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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.