I can’t take credit for the catchy title. It came from one of the commentors at this blog: Heckuva Job, Nancy.
American Thinker says it’s because Obama Hates White People.
So, far, we have 42 dead and likely many more since they haven’t been able to reach some of the people since the storm.
And where’s Obama? In Washington, D.C., with not even a flyover, cranking up his thermostat hot enough to grow orchids while supporting legislation to limit energy usage by the proletariat. I supose it is more important to fund condoms and STD prevention than worry about the welfare of a red state. I mean, why should he care about them, since they bitterly cling to their guns and religion and some part of those states are also coal miners whose industry he wants to bankrupt? Meanwhile, Al Gore is on the Hill urging rapid response on global warming.
And FEMA? No where to be found according to one official in Kentucky, although it is said they’re sending 50-100 generators, one truckload of food, and two truckloads of water… or vice versa on the food and water. But they can’t get there, they say. It’s too icy and dangerous for them. Echoing the RedState title: Heckuva job, Nancy… and Obama who promised a more competent government while going on and on and on about Bush’s failed policies.
Oh, and this is the same Obama who couldn’t be bothered to respond to Hurricane Ike while the Republicans suspended their convention focusing all their energy toward the hurricane’s targeted areas until the worst of the crisis had passed. Could it have been because that, too, was a red state?
And where’s the media in all this? Fox? CNN? MSNBC? CBS? ABC? Not a peep out of them about Obama’s response, or lack of.
Obama dozed, people froze… and died.
Apparently, the President of the United States is afraid of him. While the “I won” comment is making its rounds across the blogosphere to the rest of the world, there was more than that to the story.
President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Has anyone pointed out to the President that Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host? To have the most powerful man in the nation afraid of him might make some people feel pretty good but I have a feeling that Rush will find it hilariously immature.
Did I mention Limbaugh’s a talk show host? It’s his job to do what he does. That’s what he gets paid to do. If people are listening to him, it must be because he has something to say worth listening to. Perhaps if the President were less concerned with trashing the dignity of the office to which he were elected and listened to some Rush himself, he wouldn’t be using such immature comments in strong-arm Chicago-thug style tactics to get his way.
Did I mention Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host? I’m sure I have. Aside from the fact that he’s usually right and revels in being right, he’s paid really to entertain us, which he does admirably. The humor makes the bitter pill of reality goes down easier.
Kind of reminds me of that line in “Indpendence Day” when Connie was reading the papers with bad press against the President, played by Bill Pullman, when she read, “… needed a warrior but elected a boy.” The similarity ends there, however, because we have elected a boy, whereas Pullman showed the right stuff, via acting, when it was necessary.
One hopes that the boy matures quickly or it’s going to be a very rough four years. He needs to start with refreshing his memory on the actual meaning of bipartisanship. Such would not include descriptors indicating fear of a TALK SHOW HOST or the words, “I won.” Bipartisanship would include reasoned and respectful debate on differences to reach a compromise, something the Democrats never gave Bush for his entire eight years but expect as their due because “they won.”
Sore losers, poorer winners. Indeed, it seems as if the Democrats in majority are bent on retribution and vengeance for their previous losses than working for the good of the nation. Okay, if that’s the way they want to use their power, that’s what they can do, but any Republican with an ounce of self-respect will not be on board with it. Don’t give them an out to blame Republicans for their failures. Make the Democrats own their legislation in every way.
From a comic strip came this great pearl of wisdom: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Comic… strip… Get it? It’s time the Democrats took responsibility for their agenda rather than finding willing scapegoats upon which to place the blame for failures.
Between comic strips and talk show hosts, one wonders how anyone is expected to take the Democrats seriously.
Two articles sum up nicely how I feel about the coming four years:
“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”
– Barack Obama,
TO borrow from H.L. Mencken, the cynics are still right nine times out of 10.
What President Obama’s rhetoric fails to acknowledge is that most political disagreements are real. They’re rooted in competing interests, conflicting values and differing judgments.
While transcendent rhetoric can get one through a campaign and even a transition, the real challenges of governing won’t simply wither away from decrepitude:[…]
Just because Obama billed himself as a messiah, just because he promises miracles, just because he promises anything, doesn’t make those promises a reality nor does it make political differences go away. Those will always be with us.
To those ordering us to shut up and not criticize TheOne, I ask: Why? Poltical differences didn’t suddenly just melt away. Bush was criticized by both the right and the left and dissent is patriotic. Even as we grit our teeth to vote for McCain, we dissented and criticized; loudly at times. What is not patriotic is to dissent for dissension’s sake rather than the good of a nation.
We are told we should “give him a chance.” Those saying such never define what they mean by the phrase although you get the feeling that we shouldn’t disagree with TheOne from other things that have been said and there’s another feeling mixed in with the first that if we criticize we might bring dire consequences upon ourselves, a la Joe the Plumber, while those hinting at such are touting the virtues of free speech protected through our Constitutional Bill of Rights.
In addition, I’d like to remind those who think that Bush is to blame for every failure that ever has been since before his first term, that Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Franks, et al. were there long before Bush and will apparently be there long after Bush. Sometimes they had the majority. Sometimes they didn’t. They were there nonetheless and privy to everything that went on during those times.
People are still arguing the timeline of 9/11 as happening on Bush’s watch suddenly forget that the plot was five years in the making. Of that 5 years, most of it was Clinton’s watch and Berger stole classified documents that may or may not have shed light on the issue.
Those Hollywood celebrities pledging to help Obama’s administration really don’t think with a full brain. Those who would kill regular Americans would kill the celebrities first along with the gays and lesbians. There is no such peace dialogue that will bring lasting peace because it’s not in the opposition’s midset.
I don’t remember exactly where I learned but it was from multiple sources, including old history courses but learned a long time ago that Islamic Jihad agression will only go away when the people partaking of it are completely annihilated. It’s sad to comtemplate but it is the way it is. For the western world, the Crusades have been over for centuries. For the Islamic world they are never over. Every cease fire between Israel and Hamas, Hezebolleh, or other terrorist faction, only delays another conflict long enough for the losing side to regroup and begin again. One might wish it isn’t so but that’s the reality. You have no idea how many times I’ve wished it isn’t so.
Today is the day to vote for or against English Only here in Tennessee. I’ve listened to the arguments on both sides and neither side “gets it” completely. Putting illegal immigration aside in this issue, there are still some relevant arguments. I can see the one side wanting to facillitate goodwill but not much else they have to say is all that crucial. One argument was foreign exchange students which, in my opinion, is a blatant lie. You see, foreign exchange students are required to take a test, TOEFL, to provide evidence that they are competent in the language before allowed to take college courses.
On the other side is the assimilation issue. If you want people to assimilate you don’t isolate them by facillitating such isolation. If you want them to learn the language of the country they have to immerse. This is something I learned teaching ESL, English as a Second Language. Whe first offered the opportunity, I initially declined because I don’t know any other language and had long forgotten my high school Spanish. I was told that made me ideal because it forces the students to work harder to communicate and they learn faster.
Is there an easy answer? Not really but you can bet that every individual has his or her own opinoins on the matter so we’ll see what happens after the voting closes.
So, you see, political differences haven’t suddenly melted away with the messiah’s election nor will they. And that’s only the least of the issues that were promised to be made disappear. So, don’t expect a rose garden for the new president. Lofty rhetoric takes one only so far. His actions will determine the rest.
Human Events tells us that McCain is now blaming his loss on Rush Limbaugh… and Conservatism. Nice of him to finally admit he’s not a conservative, which is tantamount to admitting he’s not a Reaganite, either. Of course, he lost because of Conservatism but whose fault is that? The Conservatives’ or McCain’s?
When there is little difference between the presidential candidates and there is a historic opportunity, which do you choose? The same same, or the opportunity? No, I’m not caving to Obama’s agenda, but there’s a part of me that knew it was a crapshoot with McCain as to whether he would or not. The thing that bothered me most was how many people voted for Obama because of the color of his skin, not his policies. All things considered, I suppose it doesn’t matter very much with the candidate we had on the so-called right.
What bothers me most right now, as far as conservatives and conservatism, is how many of us are contemplating or have contemplated leaving the Republican party. Larrey Anderson at American Thinker has the best answer upon which to base your decision.
[…]I will make my position clear from the outset. A divorce by conservatives from the GOP would be a disaster for all of the parties involved. Just like most marriages, the grass may look greener on the other side of the fence — but it almost always isn’t. This is true for the GOP and for conservatives.
The “big tent” speeches may be staple rhetoric of the GOP hierarchy; but, if conservatives pack up and leave, the GOP will be a big empty tent. (This mass migration would include the growing number of black and Hispanic conservatives in the GOP. These good hard working people are in the GOP because they understand and live by conservative principles — not because they are part of some equal opportunity RNC scheme.)
Intelligent people do not choose a party affiliation because of the color of their skin. They choose it because it reflects their ideals. The GOP needs to understand, and it needs to understand this soon, that there is no Republican Party without conservatives — and conservatives need to start acting on this fact. […]
I, for one, am tired of being a doormat whether it’s to the forces of “Big Tent” Republicanism or the demands of liberals that we all “come together” now that they’re in charge… in spite of the fact that every dissent we have against their agenda is still bashed, and bashed, and bashed. There’s no discussion, just a continual assault on our persons and dignity.
Like many other conservatives, I hope Obama fails. For this, it’s been brought up the Golden Rule and a whole chapter of Matthew… from people who don’t even believe in the Bible so busy are they worshipping at the shrine of Obama. What they don’t realize is that they’re ordering us to go against the very teachings with which they try to corral us. I used to try to explain that but they never listened so I gave up trying and just contiue with my dissent… which is another thing they use to beat us with. For 8 years we heard that dissent is the highest form of patriotism but now, it’s just… mean and nasty and hypocritical.
Even if McCain had won, conservatives would not be quietly submissive yes-people. We’d fight just as hard against his wrong headed ideas as we will Obama’s. The left doesn’t get that because, for them, we must conform to celebrate diversity.
So, no, I will not sit quietly and cheer Obama and his agenda on simply because he’s a historic president. No, I will not give in to the Republicans’ “Big Tent” ideology. No, I will not forsake conservatism for an easy fix that never fixes anything, only delays the inevitable.
For my own reminiscing of the Bush presidency, one of the most humorous insults hurled at him was “cowboy.” For him, me, and quite probably some others, it’s a compliment. How many can you apply to our new president?
Last month I wrote a post entitled: “Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men” in which I laid out an opinion of the troubles the birth certificate “conspiracy” was going to cause no end of trouble. While this blog doesn’t garner a lot of traffic there were some comments ridiculing the idea.
Oh, ye of little faith!!!!
This morning I received in my email a donation request and my signature on a petition headed by someone called Gary Kreep. The outline of the petition is this:
“Demand to Barack Obama,” tell him that you’re with the United States Justice Foundation and me as we vow to legally challenge every move he makes, unless and until he proves he’s a natural born citizen by releasing his original birth certificate.
Let it be known that I am 100% with the United States Justice Foundation in its efforts to challenge each and every move you make as “President.” For unless and until you release your original birth certificate, proving you are a natural born citizen, I support USJF’s vow to file a lawsuit to dispute your every action, from executive orders to legislation.
And I agree with Gary Kreep’s description of you as “Senator Jekyll and President Hyde.” You campaigned as a centrist, promising to reach across party lines. Yet your past shows that you are relentless in your pursuit of power, that you are indeed a typical Chicago politician, schooled in the art of corruption and thuggery.
I am proud that the United States Justice Foundation is on the job!
In addition to this Kreep fellow, under the same organizational activities we get news that Alan Keyes is also seeking to obtain Obama’s documents. Alan Keyes had this to say about why he’s serving suit:
In response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Ambassador Keyes commented, “I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office. Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure. This doubt would also affect the respect people have for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation.”
In the previous piece, I said that it’s the perception not the facts that are going to matter in the end. Indeed, Obama campaigned on perception mattering more than substance. He often called himself a blank slate upon which the people could project their wishes. While the two movements cited above might be obscure at the moment, what happens when the “blank slate” does something that goes against what others have projected onto it? Couple that with powerful Democrats’ ideas of Obama doing what they tell him to do, it’s not going to be an easy administration by any measure, even discounting the current economic troubles.
Good thing they have Bush to blame for everything that goes wrong for the past and future, eh? We sure are going to live interesting times, aren’t we? Remember that movie “Clash of the Titans”? For a followup how about “Clash of the Narcissists”? It’s sure to be an edge-of-your-seater.
We all know at least one person who meddles in everybody else’s business… and we hate them. There are any number of reasons why we hate them but the most frequent answer to such a question as why is we are adults, not children, and can handle our own lives just fine without interference.
Movies over the years have been filled with such people as meddling mothers or mothers-in-law and their characters are the ones we love to hate. It’s inescapable… and visceral. They tell us that our house isn’t clean enough, we don’t take care of our children properly, and we’re selfish with a litany list of offenses to prove it. When you point out some of the things they have done that were worse or similar,they deliver the caveat: it’s for your own good.
So, to keep the peace, we try to do things the way we’re told and when it all falls apart because it was never the right thing in the first place, we’re told it must be our fault that we didn’t do it right, so they meddle some more to try to “fix it.”
Did I mention we hate it? I’m sure I did.
So what does that have to do with politics, you ask?
Simply, if we hate that kind of interference in our daily lives, why did a majority of Americans elect to office a bunch of meddling mothers and mothers-in-law?
* You can’t stimulate the economy by restricting it. If you’re lucky you merely maintain the status quo. If you’re unlucky, as is usually the case, the meddlers make things worse. Propping up failing businesses that didn’t tend to the business of business, aka customer service, only closes the window of opportunity for others to do it better. Entrepeneurialship languishes in limbo in this case.
* You can’t replace existing energy with energy that hasn’t been developed yet and you can’t force it by restricting the use of existing energy resources. This is a tough one for me because I have to sound like a liberal for moment, although I mean what I say and it’s not just a heartwarming slogan. The policies the government is willing to put in place is going to kill people. The more taxes and legislation is heaped on the less people can afford. The poor and the elderly will die as they suffer for meddling. How many horror stories are we going to here in the coming years about people who died from heat stroke or overexposure because they can’t pay their utility bills to fuel their air conditioning or heaters? And those same people who would restrict these things are the same ones who began that slogan, “Bush lied, people died.” Will we then say, “Obama lied, people died” in their morally relative world? Or will we relativise it so that it’s all in a “good cause”?
*Talk is cheap. Words only mean something if they’re followed by like actions. The nation elected a talker, not a doer, to the presidency and a whole posse of talkers, not doers to Congress. That’s another thing about meddlers, they’re always telling others what to do but always have exceptions for their own persons. Most of us would call that hypocrisy if it was the mother or mother-in-law… or the nosy neighbor next door… but seem to excuse it in our government.
If the politicians want to be our leaders, they had best start by being examples, not privileged dictators. All the media buzz is about Obama’s inauguration and how much it costs. In ordinary times, how much it costs wouldn’t bother me one iota but to have a president-elect stand before the cameras and tell us how bad the economy is and how we need to cut back and sacrifice while spending 150 million on his inauguration and costing the state government more on top of that for extra security and other services provided by the state reminds me so much of the meddlers in our daily lives who enjoy telling others what to do while accepting their own excesses as merely their due. All the talk about sacrifice when unwilling to personally sacrifice just doesn’t thrill me in the least, in spite of Chris Matthews’ leg tingles.
All in all, that’s just the last of a long list of offensive acts. While political parties are scrambling to either do damage control before Obama is even sworn in or trying to find a message that syncs with the American people or wondering what went wrong that they lost, I can sum it up in one word: meddling. With all the chatter in both parties, there seems to be this rush to “do” something, anything, to “fix it.”
If you put all the meddlers of the world in one room they’d all have the same answer as to why they meddle in spite of the fact that their meddling only makes a bad situation worse: they mean well. Didn’t someone once say “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”? We’re all set to be living testimonies to the truth of that euphemism. Even if one doesn’t question their intentions, the results of their meddling is still the same.
For me, the solution isn’t doing something, it’s doing nothing. If one feels something must be done, why not start with undoing some of the past meddling? The more meddling there is, the worse things get and has been getting for decades. When is government, mothers, mothers-in-law, and nosy neighbors going to butt out and let us be the adults we are, make our own adult decisions and live with the consequences? It used to be called Federalism or Conservatism. It needs a new name, or at the least a new descriptor: Unmeddling.
The most effective government is the one that meddles the least.
Amy Proctor has a blog post showing a clip of Ann Coulter on The View and it reminded me of how much respect I’ve lost certain celebrities.
Once upon a time, I had a great fondness for Whoopi Goldberg. She rarely made a movie, starred on a show that I didn’t watch; a decade ago. Whoopi is only the tip of the iceberg of my disdain for celebrities. Once upon a time, I had some respect for Barbara Walters in spite of knowing she was a liberal, but that was more than a decade ago.
I’ve never understood how Sean Penn went from a troubled consistent lawbreaker to a celebrity we should listen to about political matters, but somehow that happened. I’ve never liked Sean Penn, in movies or his personality. Ditto for Susan Sarandon. In fact, I can’t remember a movie role she played that I have liked. Ditto for her husband whose name, iirc, is Tim Robbins. Who knows? He’s that forgetable to me. I was never a Madonna fan, nor a Britney fan, nor fans of a great many who seem to think they should have a voice in telling us what to do. Barbara Steisand and Jane Fonda are two others whom I’ve never liked, even before I was mature enough to understand what they did against this country.
When I really think about it, there are a host of celebrity socialists whom I’ve never liked, however, there are some, such as Goldberg, with whom I’m deeply disappointed and no longer respect. Robin Williams comes to mind at such a time as does Danny Glover, Oprah Winfrey, John Travolta( liked only about half the time), Brad Pitt (never liked), Angelina Jolie (lukewarm), Tom Cruise (never liked except for Minority Report which is an argument against his own views although he’ll never see it that way), and so many others it’s impossible to name them all.
When Oprah Winfrey first came on to the Hollywood/talk show scene, she had something to say but it didn’t last long. It’s as if Hollywood with its long communist ties, ala McCarthy who, though nutty, turned out to be correct does something to people that makes them change in some profound ways. The problem is, when those changes take place, they somehow also become unentertaining. Entertainers who can no longer entertain no longer make money. A vicious cycle, no?
As for others, I listened/watched about seven minutes of the confirmation hearings yesterday morning. I was so nauseated by the group hug fest and sheer stupidities coming out of the mouths of those in attendance, that was all I could stand. The defining moment for me came when Chris Dodd talking about the “global economic crisis” (his term) and followed it with the moronic comment that people don’t understand that it’s global.
Yes, we get it and people like Dodd really scare me. It’s hard to conceive that someone that dumb is in the Senate as smarter than the average American citizen. It really doesn’t instill confidence in the intelligence of the people who elected and keep electing him as their leader. Rather like who’s the bigger fool? The fool who is leading or the fool who follows him?
A celebrity politican was elected as president. I suppose he’s expected to be entertaining as well but I believe people are really going to be disappointed in that respect. Word… pause… word…pause… word… can become rather grating over time and those who ridiculed Bush’s speech patterns might become a little nostalgic when all is said and done. At least he was entertaining with his mispronunciations. There’s not much you can say about the new president’s speech pattern except to say: boring. Get him away from a teleprompter and that’s what you’ve got: boring.
Be that as it may, this article is about celebrity politics and some may wonder why I included any of our currently in power politicians. The answer is simple. They seek to become celebrities in much the same way former entertainers used to entertain and when they have become has-beens, they still have that need to be the center of attention so they become political activists. In psychological terms it would be described as full blown narcissism.
Narcissism is a world unto itself. There are rules to the game of feeding the narcissism. Break those rules, you are punished much in the way Republicans are being punished by the overwhelming Democratic majority through the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House because it doesn’t feed the need of the narcissist to be resisted by anyone for any reason and much like Hollywood celebrities who have become political activists. Because of their activism as a mode to bring them back into the center of attention, the tripe coming from Hollywood is what we get for ignoring their brilliance; our punishment so to speak.
“They” say a little bit of narcissism is healthy. This is true to an extent. There’s a bit of narcissism in all of us. It’s a survival mechanism built into our genes. Without it, we’d likely not survive very long in a world that preys on the weak. However, there’s a point where narcissism becomes unhealthy and, God help us, Capitol Hill is long past that point with another soon to be sitting in the White House. For a good run down on narcissism I recommend this site: Bully Online.
How many narcissists does it take to ruin a country? I believe we’re about the find out the answer to that.
Over the weekend, I received an email petition. It sounds rather radical and tough. I’m not going to quote any passages from the petition. What I have to say about it doesn’t need passages quoted.
It is full of demands for conservative leadership, conservative principles, so on and so forth. It mentions Reagan principles which aren’t a bad thing, right? In fact, it all sounds laudable if you go with your initial visceral reaction but when you think about it, there’s not much there worth your time affixing your name to it.
It is full of demands; demands of other people and shows a distinct lack of any proposals to aid in accomplishing those demands. Perhaps it’s my own ethics and upbringing but it struck me as just wrong. You don’t demand of others what you’re not willing to do yourself and that’s where conservatism is hurting most. If you’re not prepared to lead then don’t demand it of someone else. If you want conservative principles to be strong and deeply rooted, you have to nurture those principles in your heart and your life.
Talking about Reagan principles or conservative leadership does nothing. Walking the talk, showing by example, that conservatism works will bring out the leaders that conservatives are looking for, whether from the Republican party or not. Conservatives don’t need the Republican party, the party needs conservatives. Otherwise, the Republican party may as well be the Democrat party. One or two issues or principles is not enough difference to separate the two.
You want conservative leaders? Stop electing wimps.