MucheDumbre

Hypocrisy

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

If there is one party who can really step into a mess, it’s the Democratic party.

If there is one party who can exploit that mess, it’s the Republican party. The republicans have a viciousness to them, a ‘pit bull’ streak that finds an opening and goes in for the kill. And like any wild animal when cornered, the attack is bloody and savage. Just look at the attacks on Nancy Pelosi over the last couple of weeks.

“I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

“She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior.” -Newt Gingrich

Accusations of ‘viciously using partisanship’ from Newt Gingrich are not only comical but over the top,unabated, pure hypocrisy. Newt is the poster child for being the loudest one to complain, condemn and prosecute  someone else for doing exactly the same thing he was secretly doing.  As if his infidelity while his mission to attack Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair wasn’t proof enough of his hypocrisy, his problem of using tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals should have limited his ‘Pelosi dishonors Congress’ rhetoric. But, it didn’t.

Newt is old news though, an unimportant politically partisan pitbull hoping his hypocrisy has been forgiven. It hasn’t.  But what about newer more relevant GOP members?

“Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime,” Boehner said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And if the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they can be prosecuted.”

He added: “And if that’s not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world.”

That’s right, Nancy Pelosi should apologize to the CIA from claiming that they have misinformed congress. It is a disparaging remark and like Boehner says, she needs to ‘put up or shut up’.

It doesn’t matter that Pelosi’s accusations that the CIA memo’s are misleading seem to be panning out or that even some Republicans agree that the briefing notes contain many errors, such as briefings that listed former Chairman Porter Goss as the head of committee when Rep. Pete Hoekstra had already taken over. Because Hoekstra says, those errors are meaningless

Of Course those errors are meaningless. It doesn’t matter that 2 separate briefings have a low-level staffer as  being in on the top-secret,code-word clearance briefings. It’s meaningless that this staffer says he was actually asked to leave, which would be expected since he  only  two walked members to the room. It doesn’t matter that this staffer,Paul Juola, has asked the CIA to “immediately correct this record.”

It doesn’t matter that former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham came out and said not only did the CIA hide details from him during his briefings, but that 3 of the 4 dates the CIA said they briefed Graham were in error

…he(Graham) asked agency officials to confirm how many times they briefed him on torture. They gave him four dates, but after Graham went through his personal records and disproved three of those dates, he said the agency admitted their mistake and confirmed that he had, in fact, received only one briefing.

When our intelligence agency says they briefed someone 4 times and they really only briefed them once, when they say the person who headed  the committee was someone who had already been replaced, when they say that they allowed a staffer in on a code-word clearance briefing, none of it is relevant, in fact it’s ‘meaningless’. But when you go out in public and say that the CIA is misleading congress, that disqualifies you as from continuing as speaker. Or so Newt Gingrich says.

“To have the person third in line to be president say that the CIA misleads us all the time is so utterly irresponsible and such an attack on the men and women who are risking their lives … that she disqualifies herself for being speaker of the House,”

Now, this has nothing to do with partisan attacks, Newt,Boehner and Hoekstra wouldn’t do that. No, they are truly outraged that someone would smear the CIA by claiming they have mislead congress on some issue…

Well, except when it’s Hoekstra, and the CIA has just destroyed torture video tapes that they were warned not to destroy. When that happens

…it’s important for Congress to hold this community accountable. This community did not tell — the CIA did not tell us about the existence of these tapes. They did not tell us that they were going to be destroyed. They need — there’s a Constitutional responsibility for them to keep Congress informed and they have not and we need to hold them accountable

Or so Mr. Hoekstra says.

It’s OK for Mr. Hoekstra to say the CIA  mislead Congress. Even better, when you are on Fox News being interviewed by Chris Wallace, it’s ok to get down right nasty on the CIA.

WALLACE: Congress man Hoekstra, Hayden appeared this week before your committee. Are you satisfied that over the years the CIA acted in good faith?

HOEKSTRA: No, I’m not. There are certain statements that might have been misleading to Congress as to exactly what existed. I think you’ve got a systemic problem here. I think the community is incomPetent. It is arrogant. And it has developed — it’s become political. This — you know, you take a look at wmd in iraq. They were wrong.

Hoekstra went even farther than just calling them arrogant,incompetant and saying that they have mislead congress , he also said

…you’ve got a community that’s incomPetent. They are arrogant and they are political, and they don’t believe that they are accountable to anybody. They don’t believe that they’re accountable to the president. They’ve clearly demonstrated through the tapes case that they don’t believe they are accountable to Congress. And when we are at war, that is a terrible position for the intelligence community to be. If they had done what they are supposed to do on the tapes, keep us informed, listen to the kind of recommendations that my colleague Jane Harman made to them, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today. But because of their arrogance and their willingness to move independent, that’s it.

The CIA? they’re political? They don’t believe they are accountable the President much less Congress? They’re incompetent?  These are just a few of the things that are OK to say about the CIA, unless of course you’re Nancy Pelosi.

Quick question, if the CIA mislead Congress, destroyed evidence… are arrogant,political,incompetent and admittedly prone to briefing errors.. why exactly are we or the GOP taking anything the CIA says over Nancy Pelosi?

It wouldn’t be to get the stink of another political land-mine off of them would it?

“..when you say that the community is incompetent, I’m telling you I don’t have confidence in the community. You know, I have high confidence that the community continues to be broken and is not giving us as policymakers the information that we need to make good decisions.-HOEKSTRA

Hypocrisy

“She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior.” -Newt Gingrich

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

UPDATE

Yes, the CIA has lied to Congress and covered it up. I think Newt might be the one who should step down and go back into hiding, after apologizing to Pelosi of course…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gingrich: ‘Absolute obligation’ to investigate Pelosi (cnn.com)
• Did the CIA lie about torture? (guardian.co.uk)
• Newt Gingrich: CIA Bully-Boy Since 1995 (firedoglake.com)

2.6 million Jobs lost, almost a million homes foreclosed on, 2 financial icons disappear, the government buying up 9 of the nations top banks, $7 trillion lost by shareholders, one state preparing IOU’s for it’s inhabitants, and a $200 billion surplus to almost a trillion dollar deficit- but hey, we haven’t been attacked

on our soil since 9/11.

1434 lives lost in Katrina and 300,000 homes lost, largest Government expansion in 50 years and the largest civil rights shredding law ever seen in this country- but you know what? We’ve been safe since 9/11.

Confirmed torture by the US government, 30,000 held in secret by US Government, 2 wars, one member of the inner circle of the Oval Office convicted of lying about his involvement in outing an undercover CIA agent working on WMD’s and the systematic attempt at public humiliation for anyone who tried to tell the truth -but that 9/11 thing didn’t happen again on his watch.

Disappearing glaciers, dying species and dwindling funds for public schools -but we’ve thwarted the

terrorists.

One admitted mistake with a banner, one  WMD regret, one forged report, one ignored PDB and a lie in the State of the Union address-but the terrorists haven’t struck us at home since 9/11.

I’m not indifferent to what George Bush is trying to do here. I understand that all Presidents want a grand legacy and all of them will slant their time in office so as to make them seem better than they were. I get that and I’m even OK with it. What pisses me off, what just sticks in my craw is watching the conservative MSM coo and gush over  that spin like a 12 year old girl watching a Jonas Brothers video. This is the same media who 8 years ago defined the last President as the liar who lacked morals because he got a blow job and lied about it. Not a one of them stepped up to say anything about his accomplishment in welfare reform, how he’d kept American soil safe after the first WTC bombing or that from 1991 to 2000, the United States experienced 37 quarters of economic expansion, the longest period of expansion on record.. Oh, but they will sure swoon over George Bush like he was the 1st President to have ever kept this country from being attacked after he ignored the intelligence that allowed for us to be attacked in the first place.

President Bush said the other day that he had inherited a recession and he leaves under a recession. No, he’s leaving an economy that hasn’t been this bad since the Depression. An economy that  is getting worse and has everyone in the world putting all of their hopes in the newly elected hands of a man who has all of 2 years of political office under his belt. I’m not saying Barrack can’t do it, I’m saying that Barrack shouldn’t have to be the president that is leading the United States of America in it’s most pivotal moment ever, the moment when it will either climb above the failures and destruction caused by it’s previous administration or the moment where it will crumble and burn out of existence. He shouldn’t have to be the leader during this time because we should have never come to this fork in the road.

Although, there is something to be said for the symbolism of the United States rising out of the blood of her original inhabitants, being built off the backs of it’s imported minorities and the threat of it’s final shudder and swan song under her first minority leader.

If President Bush can step away from another one of his disastrous leadership roles and all that conservative MSM cares to drill into our heads is once again the fear mongering of 9/11,9/11,9/11 and the horrible state of affairs that he inherited from the last guy that he couldn’t do anything but worsen over the last 8 years, then I hope these same conservative media heads will give President Obama the same pass no matter the outcome of his tenure.

It amazes me that Bill Clinton gets the blame for 9/11 because it was his inaction that lead to President Bush having to deal with a massive crisis 9 months into his tenure. It does make me wonder if there is another attack, can we finally blame something on George Bush? But I’m sure the conservative MSM will rant and rave that it’s not his fault, it’s the Democrats fault.

My colleague at the muchedumbre news desk tells me I don’t understand the war on terror the way he does, I don’t understand why there is such an extreme need for the massive size and secrecy of our Government  and that I’m naive because I fear giving any government that much power over it’s citizens. I don’t understand that terrorists will do whatever it takes to kill us so we must

Image via Wikipedia

meet them on an even playing field. What he has never understood is that there are worse things out there then another 9/11. There are other forces out there that can crumble a nation and while he and his conservative media friends were busy discrediting me and others like me, those other forces were allowed in. He never understood that another 9/11 wouldn’t destroy this country, it would hurt and it would piss us off, but we’d survive it like we did the after the other attacks on our soil. But another era like the 1930’s? Another Dust Bowl? Well I guess we’ll get to see if this country can survive another era of greed.

But hey, we’ve been safe since 9/11 so what am I worried about.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Remembering What’s Important
• What Went Wrong
• Heckuva job, Bushie
• George W. Bush: Quotes from the US president

Ben Stein told Larry King the other night his version of a republican and that pretty much sums of my idea of them also…

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

STEIN: I want to see a return to the republicans like Dwight Eisenhower, balance the budget,small government, civil rights, no foreign adventures, keep the corporate people under control, watch them like hawks and that’s the Dwight Eisenhower Republicans and we’ve drifted far away. If we lose this election, it’s a chance for the party to return to its basics.

If they would just add in some social programs, I think I could be this kind of republican. But it’s the yearning for social programs that kicks me out of that party and into the literal/Democratic party.

Stein’s idea of a republican is also not what the GOP is practicing these days. Today they are all about super-sized spending and super-sized intrusive government. But that is for another blog…I want to talk about a couple of comments I’ve received.

Obama’s plans don’t actually help you. They provide a short-term benefit, but in the long term, even from a welfare point of view, are detrimental, as those who create jobs and wealth will slowly withdraw from the system.

Reading your message, it seems that you are saying that you feel entitled to take the fruit of my labor and utilize it for your own needs. I had always thought that you were a liberal, not a communist. Punishing those of us who work hard, and pair that hard work with a great deal of risk, will destroy our desire to achieve. When that happens, there will be no one left to steal from, I mean over-tax.

Another thing that Obama will ruin is charity. I have given around $15k to the food pantry at my church this year. When I close the doors at my business, or even if I stay open, who is going to fullfill the void I leave? Are you going to give a portion of the money, stolen from me by Obama’s big government, to this food pantry? Doubtful. And because these folks won’t be serviced by the pantry, Obama gets his wish – greater dependance on government help. This will snowball out of control…

There is so much wrong with this and other comments I’ve seen, such as

There is nothing in the constitution that provides for social programs from the federal government. If you want food stamps or free health care, get if from your State. but I am clearly for a far less big and intrusive Federal government that you are. I’m not sure if you recognize limits on Federal power. Is there anything that you think the federal government should not provide? Food (stamps), Housing, job training, daycare, health care, dental care? subsidized mortgages, subsidized anything?

There seems to be this misconception that the only who people would benefit from Obama’s tax breaks are the poorest of poor, or when Obama comes into office it will be food stamps and free healthcare for everyone. There is also this misconception that Obama is talking about implementing this new idea of a progressive tax system and a rebate via a new concept called the earned income child tax credit. Since both of the these programs were not only invented by High-adored Conservative Republicans, but were also strengthen by what I have been told is the “Obama version of the Republican party”, Ronald Regan, I am completely baffled by the outrage.

What both persons commenting don’t understand is that there will always be the poorest of the poor who get food stamps and free-healthcare. It doesn’t matter what president in office so that argument should be out to rest.

Image via Wikipedia

Just because a Democrat is in the oval doesn’t mean the poor will get more free-stuff, just look at the biggest welfare reformer of all times, Bill Clinton, if you doubt that. Even that is not the issue though, the issue is … so what? So what if more people get more in food stamps and some kind of healthcare? Is it a drain on our economy? Yes, but so was that bridge to nowhere that Palin said no thanks to, when she really didn’t and even after she said she did, she kept the damn money. So is the billions that have been mismanaged in the Iraq war. But those are Republican-made spending so they are not evil and despotic, it’s only evil and despotic when the money will go to help a newborn get their polio vaccination or an 4.0 A student pay for their college.

Do I want my friends money taken from him and given to me so I can go out and party like it’s 1999? No. Do I want the same kind of tax-break that Donald Trump has been given over the last 8 years? Yes! Why does he deserve it more than me? Because he is wealthy and he employs thousands of people? Because if he doesn’t get it, then he will pack up and leave the country?

Bullshit on both accounts. First and foremost, under Obama he’ll have to fire his employees,close his doors and move to Ireland. Ya know what? Good, get the fuck out, we don’t want your unpatriotic, extorting ass here anyway and I don’t care how many people you employ! Because guess what? This is America and we still have the best of the best of anything, health professionals,retail stores,entertainment and while you may

Image via Wikipedia

decide to move out, you’ll damn sure be back every chance you get to patronize us in some way.

I want to see all walks of life in this country get some kind of fair taxation, I want to see everyone in this country come together and help one another and I am the unpatriotic one? But when a business owner threatens to send his employees into the financial ruin, leave the country and give another country his buisness and employ their citizens, he’s the patriot? Bullshit!

“I’ll give less to charity” is another reason why we shouldn’t vote for Obama. Again, Bullshit! You cannot hold a gun to a poor person head and threaten them with death if a certain president is elected and call that patriotism. I know Tony Soprano would, but come on! You are extorting churches and charities now to prove your point?

NO, what you are doing is taking your ball and going home because you are pissed that you didn’t win the game. It’s a temper tantrum plain and simple.

This is a great analogy for those against the current progressive tax system

If you went to dinner with 10 people from your company, and you made more than everyone else, and everyone ordered the same exact meal, how do you divide the check?

The bill comes to 100 dollars. (I like round numbers.)

Because you make more than everyone else… you are now required to pay $50 for the meal.

Three of the people make middle income, so they have to pay $15 each.

Three more people make a modicum of income. They pay $5 dollars a piece.

The other three get their meal and the receive $3.33 to go home with.

Is that fair?

To some, it is. To others, it is not.

Is that fair? Of course in a perfect world it is not. Just because some people are more wealthy than others they shouldn’t be forced to pay more. But this is not a perfect or even fair world. For the last 8 years, using the ‘dinner tab’ analogy, the middle income guy has shouldered not only his share, but the share of the bottom guy and the top guy because the poor guy will never have the money no matter who is president and under the current administration and the McCain administration, the top guy isn’t paying his share either. Obama wants to change this, he wants to make the top guy pays his full share so it gives the middle guy a little bit of a break.

This is not socialism. This is not me taking money from my rich friends. This is me telling my rich friends that I can no longer pay my share and their share of the costs to live in the country.

Even Warren Buffet’s blasted the current tax system

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

No, the richest 1% shouldn’t have to have their money taken from them to pay for the people who will always look for the handout, but neither should I.

No, the richest 1% shouldn’t be the only ones to pay for our schools,roads, military and law enforcement, but I shouldn’t be the one to shoulder my burden of the cost and their burden of the cost.

Will Warren Buffet benefit less than his secretary will benefit more is the question. As long as he is paying his share and not making her pay hers and his portion, both will benefit. More money in her pocket gives her more money to spend on his products.

I understand why someone would take their business and their money to another country if their taxes were outrageously high. Rolling back George Bush’s tax credit does not constitute ‘outrageously high’ though.

I understand that noone wants to pay more taxes but don’t ever tell me that you should not have carry your burden of the cost to live in this country because you make more money than me. We all pay to live in this society and if we want to be safe and have a strong military we will have to pay for them, so stop demanding that you should get to pay less because you make so much more.

I love my wealthy friend to death and will miss him when he moves. And while he won’t be able to count on the same things in his new country that I can count on here, what he can count on is that under John McCain, I will still here paying my share and his share ensuring that this country will be here for him when decides to come home and shop. I only hope I will be able to bear this burden and not give up on my country and become one of the poor who is forced to live off the system or else he won’t have a motherland to come back to.

The wealthy can give up and move to another country if they are taxed, but the middle class, when they finally give up or just break will have nowhere to go except to the food stamp office.

• Thomas J. Cady: Republican Presidents Always Ones Responsible For National Debt
• Realists Vs Neocons
• Poll: Public has growing doubts about Palin
• Everybody’s Business: A Familiar Tax Tune, but It’s Not Mine
• What Capitalism needs

What is going on!?! I have always been a middle of the road democrat. I fall on the liberal side for some issues and the conservative side for others. While I’ve never ruled out voting for a republican, I have only ever voted democrat. I have spent the last few years gorging myself on the Bush’s admin polices, actions, cronyism, incompetence and deceitfulness just to vomited out tirade after tirade about the illegality of the man and everyone surrounding him. I have taken criticism for speaking out against a sitting President and have been called unpatriotic because I asked questions and didn’t support the ridiculous answers given. I have become polarized against the GOP over the last 8 years because of the likes of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Libby. For many millions of middle of the road democrats it has been a long 8 years, a tough 8 years hell, even a painful 8 years. But I have waited for the day when finally I get to do my part to rid the country of a Republican President and switch things up a little to help us get back a little closer to center.

So why I am looking at John McCain to be the next president?

What is wrong with this picture? I am attacking the only man who can bring about the change I so crave. I am attacking in the same way I attack Gonzales and his 72 “I don’t recall’s”. I am attacking him the same way I attacked Scooter Libby’s “The vice president told me to leak classified information to discredit Wilson”. I’m ranting about him the same way I ranted about “Good job Brownie”.

Why do I loathe and distrust the only democratic hope for president?

Because I know nothing about him. Well, I know that he will say whatever he needs to about any issue just to get votes. If your area doesn’t like off-shore drilling when comes there and gets in front of a TV or reporter he’ll tell you that he doesn’t approve of it either.

If your area seems to be ok with the idea, he’ll tell that well, he’s not really against off shore drilling.

If your for the rights of the people of the country and don’t believe the government should be able to do wiretap and listen in on it‘s citizens phone calls and the telecom companies shouldn’t get immunity, then he is with you. If you think that telecom companies should get retroactive immunity for illegally wiretapping the public and are for a bill that allows the government to keep on tapping it’s people, then he is with you too.

If you are against dirty politics in a campaign race and are just plain tired of the mudslinging. Obama is right there with you. In fact he doesn’t miss the opportunity to call people out for making things dirty. Of course it doesn’t bother him to go out imply that the only woman running has PMS when he said… ’periodically’ she has her ‘up’s and down’s’.

What is it about him that people support so whole heartedly. Yesterday’s headlines were, PELOSI HOLDING FIRM, BLOCKING OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING VOTE followed by “Obama shifts position on offshore oil drilling… *” If that is not the biggest slap in the face to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, what is? The FISA vote obviously wasn’t a hard enough slap because they just took it and kept going, so what will they do this time?

My guess? Nothing. What can they do. Dean and Pelosi did all they could to get one person out of the race that people knew everything about it in favor putting in the man no one, not even his ‘grass roots’ know anything about until he decides to tell them. But even that doesn’t matter because in the next town or the next speech he’ll just change his mind and tell those people what they want to hear. Even his pastor told us he would do that. Why nobody believed the man’s spiritual adviser to him and children for 20 years is still a mystery to me.

How can I vote for a man that has no one stance on any issue? Whose only accomplishment so far is that he can read a script off the teleprompter and make me believe him the same way Heath Ledger read his script and made believe he really was as evil as the Joker.

Maybe that’s what it is. In our fast-food, Hollywood celebrity sycophant society, we are drawn to the one who gives us the best ‘after school special’ speeches. We don’t have to hold him to those speeches and promises, because it’s TV and this is just a role he’s playing and like any good actor he can say what he wants and we forget what he just said the last time we saw him. Just look at Kevin Costner’s speeches in Bull Durham

and JFK

See, we can believe both depending on what ‘role’ he’s in. We don’t have to know what he truly stands for, we just have to believe in him.

The sad fact is we didn’t know anything about Obama when this all started. But he could sure talk. We threw out the people who had been around, who were known to the world, who policies and ideas and votes we could track and trace. We wanted flash and pizzazz and we got it. The republicans tried to do the same but ultimately chose the one with a past and a congressional record that is as long as War and Peace. Funny how the Democrats mocked them for this. Mocked the GOP for thinking they could put an old man with a 30+ year public past up against the new and fresh no-name from Chicago.

What I wouldn’t give now for someone with an actual stable record. Someone I can trust on Thursday to say the same thing on Friday.

Obama isn’t Presidential because of his senatorial voting, his political history, his 300 advisers, his “meet the Messiah” world extravaganza… he’s presidential because he watched “Jeb Bartlett” and learned how to give a good “episode ending, goose-bumpy” speech. So let’s reward him for that. But let that reward be an Oscar or an Emmy and save the Oval Office for someone with an actual plan.

Rumors have been swirling that Obama,Dean and Pelosi are trying to negotiate Hillary’s name off of the ballot at the Convention next month. It seems they don’t mind her being on the ballot as long as it’s as a symbolic, roll-call gesture . They want her name on the ballot, they just don’t want placed on the ballot for nomination.

Neither Obama nor Hillary won enough votes to secure the nomination. Obama may have 390 more of them if all the super delegates who pledged to him actually vote for him at the convention. But with his shine getting a little a duller and with 18 million voters voting for Hillary, having her name as a nominee on the ballot and having to listen to all her delegate vote for her would make his ass pucker. All it would take is for her to have prime placement in the speeches and just knock it out of the park. The amount of delegates she has and the problems with his incessant flip-flopping could remind the delegates that she really does have a damn good chance of beating McCain. If she, or Bill were to remind them that her poll numbers against McCain were better than the 46% he and Obama share now…. Who knows what could happen and that’s why he needs to get her of the nominating ballot.

So what can he do about that? Well he can use his political influence to make sure that she is taken off the ballot as a nominee and placed there just as his symbolic 2nd. He’s done this before. Obama only likes to win when he’s uncontested. When Alice Palmer, the former state senator who picked Obama to be her successor back in the mid-90s wanted back on the ticket, he had her kicked off. The problem with Hillary is that there is no legal reason to have her bumped off the ballot. More than that though, if her voters aren’t allowed to vote for her then it’s game on and party unity my ass.

It would be quite embarrassing to Obama if there was a open-air-stadium-like response to Hillary getting on stage and giving a blow-out speech.. This is his shining moment and Hillary can’t be allowed to outshine him once again. But at the same time, Obama wants to project a ‘party-unity’ that just isn’t there. In order to keep that faux-appearance, Hillary just can’t be on the ballot and steal the sunshine from his over-whelming, ever engorging ego. It would ruin his grand plan to take over the world.

Don’t think he has a plan?

Ha-ha Ha-ha Ha-ha

He’s going to give his outdoor stadium speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK “I have a dream” speech while being the 1st nominee to give an outdoor speech since JFK did it in 1960. Yeah, someone is a little full of himself huh?

Here’s the thing. I don’t really give a rat’s ass if it’s embarrassing to Barack Obama. His people screamed like little bitches that Michigan shouldn’t count because he wasn’t on the ballot when they are the ones who took him off. So could you imagine the screaming and race-crying if there was a plan in the mix to get him placed on the ballot as a token 2nd choice? I think Motley Crue, The beatles and Charles Manson had a prediction for that scenario called “Helter Skelter”

This Manson predicted scenario is really just one wrong move from happening as it is. If the press caves, if Obama misteps in such a way that it just can’t be ingored we might have to call Charlie “profit” instead of whack-o-nut. But it would take alot to make the press go against the messiah I mean have you read a story on Obama? The other day there was a story that comics can’t even make fun of him, in that story the writer says

“But there has been little humor about Obama: about his age, his speaking ability, his intelligence, his family, his physique”

Is he Adonis or something? Maybe he’s Jesus? Or maybe he’s the reincarnation of Budda himself .

Jon Stewart tried to make fun of him, but met resistance from the audience. He had to tell them “You know, you’re allowed to laugh at him.”

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm ….Did Jim Jones’ followers ever laugh at him?

Every week I decide I am going to have to swallow my hatred and get on the ball and get the bad stuff out about McCain. Because there really is a lot of stuff out there….. I mean look at this response to a question about his surrogate saying that some health insurance will pay for viagra and not birth control and women would like to have the choice (response at about 5:00).

Could you imaging him being asked a really important question? HA!

Anyway, every week I want to change. I hope that I can finally sit down and do something positive about Barack or if not positive then something about McCain. But every week Barack tweaks my ire with something else and I completely forget about the crazy old man that might just be our next president and I shouldn’t.

This man is just as dangerous and the other one.

How in the hell did we get these 2 “unelectables in a sane year” as our only 2 choices?

Three words

George W Bush.

Yes, that’s right. What kind of liberal rant would this be without putting some kind of blame on Bush? But it’s true. The DNC figured that no matter what and no matter who, they had this election in the bag. The republicans could clone Ronald Reagan and it wouldn’t matter. George Bush fucked this country up so bad and didn’t give one shit about it that anyone running as a (D) would win.

Look say what would want, but even McCain knows this and is doing everything in his power to avoid being linked to Bush.

So the DNC is all it’s wisdom gave us…. No forced upon us.. A liberals wet-dream. No the wet-dream isn’t a woman… No-no… the true liberal wet dream is a good looking black man. Harold Ford jr would have been my choice, but his skeletons have already been vetted out so a no name senator would have do. Hopefully he could get the nomination and election before they were weeded out by the press. But if not, what to do?

Then, a “Karl Rove like” idea was formed.

Anytime anyone dissed this candidate, scream racism.( Which as you know is the liberal kryptonite.) Scream it at every charge and eventually no one will make any more charges and if the do they can be put off as people who just don’t like blacks.

Howard Dean may not have known about Obama deciding to do the open-air stadium rapture until he saw it on the news, but he damn sure knows his liberals.

The problem is liberals don’t just sit silent and fall in with the party-line because the party wants them to. But to silence them forever Dean and his subordinates can only do one more thing to ensure the nomination goes to the exalted one. Get Hillary off the ballot at the convention.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I hope The Denver Group accomplishes it’s goal. Because Hillary may be an old school politician, but she is still better and saner than anyone else out there. The question is though, are more and more people with the power to do something about it paying attention?

Everyday I hear more and more people moan about the Democrat’s choice we are forced to swallow. When the primaries started I was amazed at how many people actually cared. There was an electricity in the air, like just before a thunderstorm. That metallic smell was all around, people were hungry for a change and they couldn’t wait to get the ball rolling.

I witnessed 2 camps. One camp was strong and confidante for the future. The dollar was going down, gas was going up. The war was costing billions and people were starved for change. They knew it was a full-blown fact that a democrat would be elected and while that person might not fix all the problems that he or she was left to fix, they would better than what we’ve had for the last 8 years. They were happy and content that the stronger, better candidate would win.

The other camp had the pep and zip of a 12 year old boy. They got out there and worked. They rallied around their man, they weren’t content to sit there and just let it all happen. No they wanted to make a grand statement, they wanted pop and flare.

It kinda reminded me of the Tortoise and the Hare fable. I think everyone expected the hare to peter out while the tortoise moseyed over the finish line. There was no way the hare would actually go the distance. It just couldn’t happen this time because there was too much at stake, too much to gain and even more to lose.

They were wrong. The hare didn’t peter out. In fact he brilliantly beat the tortoise at her own game and then stole her shell and shit in it.

Months later, with the convention and official ‘crowning’ coming up. I am seeing and hearing more and more people get more and more disgusted with the whole thing. The electricity is gone, the metallic thunderstorm smell has abated and people are looking around asking what the hell happened.

These people never expected Obama to really get this far. Sure, he’d make a big splash but eventually he’d be vetted out of the race. His past history, associates and lack of experience would overcome him and he could walk way silently.

Everyone expected ‘race’ to become involved in the ‘hunt for the white house’. It was to be expected just like sexism was to be expected against Hillary. What people didn’t expect was that race would be played against everyone by the black candidate and the sexism would overshadow any and everything else that was left.

I’ve talked to so many people, white and black from a pediatric anesthesiologist to a house cleaner, from ‘red neck to city-slicker’ and all of them say the same thing. “what can we do now?”

Again I am reminded of a tortoise, these people are like a tortoise without it’s shell. They don’t know what to do come November. They have never considered voting republican but are finding excuses to justify a vote for McCain. They look at how he was 8 years ago, when he was a more himself and less George Bush, when he stuck to what he believed and not the just party line. And they are saying “well, maybe he’ll be like that in the White House, right now he just has to pander to the Right in order to get elected” These people will not under any circumstance vote for Obama.

I have actually tried to play devil’s advocate and say “well, the next president will put 2 justices on the supreme court, If McCain gets the chance women’s rights will go back 50 years”

The reply “Roe v Wade will never be repealed. It’s been the law of the land for so long that it’s safe no matter who is on the court”

I say, “McCains party is all for limiting the pharmaceutical companies liability when they market a drug and it makes you grow a third nipple on your nose’”

The reply “I think the FDA is stronger than that”

I say “Bush changed the clean water act by ‘ Allowing masses of industrial wastes to be dumped in streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands’….do you think mini-me-McCain would go against this?

The reply again, “well, that’s alway been happening and will keep happening no matter who is in office”

Mind you, I detest Barrack. I do not trust him. I think there is so much hidden dirt on him that when it comes out we will all beg for 4 years of Dick Cheney, but I want to make sure these people know what they are saying when they try and justify McCain.

I cannot convince them to vote for Barrack. Nothing I say makes a dent. They are as adamant as I am about him.

How did this happen?

He is supposed to the one who brings us ‘unity’ and instead he is the one dividing the democratic party. Those who never thought he had a chance feel so shut out that they are willing to vote the other side. That’s not bringing us all together and singing kumbaya around the campfire… that’s Hatfield and McCoy shit right there.

We all watched as nightly Hillary was attacked for her cleavage, her tears and how her voice reminded men of their nagging wives. We all watched as anything negative or even questioning was said about Barrack was turned into “that’s racially offensive”. We all watched in amazement as his own supporters couldn’t give a single one of his accomplishments. No matter how you look at that, it’s a problem. When you ask someone ‘what qualifies you for the job of President of the United States” and the only answer that is given is “I am inspirational” it becomes a joke. When that person goes on to take the party nomination, it becomes divisive.

We are all used to having to vote for the lesser of the two evils. We’ve all said “well he’s not my 1st pick, but I’ll take him” So what is the difference now?

I think that while Obama’s people were trying to make sure “race” was never brought up they went too far and saw ‘race’ in everything and that pissed a lot of people off. These people have never been anything but neutral to positive when it comes to gender, sex or race. They are liberals for God’s sake. They embraced the gays, the blacks, the Hispanics, the poor and the sick. But all of a sudden they were made to feel like David Duke because Barrack wasn’t their 1st, 2nd, or even 11th choice. They were made to feel like they were holding the whips and beating the slaves when they questioned “He sat in the church for how many years?” “His “white” what?” ..”a fairy tale is racist now? Huh?”… “RFK means she’s sending code to Jason Bourne?”… And all of a sudden they got sick of it. So sick that they will sell their rights and their values because they will not vote for Barrack.

So much for unity.

This divide was once blamed on Hillary because she dared to stay in the race, but now that she’s out of it… it‘s still festering and even growing. So who really was to blame?

When asked “I don’t know what I’m going to do come Novemeber”…. how do you answer? Because I’m at a loss…

discussion