Spare me the left's non-stop complaining about how conservatives have hijacked Christianity (most recently from Obama) and how we need a separation of church and state now more than ever, since conservatives are trying to establish a theocracy. Forgive me when I laugh about this as Obama pontificates on the issue in, of all places, a church. That's right. And not just any church, but the United Church of Christ, which counts in its membership Pastor Lynn, head of the organization, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This is a man that has epileptic fits if a conservative even says the word "politics" within 10 feet of a church. And yet he was silent when Obama was campaigning in his church. Oddly enough, though, the webcast of the event went mysteriously dead just as Obama approached the stage.
And don't get me started on Jimmy Carter's latest analysis of United States foreign policy. That this man was ever elected to the highest office in the world is beyond me. The reason du jour for the problems in the Middle East, at least in his mind, is that we refused to recognize a terrrorist organization voted into office in Gaza and the West Bank. This same organization who refuses to recognize the existence of Israel, who refuses to back down from its policy of annihilating Israel, who promotes children's programming training its young that to die in the process of blowing up innocent Jewish women and children is the purest form of love for Allah. And why should we have recognized Hamas? Well, they are so well organized, and they did win that election, which he personally vouches for (also see his praise for Hugo Chavez' commitment to democracy). What is his evidence for their good organization? Well, didn't they knock off Fatah pretty quickly in Gaza? By Carter's logic, the Nazi party should have been recognized for its genius based on the orderly manner by which the SS and SD very efficiently took care of their "political" opposition. All things considered, Reagan's landslide defeat of Carter does not look quite as impressive any more. The real question is, how did Carter win any electoral votes at all?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Truly Pathetic
If you've noticed lately, Democrats have not been hooting and hollering about how low President Bush's approval ratings are. This certainly is not due to a sudden surge in the polls by the President. Far from it. While his numbers have been consistently low, they seemed to have dipped a little lower. With the situation in Iraq not exactly going stellar (and not that the media would report it if it were otherwise), Bush decided, in his infinite wisdom, to piss off the people that have stood by him and defended him on the War on Terror, and specifically the war in Iraq, by insinuating that we are nothing but a bunch of "nativist" (i.e. racist) hicks who don't want what is best for the country because we don't believe him and the political cronies in Washington when they claim that they will do anything even remotely resembling border enforcement prior to enacting the amnesty parts of the immigration legislation. But I digress.
No, the real reason that the Democrats don't talk about Bush's approval numbers is because theirs are worse. After riding a post election high of 43% approval, Congress has now dipped to 23%. This happens to be 6% lower than the president's. No longer can they blame everything on the president. To date, the only promise they have made good on is a boost in the minimum wage (and need I remind you that Clinton and Obama voted against that). They promised to clean up Congress, and we have recently seen the indictment of William Jefferson. They promised to shine light on the earmarks process, and they have made it even more secretive, changing the process to allow earmarks to be added during the closed door, committee sessions to hammer out compromises to bills. One of their candidates for President even dodged the issue of whether he would vow to end the earmarks to his home state. They can't even pass a non-binding resolution on Iraq. Their Senate majority leader has proven to be as hapless as he is a bumbling public speaker, to the point that many of their supporters have expressed their outrage at his recent public statements. The most memorable moment for their much lauded first female speaker of the house was when she practiced some of her ill advised diplomacy, visiting Syria, taking it upon herself to be the emissary of the Israelis (without their approval and bumbling it, to boot), ridiculously claiming that the road to peace was through Damascus. About as ridiculous a statement as Chamberlain returning from Munich proclaiming "peace in our time."
All they seem to be able to do is issue subpoena after subpoena for Justice Department officials who, at the end of the day, tell them absolutely nothing. When they find no evidence of wrongdoing after grilling these people, instead of giving up their wild goose chase, they claim that a lack of evidence is, in fact, further evidence of a much greater conspiracy. For all their hot air about what an evil puppet master Karl Rove is, they have yet to charge him with anything. And as truly inept as Gonzalez is, they can't seem to touch him. Truly pathetic.
No, the real reason that the Democrats don't talk about Bush's approval numbers is because theirs are worse. After riding a post election high of 43% approval, Congress has now dipped to 23%. This happens to be 6% lower than the president's. No longer can they blame everything on the president. To date, the only promise they have made good on is a boost in the minimum wage (and need I remind you that Clinton and Obama voted against that). They promised to clean up Congress, and we have recently seen the indictment of William Jefferson. They promised to shine light on the earmarks process, and they have made it even more secretive, changing the process to allow earmarks to be added during the closed door, committee sessions to hammer out compromises to bills. One of their candidates for President even dodged the issue of whether he would vow to end the earmarks to his home state. They can't even pass a non-binding resolution on Iraq. Their Senate majority leader has proven to be as hapless as he is a bumbling public speaker, to the point that many of their supporters have expressed their outrage at his recent public statements. The most memorable moment for their much lauded first female speaker of the house was when she practiced some of her ill advised diplomacy, visiting Syria, taking it upon herself to be the emissary of the Israelis (without their approval and bumbling it, to boot), ridiculously claiming that the road to peace was through Damascus. About as ridiculous a statement as Chamberlain returning from Munich proclaiming "peace in our time."
All they seem to be able to do is issue subpoena after subpoena for Justice Department officials who, at the end of the day, tell them absolutely nothing. When they find no evidence of wrongdoing after grilling these people, instead of giving up their wild goose chase, they claim that a lack of evidence is, in fact, further evidence of a much greater conspiracy. For all their hot air about what an evil puppet master Karl Rove is, they have yet to charge him with anything. And as truly inept as Gonzalez is, they can't seem to touch him. Truly pathetic.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
New Link
I have included, in honor of the anniversary of the "Tear Down This Wall" speech, a link to a website where you can listen to some of Reagan's greatest speeches.
June 12
For those of you not of the conservative persuasion, I'm sure today holds no particular significance. But for those of us who are, we might remember that on this day in 1987, Ronald Reagan delivered his famous "Tear Down This Wall" speech. I know that I am a pretty big Reagan fan, but we really haven't had a president in recent history that could speak so well and leave such important speeches behind. In addition to this great speech, many will also remember his Evil Empire speech, the D-Day memorial speech about the boys of Point du Hoc, or the space shuttle disaster speech, where he eloquently described the astronauts who lost their lives as they "slipped the surly bonds of earth, to touch the face of God." It is moving stuff. Maybe I'm a bit sentimental in this way, but it has been a while since we had a president that could move us. Bush may be remembered for his "you are either with us or against us" challenge, Clinton for his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski," George H. W. Bush for his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. But as the interval between the present and the last days of Reagan's administration lengthens, we learn more and more just how great a president he truly was.
On another note, I thought I might address a strategy endorsed by many on the left, including Al Gore, to beat oil dependence out of us. This is to increase the tax on gasoline. Seems like a good idea, right? Drive up the price, and we will turn to other alternatives. The problem is, we don't have those types of options. The average American may find it difficult to give up their car. This isn't Europe, and we don't consist primarily of large cities where public transportation is a valid option. Most Americans must travel to work. It is not feasible to set up a nationwide public transportation system. Even these new hybrid cars still require gasoline. And how will those on lower incomes afford these new, expensive hybrid vehicles?
When dealing with the war on drugs, many on the left think it is ridiculous to target and incarcerate the buyers of drugs. These are people with addictions who should be treated, not punished. The logical move is to target the suppliers. But they take just the opposite view with gas. They want to punish the users of gasoline. We are really the problem. This new tax would also be incredibly regressive. The lower the income, the more likely a person is to drive a less fuel-efficient car, and the harder they will be hit by any such gasoline tax hikes. It is such a nice sentiment from Al Gore, sitting in his energy-guzzling mansion, jetting around the planet (in private jets, guzzling jet fuel for his use alone), to lecture us on how we need to be more conservation-minded. We have yet to see these limousine liberals practice what they preach. The reality is that the average American is leaving less of a carbon footprint on this planet than any Al Gore or Sheryl Crow or Leonardo DiCaprio you want to trot out as they jet around the world with in private planes, or travel by limousine to awards banquets where others will praise their wisdom, or cruise around the country in gas guzzling tour buses.
On another note, I thought I might address a strategy endorsed by many on the left, including Al Gore, to beat oil dependence out of us. This is to increase the tax on gasoline. Seems like a good idea, right? Drive up the price, and we will turn to other alternatives. The problem is, we don't have those types of options. The average American may find it difficult to give up their car. This isn't Europe, and we don't consist primarily of large cities where public transportation is a valid option. Most Americans must travel to work. It is not feasible to set up a nationwide public transportation system. Even these new hybrid cars still require gasoline. And how will those on lower incomes afford these new, expensive hybrid vehicles?
When dealing with the war on drugs, many on the left think it is ridiculous to target and incarcerate the buyers of drugs. These are people with addictions who should be treated, not punished. The logical move is to target the suppliers. But they take just the opposite view with gas. They want to punish the users of gasoline. We are really the problem. This new tax would also be incredibly regressive. The lower the income, the more likely a person is to drive a less fuel-efficient car, and the harder they will be hit by any such gasoline tax hikes. It is such a nice sentiment from Al Gore, sitting in his energy-guzzling mansion, jetting around the planet (in private jets, guzzling jet fuel for his use alone), to lecture us on how we need to be more conservation-minded. We have yet to see these limousine liberals practice what they preach. The reality is that the average American is leaving less of a carbon footprint on this planet than any Al Gore or Sheryl Crow or Leonardo DiCaprio you want to trot out as they jet around the world with in private planes, or travel by limousine to awards banquets where others will praise their wisdom, or cruise around the country in gas guzzling tour buses.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Lesson Learned?
With an approval rating as low as his, Bush needs to learn one very important lesson. You need every supporter you can get.
This is a lesson that he has learned twice now. In the wake of the Iraq war, which Democrats only initially supported when the political winds were blowing in that direction, Bush has only been able to get things through when he has had the strong support of his base, and, in a few instances, the majority of the American people. He finally got his funding for the troops without a timetable built in because the Democrats, constantly with their fingers wetted and held aloft to test the direction the wind is blowing, knew that cutting funding for the troops would be political suicide, just as it was after Vietnam, even though it was the other party in the White House.
But whenever he has tried to buck his stalwart supporters and go it alone, he loses. He should have know what a powerful force his conservative base could be with the Harriet Myers affair. He is never going to get the kind of support from Democrats that he gets from the conservatives, because of a major difference - conservatives genuinely want him to win, and Democrats absolutely want him to lose. Democrats knew that this immigration boondoggle was a win-win for them. If it passed, they could potentially swell their voter rolls, and it would fracture the Republican base. If it failed, then who cares, because it had already been successfully labeled as Bush's bill. So the failure is attributed to him. Don't get me wrong. Bush contributed heavily to owning this bill. So either way, they win.
Bush continues to underestimate the determination and the power wielded by his conservative base. Maybe they don't represent the majority view, but on this issue, they were definitely under a pretty large tent of people opposed to this bill.
You don't start insulting your base, especially at a time when it isn't the easiest thing to be a Bush supporter. You don't shoot your friends in the back, especially when they are so few and far between. I realize that he is past campaigning and into full legacy mode, but none of the great presidents throughout the history of this country made their name by selling out their supporters.
This is a lesson that he has learned twice now. In the wake of the Iraq war, which Democrats only initially supported when the political winds were blowing in that direction, Bush has only been able to get things through when he has had the strong support of his base, and, in a few instances, the majority of the American people. He finally got his funding for the troops without a timetable built in because the Democrats, constantly with their fingers wetted and held aloft to test the direction the wind is blowing, knew that cutting funding for the troops would be political suicide, just as it was after Vietnam, even though it was the other party in the White House.
But whenever he has tried to buck his stalwart supporters and go it alone, he loses. He should have know what a powerful force his conservative base could be with the Harriet Myers affair. He is never going to get the kind of support from Democrats that he gets from the conservatives, because of a major difference - conservatives genuinely want him to win, and Democrats absolutely want him to lose. Democrats knew that this immigration boondoggle was a win-win for them. If it passed, they could potentially swell their voter rolls, and it would fracture the Republican base. If it failed, then who cares, because it had already been successfully labeled as Bush's bill. So the failure is attributed to him. Don't get me wrong. Bush contributed heavily to owning this bill. So either way, they win.
Bush continues to underestimate the determination and the power wielded by his conservative base. Maybe they don't represent the majority view, but on this issue, they were definitely under a pretty large tent of people opposed to this bill.
You don't start insulting your base, especially at a time when it isn't the easiest thing to be a Bush supporter. You don't shoot your friends in the back, especially when they are so few and far between. I realize that he is past campaigning and into full legacy mode, but none of the great presidents throughout the history of this country made their name by selling out their supporters.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Put Up or Shut Up
No doubt anybody interested enough in politics to be perusing this blog has heard of the 90+ page indictment of William Jefferson, the Democrat congressman from Louisiana. What you probably haven't heard is the outcry from Democrats over the corruption of this guy that is similar to their outrage when Tom Delay was indicted. That is because their is none. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.
After all of the outrage Democrats expressed over even the hint of charges being brought against Delay and Duke Cunningham, followed up by their pledge to drain the swamp of political corruption in Washington, they are surprisingly mute on this issue. True, Pelosi didn't appoint Jefferson to the Homeland Security committee, but his fellow Democrat congressmen, bullied by the congressional black caucus, voted overwhelmingly to put him on that committee. This after authorities had already found the $90,000 of cold hard cash in his freezer. You may also remember Jefferson as the congressman who forced rescue workers after Katrina to reroute vehicles and men specifically to take him to his house so that he could pick up a few things. This was obviously more important than rescuing people.
You might think that, to show good faith on their pledge to fight corruption, the Democrats would have been the ones to refer his actions to the House ethics committee. And you would be wrong again. John Boehner had to do that. At least they complied and voted for the resolution, unlike their facilitation of the actions of serial ethics violator Congressman Murtha.
So let me get this straight. Tom Delay was indicted on charges less serious by a blatantly partisan prosecutor, and Democrats became hysterical, demanding he resign from Congress. Jefferson gets indicted on so many charges that they could potentially put him away for over 200 years, and they call for patience to let justice prevail.
After all of the outrage Democrats expressed over even the hint of charges being brought against Delay and Duke Cunningham, followed up by their pledge to drain the swamp of political corruption in Washington, they are surprisingly mute on this issue. True, Pelosi didn't appoint Jefferson to the Homeland Security committee, but his fellow Democrat congressmen, bullied by the congressional black caucus, voted overwhelmingly to put him on that committee. This after authorities had already found the $90,000 of cold hard cash in his freezer. You may also remember Jefferson as the congressman who forced rescue workers after Katrina to reroute vehicles and men specifically to take him to his house so that he could pick up a few things. This was obviously more important than rescuing people.
You might think that, to show good faith on their pledge to fight corruption, the Democrats would have been the ones to refer his actions to the House ethics committee. And you would be wrong again. John Boehner had to do that. At least they complied and voted for the resolution, unlike their facilitation of the actions of serial ethics violator Congressman Murtha.
So let me get this straight. Tom Delay was indicted on charges less serious by a blatantly partisan prosecutor, and Democrats became hysterical, demanding he resign from Congress. Jefferson gets indicted on so many charges that they could potentially put him away for over 200 years, and they call for patience to let justice prevail.
Lightning Crashes
Yes, I did watch all two hours of the Republican debate last night. I'm not sure why. To be honest, it was a bit boring. The biggest question that pops up in my mind from this, and from the Democrats' debate, is why some of these guys are still in it.
For the Republicans, why is Tommy Thompson still in it? Honestly, I look for a little more charisma in a candidate, and he is definitely lacking. While I mostly agree with Tancredo on immigration, he came across last night as petty (with his vindictive attitude towards Bush and Rove) and just a little unhinged. Huckabee seems likable, and I'm sure is squarely with me on the issues, he just doesn't seem up to snuff. Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul just don't excite me in the least.
As for the frontrunners, while I am still behind Romney, I don't think he pulled off as good of a performance as Giuliani. McCain was McCain, although he was pretty weak in his defense of immigration, which may be what sinks him this time around. The best he could come up with was that this bill is better than nothing. The problem is, nothing is not the alternative. We already have immigration legislation. Nobody wants to enforce it, but we have it. His argument that not passing this bill would permit "silent amnesty" also doesn't address the fact that passing this bill would be glaring amnesty. Why is that better? But Romney didn't do a good job attacking the bill. He could have addressed more than just the Z visa. That is not the only problem with the bill.
Giuliani definitely is a crowd pleaser. The guy has charisma, and, with the exception of his stumbling over his answer to the abortion question in the first debate, is a good speaker. I agree with Brownback, however, in the belief that the pro-life position is a core position of the Republican party, and we shouldn't abandon that. Would I vote for him should he get the nomination? Yes. He would still be infinitely better than anybody the Democrats would put up.
So I was kind of disappointed with Romney's performance. He got off topic too many times with answers that should have been slam dunks.
As for the other big elephant in the room, I'm not sure yet how I feel about a Fred Thompson in the race. In general, I am optimistic about him. I don't like his support of McCain-Feingold, but at least he is acknowledging the shortfalls of it, and that it really hasn't accomplished anything it set out to do. I don't know yet if he can offer more hope than hype. But Dems seem to be a bit afraid of him entering into the mix, so he definitely deserves some further looking into.
For the Republicans, why is Tommy Thompson still in it? Honestly, I look for a little more charisma in a candidate, and he is definitely lacking. While I mostly agree with Tancredo on immigration, he came across last night as petty (with his vindictive attitude towards Bush and Rove) and just a little unhinged. Huckabee seems likable, and I'm sure is squarely with me on the issues, he just doesn't seem up to snuff. Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul just don't excite me in the least.
As for the frontrunners, while I am still behind Romney, I don't think he pulled off as good of a performance as Giuliani. McCain was McCain, although he was pretty weak in his defense of immigration, which may be what sinks him this time around. The best he could come up with was that this bill is better than nothing. The problem is, nothing is not the alternative. We already have immigration legislation. Nobody wants to enforce it, but we have it. His argument that not passing this bill would permit "silent amnesty" also doesn't address the fact that passing this bill would be glaring amnesty. Why is that better? But Romney didn't do a good job attacking the bill. He could have addressed more than just the Z visa. That is not the only problem with the bill.
Giuliani definitely is a crowd pleaser. The guy has charisma, and, with the exception of his stumbling over his answer to the abortion question in the first debate, is a good speaker. I agree with Brownback, however, in the belief that the pro-life position is a core position of the Republican party, and we shouldn't abandon that. Would I vote for him should he get the nomination? Yes. He would still be infinitely better than anybody the Democrats would put up.
So I was kind of disappointed with Romney's performance. He got off topic too many times with answers that should have been slam dunks.
As for the other big elephant in the room, I'm not sure yet how I feel about a Fred Thompson in the race. In general, I am optimistic about him. I don't like his support of McCain-Feingold, but at least he is acknowledging the shortfalls of it, and that it really hasn't accomplished anything it set out to do. I don't know yet if he can offer more hope than hype. But Dems seem to be a bit afraid of him entering into the mix, so he definitely deserves some further looking into.
Monday, June 4, 2007
More post debate thoughts
On the subject of Darfur, other than Joe Biden, the most anybody else could come up with to handle the situation was to impose a no-fly zone (because that controlled the situation so well in Iraq) and to . . . boycott the summer Olympics in China! That will show those genocidal maniacs. The tortured reasoning behind this is that the main reason why the Sudan won't comply is because China isn't leaning on them. So by not competing in the Olympics, that will shame the Chinese into putting pressure on the Sudanese government, and then we will see some real results. As if we don't already have enough reminders that this party is weak on matters of defense, we now can also see how hollow their foreign policy is. It truly is a sad thing that Joe Biden, of all people, makes the most sense of all of their candidates, and Kucinich will probably peak higher than him!
Getting back to my point earlier about educating the world, that was another golden morsel from John Boy Edwards. I hate to point it out to anybody reading this who is a Democrat, but simply increasing the taxes of people earning $200,000 and up will not come close to funding all of his plans. That's the point they don't seem to get. There is no amount by which they can raise taxes that will fund all of their pie-in-the-sky promises. Europe is discovering this. Their social programs are bankrupting them. The healthcare that they have, that Democrats would so much like to pattern our healthcare system after, is pathetic. Not only is it second-rate care compared to the U.S., but you have to wait forever to get it.
Some quick thoughts on Bush. If he were as lively and pointed in his attacks against liberals that are constantly trying to undercut the war on terror as he is in his attacks against his conservative base over immigration, his approval ratings might score a bit higher. Why does he clam up so much when he could be forcing the issue with the Democrats? Just watching their top candidates in the debate, you realize how weak they are on this issue. They are practically foaming at the mouth at the possibility of being the one who gets to surrender. And yet he chooses his most pointed attacks for those who have stood with him through thick and thin. This is the whole Harriet Myers situation all over again. Only this is worse.
Getting back to my point earlier about educating the world, that was another golden morsel from John Boy Edwards. I hate to point it out to anybody reading this who is a Democrat, but simply increasing the taxes of people earning $200,000 and up will not come close to funding all of his plans. That's the point they don't seem to get. There is no amount by which they can raise taxes that will fund all of their pie-in-the-sky promises. Europe is discovering this. Their social programs are bankrupting them. The healthcare that they have, that Democrats would so much like to pattern our healthcare system after, is pathetic. Not only is it second-rate care compared to the U.S., but you have to wait forever to get it.
Some quick thoughts on Bush. If he were as lively and pointed in his attacks against liberals that are constantly trying to undercut the war on terror as he is in his attacks against his conservative base over immigration, his approval ratings might score a bit higher. Why does he clam up so much when he could be forcing the issue with the Democrats? Just watching their top candidates in the debate, you realize how weak they are on this issue. They are practically foaming at the mouth at the possibility of being the one who gets to surrender. And yet he chooses his most pointed attacks for those who have stood with him through thick and thin. This is the whole Harriet Myers situation all over again. Only this is worse.
The Breck Girl Strikes Back
I didn't follow last night's debate as closely as the previous one, but I did catch a few choice morsels. I'm not sure what purpose this serves for the Democrats, other than for them to argue whether we should leave Iraq now or next week. I'm pretty sure that Kucinich is up there merely to make the others (with the exception of Gravel) look downright hawkish. I feel better knowing that, if he had the chance, Kucinich would not ram a cruise missile up bin Laden's rear end. He'd make sure we could try him in a court of law, where I'm sure he would guarantee his right to due process and all that other stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for constitutional rights for American citizens. But does anybody believe that, given the opportunity, the Allies wouldn't have dropped the big one on Adolf Hitler? And would anyone have shed a tear?
But once again, the most outlandish comment of the night was not owned by Kucinich, or even Gravel. You have to give it to John Boy Edwards (Garmire's personal favorite of the pack). When asked what he would do in his first one hundred days in office, he didn't choke quite as bad as when asked who his personal heroes were in the first debate. But what was his response? He'd leave the country. That's right. With all the things he claims are desperately in need of doing, his number one priority would be to go tour the world. In a way, though, when you think about it, it wouldn't be that bad. How nice would it have been if Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter had left the country upon taking office? But in all seriousness, his answer was the political equivalent of "I'm going to Disneyland." Of course, going to Disneyland wouldn't be necessary for him, as this "man of the people" probably already has plans for building his own amusement park on his estate.
As for the rest of the debate, it was nothing but a bunch of sellouts falling over themselves to be "the" anti-war candidate. I particularly liked how Richardson talked about how little we do for Africa (ignoring the millions of dollars pumped into that continent to fight AIDS by President Bush, no less). I found it also interesting to note that, while talking about fiscal responsibility, one candidate thought we should set up elementary education worldwide. Yeah, that should be doable. Why not just also promise to end famine, establish world peace, turn lead into gold, and do away with hate? And all of this will be funded by simply overtaxing people making over $200,000 a year in the U.S. But what will really make all of this possible is John Edwards world tour. That's what our country has been so sorely lacking.
But once again, the most outlandish comment of the night was not owned by Kucinich, or even Gravel. You have to give it to John Boy Edwards (Garmire's personal favorite of the pack). When asked what he would do in his first one hundred days in office, he didn't choke quite as bad as when asked who his personal heroes were in the first debate. But what was his response? He'd leave the country. That's right. With all the things he claims are desperately in need of doing, his number one priority would be to go tour the world. In a way, though, when you think about it, it wouldn't be that bad. How nice would it have been if Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter had left the country upon taking office? But in all seriousness, his answer was the political equivalent of "I'm going to Disneyland." Of course, going to Disneyland wouldn't be necessary for him, as this "man of the people" probably already has plans for building his own amusement park on his estate.
As for the rest of the debate, it was nothing but a bunch of sellouts falling over themselves to be "the" anti-war candidate. I particularly liked how Richardson talked about how little we do for Africa (ignoring the millions of dollars pumped into that continent to fight AIDS by President Bush, no less). I found it also interesting to note that, while talking about fiscal responsibility, one candidate thought we should set up elementary education worldwide. Yeah, that should be doable. Why not just also promise to end famine, establish world peace, turn lead into gold, and do away with hate? And all of this will be funded by simply overtaxing people making over $200,000 a year in the U.S. But what will really make all of this possible is John Edwards world tour. That's what our country has been so sorely lacking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
