He launches into a string of anecdotes about his kides and grandkids, his glittering eyes fixed on you and demanding cheerful nods of acknowledgement to ensure that you're following his rather commonplace stories and not very insightful observations. After about 20 mnutes, your face begins to hurt, paralyzed into a compliant smile. You're exhausted emotionally, drained. You gulp down that second wine, looking for an escape.
"Let me buy you dinner!" the guy demands. Not asks. "Don't worry. It's all covered by the expense account." That's his idea of a joke.
"Well, I'm expecting a phone call," you try.
"Go on, take your call, I'll meet you in the dining room."
"Well...."
He's not getting it. But worse -- he is getting it. He knows you find him a rude bore, but he keeps on pushing, knowing you're too polite to suggest he go outside and play in the traffic.
Now he's leaning over you, being confidential, speaking quietly, very serious, his alcoholic sweet-sour breath enough to turn your stomach.
He's got his arm around your shoulder now. On and on about his life experiences, his family, his career. Made up tales freighted with a sloppy sentimentalilty. Absolutely convinced within his own mind that this is just as important to you as it is to him. Oh my God, is he going to cry now?
This is more or less my impression of Joe Biden. He acted like he was drunk or something during the debate with Paul Ryan last night. That is to say, Biden seems to recognize no boundaries of civil society. Or he's drunk or something, his inhibitions vanished. He apparently has no moral compass, except for maybe whatever he remembers from what the nuns taught him 40 or 50 years ago.
He heaves himself at you, his cup running over with a cartoonish sentimentality -- not genuine passion, but sentimentality, like something from a cheap sympathy card.
God, what an ass.
How can we get rid of this guy?
I think you know how.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Libyan hearings
I'm currently watching snippets of the congressional hearing about the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11.
So far, several witnesses, a couple of whom served in Libya this year in the security organization, noted that the consulate compound was fortified to some degree, but also that additional boots-on-the-ground security was requested, but denied.
This broadcast is interlaced with discussion and commentary on other topics. Like they had Kirsten Powers commenting on the White House calling Romney a liar, following the debate where the Comrade came off kinda looking like the walking dead. Kirsten noted that the Comrade's campaign staff has to promote the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" campaign because that's their operational strategy right now.
Pathetic? Desperate? Unworthy of anyone running for any office in the USA?
Kirsten Powers also made the sometimes valid -- but not often anymore -- point that what either side might call "a lie" may be nothing more than a difference in the way something is interpreted.
However, I don't know how you can interpret this Benghazi fiasco as anything but a lie. The State department -- and probably the White House -- knew that the consulate was in a very dangerous position and in vulnerable circumstances, since the security there failed to meet the security standards set for outposts in unstable, even hostile areas.
They knew the place was understaffed in terms of security. Additionally, the State department -- and no doubt the White House -- understood that the Benghazi consulate was enduring a terrorist attack even while it was happening.
The State department -- and the White House - then promptly fabricated this stupid story about a video shaking up the loonies in the Middle East. State and the White House just made that up.
That's a LIE. That's not a valid alternative interpretation of the facts. That's a deliberate LIE.
Jay Carneybarker right now is concocting excuses about why the White House LIED about this event. He's a joke. And an insult to human intelligence. And all of them disgrace the nation.
And Chris Stevens (yeah, I'm spelling his name right this time), and three other Americans are dead because of the incompetence of Hillary Clinton and the State department, and the White House, all of whom refused to recognize any FACTS that conflict with their utopian view of reality. I mean, how do they formulate policy under the Comrade? Sit around a big table and say, "Let's pretend muslim crazies see us as champions and allies, how do we behave?" Not considering that that assumption -- about how the crazies see us -- is a totally made up scenario.
Are these people nuts? Dangerously nuts? To paraphrase a cliche from the UFO world: Do they have to land on the White House lawn before we accept what they are?
Can we afford another four more years or this fantasyland policymaking? And then the insulting LIES when the policy fails?
Charles Krauthammer said he believes Hillary Clinton should resign due to the Libya failure. Yeah, I agree. If she had any honor, she would. But when have any of the Clintons ever had any honor? And she's not the only one who should resign.
That's all.
Save the Republic. Vote for Romney and Ryan. I'd say "vote for anybody but Obama" but we need to get a majority to dislodge Comrade Butthead from the White House. And the donkeys he rode in on.
So far, several witnesses, a couple of whom served in Libya this year in the security organization, noted that the consulate compound was fortified to some degree, but also that additional boots-on-the-ground security was requested, but denied.
This broadcast is interlaced with discussion and commentary on other topics. Like they had Kirsten Powers commenting on the White House calling Romney a liar, following the debate where the Comrade came off kinda looking like the walking dead. Kirsten noted that the Comrade's campaign staff has to promote the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" campaign because that's their operational strategy right now.
Pathetic? Desperate? Unworthy of anyone running for any office in the USA?
Kirsten Powers also made the sometimes valid -- but not often anymore -- point that what either side might call "a lie" may be nothing more than a difference in the way something is interpreted.
However, I don't know how you can interpret this Benghazi fiasco as anything but a lie. The State department -- and probably the White House -- knew that the consulate was in a very dangerous position and in vulnerable circumstances, since the security there failed to meet the security standards set for outposts in unstable, even hostile areas.
They knew the place was understaffed in terms of security. Additionally, the State department -- and no doubt the White House -- understood that the Benghazi consulate was enduring a terrorist attack even while it was happening.
The State department -- and the White House - then promptly fabricated this stupid story about a video shaking up the loonies in the Middle East. State and the White House just made that up.
That's a LIE. That's not a valid alternative interpretation of the facts. That's a deliberate LIE.
Jay Carneybarker right now is concocting excuses about why the White House LIED about this event. He's a joke. And an insult to human intelligence. And all of them disgrace the nation.
And Chris Stevens (yeah, I'm spelling his name right this time), and three other Americans are dead because of the incompetence of Hillary Clinton and the State department, and the White House, all of whom refused to recognize any FACTS that conflict with their utopian view of reality. I mean, how do they formulate policy under the Comrade? Sit around a big table and say, "Let's pretend muslim crazies see us as champions and allies, how do we behave?" Not considering that that assumption -- about how the crazies see us -- is a totally made up scenario.
Are these people nuts? Dangerously nuts? To paraphrase a cliche from the UFO world: Do they have to land on the White House lawn before we accept what they are?
Can we afford another four more years or this fantasyland policymaking? And then the insulting LIES when the policy fails?
Charles Krauthammer said he believes Hillary Clinton should resign due to the Libya failure. Yeah, I agree. If she had any honor, she would. But when have any of the Clintons ever had any honor? And she's not the only one who should resign.
That's all.
Save the Republic. Vote for Romney and Ryan. I'd say "vote for anybody but Obama" but we need to get a majority to dislodge Comrade Butthead from the White House. And the donkeys he rode in on.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Straw men, demogogues, and psychopaths, or the Obama campaign
Well, the dems have come out, guns blazing, repeating over and over again how Mitt Romney is a liar. They say he has promised a $500 billion tax cut for the rich, and now he denies it. Or maybe it's $500 trillion -- it's over about a 10-year period, I believe. Why not $800 gazillion? Yeah, that's the ticket.
You know, I've been listening very closely and I don't recall Mitt Romney ever promising any kind of a tax cut that would affect the rich in particular. He's proposing a 20% cut in tax RATES across the board and closing loopholes in the tax code. Paul Ryan -- Romney's running mate, by the way -- has pointed out that most of the really lucrative tax loopholes were established by legislators and target particular wealthy organizations headquarteded in their districts. Like GE, which paid no federal taxes in 2010 (or was it 2011?)
Closing the loopholes will impact some specific taxpayers -- largely very wealthy ones, and perhaps some whole industries with very effective lobbyists.
Far as I know, Romney has NEVER proposed a tax cut for the wealthy. I even read his 59-point program, and don't recall a tax break for the rich. I think I would have remembered that. Additonally, the dems claim that a Princeton economist named Rosen "proved" with arithmetic that Romney's plan to cut taxes for the rich would blow a hole in the federal budget and compel a big tax hike on the middle class to make up for it. However, Rosen has come out and said he thinks Romney's tax plan would be "revenue neutral" -- this is, pay for itself -- and stimulate economic growth. The growth would cover the cut in tax rates. And he never considered it a tax cut for the rich alone.
The tax-cut-for-the-wealthy accusation was a myth, as Marco Rubio might say, that the dems made up to try to paint Romney as some kind of greed-driven, demonic reincarnation of Satan. It also makes the Comrade's neurotic obsession about taxing the rich look like some kind of real issue instead of just his personal marxist hobbyhorse.
Straw men
It's always a good idea to familiarize yourself with the "official" rules of logic. Certain fallacies exist, or errors in logic, meaning you aren't thinking clearly. Aristotle invented logic. The Comrade can't blame Republicans for that.
Logic defines what's called a "straw man argument" as one possible fallacy, or a device often used to confuse logic. So what is a straw man?
A straw man is a fabricated enemy or issue that doesn't exist in reality, but serves as a threat of some kind, or a point to argue against.
It's like if I said, "Those cheeseheads in Wisconsin are killing all the cattle in Illinois because they want the dairy market all to themselves." Not true, but gives my "followers" among the lunatic frings a rallying point to arm themselves and stand guard at the Wisconsin border.
It's like saying the rich are the ones who have wrecked the US economy and they must be taxed into povety, or regulated so heavily they can't make any money and will be forced out of Wall street, or possibly, they should all be rounded up and imprisoned in the Thompson Correctional Center.
It's a tactic of demagogues -- who, thoughout history, have been loud-mouthed rabble-rousers, usually very personable and likable, but generally holding destructive or power-mad intentions. They often whip up the population against vulnerable groups or "enemies on the border." Hitler did this to the Jews. Iran's Abracadabrajab does it to Israelis and Americans.
But the fact is, with straw man tactics, there is no issue. It's all a Big Lie. It's done just to scare people, whip them up, unify them into a crazed mob, get them running through the streets with torches, looking for the monster. You get the idea. Think Boris Karlof in Transylvania.
So the dems spent -- what was it? -- approximately $150 million in campaign funds producing ads that created an evil demon straw man that they named "Mitt Romney."
The only problem is, Romney is alive and well and very well capable of defeating this stupid argument simply by showing his rather well-intentioned, affable face on TV during a presidential debate, and making 67 million viewers scratch their heads and ask, "So where are his horns? Seems like a very decent, well-informed, and capable man to me."
Demagogues and psychopaths
The Comrade, on the other hand, is a very different story. He's almost a classic example of "demagogue." You can look that up. Those guys often are genuinely evil, and many clearly have been certifiable psychopaths. Not all, but many. Psychopaths have no empathy or compassiom for other human beings or anything else, for that matter. They feel no guilt, ever. They can kill and destroy without hesitation, and they often do if it brings them some advantage. Many serial killers also are psychopaths.
Curiously enough, like demagogues, many psychopaths are notably charming and attractive as individuals, though very often, others complain that it's impossible to share any real intimacy with them. Like Ted Bundy. And although psychopaths can have various goals, it seems as a general rule of thumb that what they want is control -- over their friends, families, victims. They usually want to run things.
In one rather gruesome but illustrative example, the Green River murderer, a serial killer, told the cops he disposed of the bodies of his victims in clusters of four or five because he could control them batter that way. These are corpses we're talking about. Perhaps a precursor to the current popular rage about zombies?
And this whole thing about Romney lying -- exactly what is Romney supposed to have lied about? The policies he's proposing? What? If he wanted to change them, he could simply change them. Why would he lie about it? He'd probably call a press conference and frame the shift as his way of offering an olive branch to democrats, proving he's willing to "work across the aisle."
So, I leave it up to the reader. Who's the liar here? Who, in fact, has a lifelong history of lies and deceptions, and is, to summarize, not much more than a big, gassy fraud? Sailing along by preying on white liberal guilt and black paranoia -- selling Harvard on his birth in Kenya -- oh yes, that's what Harvard thought. And that's documented. As presedent of the Harvard Review, he was described as "born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia." Probably to present himself as some sort of exotic and beg for a scholarship. That's probably why he hides his Harvard records.
By contrast, who has lived in somewhat of the political limelight all his life, his father being a governor? Who served as a bishop in his church, has a long record of extending aid and support to others -- and doesn't like to talk about it. Turned around a near-bankrupt Olympic games as well as the State of Massachusetts, and accomplished all this in his spare time while he was building a company and accumulating millions of dollars?
So who's more credible? You decide.
Save the Republic.
You know, I've been listening very closely and I don't recall Mitt Romney ever promising any kind of a tax cut that would affect the rich in particular. He's proposing a 20% cut in tax RATES across the board and closing loopholes in the tax code. Paul Ryan -- Romney's running mate, by the way -- has pointed out that most of the really lucrative tax loopholes were established by legislators and target particular wealthy organizations headquarteded in their districts. Like GE, which paid no federal taxes in 2010 (or was it 2011?)
Closing the loopholes will impact some specific taxpayers -- largely very wealthy ones, and perhaps some whole industries with very effective lobbyists.
Far as I know, Romney has NEVER proposed a tax cut for the wealthy. I even read his 59-point program, and don't recall a tax break for the rich. I think I would have remembered that. Additonally, the dems claim that a Princeton economist named Rosen "proved" with arithmetic that Romney's plan to cut taxes for the rich would blow a hole in the federal budget and compel a big tax hike on the middle class to make up for it. However, Rosen has come out and said he thinks Romney's tax plan would be "revenue neutral" -- this is, pay for itself -- and stimulate economic growth. The growth would cover the cut in tax rates. And he never considered it a tax cut for the rich alone.
The tax-cut-for-the-wealthy accusation was a myth, as Marco Rubio might say, that the dems made up to try to paint Romney as some kind of greed-driven, demonic reincarnation of Satan. It also makes the Comrade's neurotic obsession about taxing the rich look like some kind of real issue instead of just his personal marxist hobbyhorse.
Straw men
It's always a good idea to familiarize yourself with the "official" rules of logic. Certain fallacies exist, or errors in logic, meaning you aren't thinking clearly. Aristotle invented logic. The Comrade can't blame Republicans for that.
Logic defines what's called a "straw man argument" as one possible fallacy, or a device often used to confuse logic. So what is a straw man?
A straw man is a fabricated enemy or issue that doesn't exist in reality, but serves as a threat of some kind, or a point to argue against.
It's like if I said, "Those cheeseheads in Wisconsin are killing all the cattle in Illinois because they want the dairy market all to themselves." Not true, but gives my "followers" among the lunatic frings a rallying point to arm themselves and stand guard at the Wisconsin border.
It's like saying the rich are the ones who have wrecked the US economy and they must be taxed into povety, or regulated so heavily they can't make any money and will be forced out of Wall street, or possibly, they should all be rounded up and imprisoned in the Thompson Correctional Center.
It's a tactic of demagogues -- who, thoughout history, have been loud-mouthed rabble-rousers, usually very personable and likable, but generally holding destructive or power-mad intentions. They often whip up the population against vulnerable groups or "enemies on the border." Hitler did this to the Jews. Iran's Abracadabrajab does it to Israelis and Americans.
But the fact is, with straw man tactics, there is no issue. It's all a Big Lie. It's done just to scare people, whip them up, unify them into a crazed mob, get them running through the streets with torches, looking for the monster. You get the idea. Think Boris Karlof in Transylvania.
So the dems spent -- what was it? -- approximately $150 million in campaign funds producing ads that created an evil demon straw man that they named "Mitt Romney."
The only problem is, Romney is alive and well and very well capable of defeating this stupid argument simply by showing his rather well-intentioned, affable face on TV during a presidential debate, and making 67 million viewers scratch their heads and ask, "So where are his horns? Seems like a very decent, well-informed, and capable man to me."
Demagogues and psychopaths
The Comrade, on the other hand, is a very different story. He's almost a classic example of "demagogue." You can look that up. Those guys often are genuinely evil, and many clearly have been certifiable psychopaths. Not all, but many. Psychopaths have no empathy or compassiom for other human beings or anything else, for that matter. They feel no guilt, ever. They can kill and destroy without hesitation, and they often do if it brings them some advantage. Many serial killers also are psychopaths.
Curiously enough, like demagogues, many psychopaths are notably charming and attractive as individuals, though very often, others complain that it's impossible to share any real intimacy with them. Like Ted Bundy. And although psychopaths can have various goals, it seems as a general rule of thumb that what they want is control -- over their friends, families, victims. They usually want to run things.
In one rather gruesome but illustrative example, the Green River murderer, a serial killer, told the cops he disposed of the bodies of his victims in clusters of four or five because he could control them batter that way. These are corpses we're talking about. Perhaps a precursor to the current popular rage about zombies?
And this whole thing about Romney lying -- exactly what is Romney supposed to have lied about? The policies he's proposing? What? If he wanted to change them, he could simply change them. Why would he lie about it? He'd probably call a press conference and frame the shift as his way of offering an olive branch to democrats, proving he's willing to "work across the aisle."
So, I leave it up to the reader. Who's the liar here? Who, in fact, has a lifelong history of lies and deceptions, and is, to summarize, not much more than a big, gassy fraud? Sailing along by preying on white liberal guilt and black paranoia -- selling Harvard on his birth in Kenya -- oh yes, that's what Harvard thought. And that's documented. As presedent of the Harvard Review, he was described as "born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia." Probably to present himself as some sort of exotic and beg for a scholarship. That's probably why he hides his Harvard records.
By contrast, who has lived in somewhat of the political limelight all his life, his father being a governor? Who served as a bishop in his church, has a long record of extending aid and support to others -- and doesn't like to talk about it. Turned around a near-bankrupt Olympic games as well as the State of Massachusetts, and accomplished all this in his spare time while he was building a company and accumulating millions of dollars?
So who's more credible? You decide.
Save the Republic.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Debate aftershocks
Just watched Romney debate the Comrade in a rerun. The Comrade still sucks.
What's really funny, though, is watching the democrats fall apart. They are shocked! Shocked! that their sainted candidate, the guy portrayed with a halo around his head, has feet of clay after all. Or possibly a head of clay. And a bunch of failed policies.
I think I mentioned Chris Matthews sputtering and spitting performance only moments after the debate. Go watch his remarks on YouTube -- the longer version. Matthews goes on and on and on about how how MSNBC has worked to get the Comrade re-elected. Matthews suggested the Comrade watch his show to pick up tips on his campaign and effective talking points. Just bizarre.
Bill Maher, as noted, suggested that the Comrade may really NEED a teleprompter at all times. Since then, he's commented that perhaps that $1 million he donated to the Comrade's campaign went for something to smoke. The rats are among the first to abandon a sinking ship.
Al Gore noted that Denver's altituted is 5,000 feet, and the Comrade hadn't been there long enough to acclimatize himself. Apparently the Comrade was dim for lack of oxygen?
Have no idea what the blockheads on The View" might be saying. I've never seeen that show all the way through,. Joy Behar's voice is like nails on a blackboard for one thing. And I don't share their concept of what women are interested in.
Anything from Pazzo Pelosi or Brain-dead Harry Reid? I should Google this and see. They've probably both been hospitalized.
And the "official" dem campaign response? "Romney lied." Liked about what? About the unemployment stats? The number of people on food stamps?
Actually my favorite part of the debate was when the Comrade repeated several times that Romney isn't divulging his specific plans for tax cuts and so on. He said something like, "Is it too good for people to hear it?" Stuff like that.
Romney came back with a remark that he didn't believe in the approach where you present congress with a plan and say, "My way or the highway." Romney said he prefers to work "across the aisle," inviting the opposite party to participate. That would be refreshing, and incidentally, would end the gridlock in congress.
Anyway, all for now.... Oh, apparently the unemployment total went down, from 8.2% to 7.8% almost over night. Only 114,000 new jobs created, yet about a million people found work. It's a friggin' miracle.
But with Saint Comrade in office, we should be used to that, no?
Save the Republic.
What's really funny, though, is watching the democrats fall apart. They are shocked! Shocked! that their sainted candidate, the guy portrayed with a halo around his head, has feet of clay after all. Or possibly a head of clay. And a bunch of failed policies.
I think I mentioned Chris Matthews sputtering and spitting performance only moments after the debate. Go watch his remarks on YouTube -- the longer version. Matthews goes on and on and on about how how MSNBC has worked to get the Comrade re-elected. Matthews suggested the Comrade watch his show to pick up tips on his campaign and effective talking points. Just bizarre.
Bill Maher, as noted, suggested that the Comrade may really NEED a teleprompter at all times. Since then, he's commented that perhaps that $1 million he donated to the Comrade's campaign went for something to smoke. The rats are among the first to abandon a sinking ship.
Al Gore noted that Denver's altituted is 5,000 feet, and the Comrade hadn't been there long enough to acclimatize himself. Apparently the Comrade was dim for lack of oxygen?
Have no idea what the blockheads on The View" might be saying. I've never seeen that show all the way through,. Joy Behar's voice is like nails on a blackboard for one thing. And I don't share their concept of what women are interested in.
Anything from Pazzo Pelosi or Brain-dead Harry Reid? I should Google this and see. They've probably both been hospitalized.
And the "official" dem campaign response? "Romney lied." Liked about what? About the unemployment stats? The number of people on food stamps?
Actually my favorite part of the debate was when the Comrade repeated several times that Romney isn't divulging his specific plans for tax cuts and so on. He said something like, "Is it too good for people to hear it?" Stuff like that.
Romney came back with a remark that he didn't believe in the approach where you present congress with a plan and say, "My way or the highway." Romney said he prefers to work "across the aisle," inviting the opposite party to participate. That would be refreshing, and incidentally, would end the gridlock in congress.
Anyway, all for now.... Oh, apparently the unemployment total went down, from 8.2% to 7.8% almost over night. Only 114,000 new jobs created, yet about a million people found work. It's a friggin' miracle.
But with Saint Comrade in office, we should be used to that, no?
Save the Republic.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Romney 1, Obama 0
Well, I don't know what to say after all the usual pundits have had it.
Checked in on MSNBC to see Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and that fat, insulting slob with the radio show whose name I can't recall looking all shocked and indignant. Al Sharpton insisting that Romney was lying.
I think Marco Rubio had it right. He told Sean Hannity that the democrat narrative has been nothing but a collection of lies based on mythical assumptions and misconceptions. Romney disproved all that crap just by his sharpness, obvious concern for other people and the nation, and his very facile knowledge of the issues.
Obama looked, in turns, either really pissed off or like he was about to cry. He couldn't explain anything. He bumbled. For pity sake, no less an asshole than Bill Maher Tweeted that maybe it's true, Obama is lost without a teleprompter.
Seems like Obama believed all he had to do was show up, beam a smile at the camera, and he'd sweep it all.
Didn't work. At one point in the discussion on taxes, Obama asked moderator Jim Lehrer to change the subject. Good grief.
Sarah Palin told Hannity that it's the first time Obama has been questioned abiout anything but his favorite kind of pizza since he's been in office. When confronted, as Romney respectfully but assertively confronted him, Obama just kind of stammered and groped for the cliches and platitudes his campaign workers have dreamed up for him. He looked entirely inept and ignorant. Could it be the emperor has no clothes?
Romney was very, very good. The Comrade sucked.
Save the Republic.
Checked in on MSNBC to see Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and that fat, insulting slob with the radio show whose name I can't recall looking all shocked and indignant. Al Sharpton insisting that Romney was lying.
I think Marco Rubio had it right. He told Sean Hannity that the democrat narrative has been nothing but a collection of lies based on mythical assumptions and misconceptions. Romney disproved all that crap just by his sharpness, obvious concern for other people and the nation, and his very facile knowledge of the issues.
Obama looked, in turns, either really pissed off or like he was about to cry. He couldn't explain anything. He bumbled. For pity sake, no less an asshole than Bill Maher Tweeted that maybe it's true, Obama is lost without a teleprompter.
Seems like Obama believed all he had to do was show up, beam a smile at the camera, and he'd sweep it all.
Didn't work. At one point in the discussion on taxes, Obama asked moderator Jim Lehrer to change the subject. Good grief.
Sarah Palin told Hannity that it's the first time Obama has been questioned abiout anything but his favorite kind of pizza since he's been in office. When confronted, as Romney respectfully but assertively confronted him, Obama just kind of stammered and groped for the cliches and platitudes his campaign workers have dreamed up for him. He looked entirely inept and ignorant. Could it be the emperor has no clothes?
Romney was very, very good. The Comrade sucked.
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Those crazy democrats
Interesting week for the democrat party.
Last week, Madonna, dressed in some kind of 1930s-style satin bombshell outfit, complete with a fetching beret, exuberantly announced that she supported the "black muslim" in the White House. I guess someone informed her that the Comrade says he's not muslim. So today, she issued a clarifying statement to explain that no one should care what religion he is. In a way, she kinda reinforced her first claim.
Also today, that lovable V.P. Joe Biden gave a speech somewhere, telling everyone that "the middle class has been buried for the last four years!" What was he, drunk or something? Or a Freudian slip? He's such an asset to the Romney campaign. Paul Ryan jumped on it right away, agreeing with Biden whole-hearrtedly.
Viral on the Internet is a brief video of some welfare case in Ohio flashing her cell phone and saying she would keep on voting for the Comrade, since he's given "everybody" a cell phone -- everyone on welfare, disability, etc. etc. Very reminiscent of that yahoo in 2008 who proclaimed, "Obama gonna pay my rent! Obama gonna buy my gas!" Wonder how that's working out for her.
The conservative online news site, Daily Caller, released the unedited video of a speech the Comrade gave in June, 2007, to a group of black preachers, apparently in or around New Orleans. Doing his best "Buckwheat" impression, no doubt trying to convince the audience that he really is black (a racist posture to say the least), the Comrade carefully explains how New Orleans got screwed on federal aid after Hurricane Katrina.
He said New York City and 9/11 survivors got a lot more assistance, because the Stafford Act, which asks states to kick in 10% of federal disaster aid, was waived. The Comrade says New York got the whole bundle of aid without the state paying anything. Likewise, he continued, Florida after Hurricane Andrew got the whole enchilada with no state contribution. But New Orleans, he said, wasn't getting anything.
Well, they got like $7 billion, and Louisiana was not required to kick anything in.
So he's a liar. But we already knew that. And using some Saul Alinsky tactic -- creating a straw man enemy to inspire his audience to stand strong against him, "Him" in this case being white people, I guess. Yeah, he works so hard at unifying people.
In the same speech, he slobbered all over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was in the audience.
There's more, I'm sure, but I'm very tired and have a lot of work to do. And tomorrow is the first Presidential debate, so I've got to get up early tomorrow, get it all done so I can watch.
This should be interesting.
Save the Republic.
Last week, Madonna, dressed in some kind of 1930s-style satin bombshell outfit, complete with a fetching beret, exuberantly announced that she supported the "black muslim" in the White House. I guess someone informed her that the Comrade says he's not muslim. So today, she issued a clarifying statement to explain that no one should care what religion he is. In a way, she kinda reinforced her first claim.
Also today, that lovable V.P. Joe Biden gave a speech somewhere, telling everyone that "the middle class has been buried for the last four years!" What was he, drunk or something? Or a Freudian slip? He's such an asset to the Romney campaign. Paul Ryan jumped on it right away, agreeing with Biden whole-hearrtedly.
Viral on the Internet is a brief video of some welfare case in Ohio flashing her cell phone and saying she would keep on voting for the Comrade, since he's given "everybody" a cell phone -- everyone on welfare, disability, etc. etc. Very reminiscent of that yahoo in 2008 who proclaimed, "Obama gonna pay my rent! Obama gonna buy my gas!" Wonder how that's working out for her.
The conservative online news site, Daily Caller, released the unedited video of a speech the Comrade gave in June, 2007, to a group of black preachers, apparently in or around New Orleans. Doing his best "Buckwheat" impression, no doubt trying to convince the audience that he really is black (a racist posture to say the least), the Comrade carefully explains how New Orleans got screwed on federal aid after Hurricane Katrina.
He said New York City and 9/11 survivors got a lot more assistance, because the Stafford Act, which asks states to kick in 10% of federal disaster aid, was waived. The Comrade says New York got the whole bundle of aid without the state paying anything. Likewise, he continued, Florida after Hurricane Andrew got the whole enchilada with no state contribution. But New Orleans, he said, wasn't getting anything.
Well, they got like $7 billion, and Louisiana was not required to kick anything in.
So he's a liar. But we already knew that. And using some Saul Alinsky tactic -- creating a straw man enemy to inspire his audience to stand strong against him, "Him" in this case being white people, I guess. Yeah, he works so hard at unifying people.
In the same speech, he slobbered all over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was in the audience.
There's more, I'm sure, but I'm very tired and have a lot of work to do. And tomorrow is the first Presidential debate, so I've got to get up early tomorrow, get it all done so I can watch.
This should be interesting.
Save the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)