« Beware Of Truth-Telling Admirals and Generals | Main | For Grim :) »

March 17, 2008

Obama's America

You've got to love it:

The overarching theme of Obama's speeches, and of his campaign, is that America is a fetid sewer whose most glorious days lie just ahead, thanks to the endless ranks of pathetic losers who make it a beacon of hope to all mankind.

Here's a partial list of the people that Obama has met lately. All of them are unhappy, and no wonder: Ashley, who grew up eating mustard sandwiches because her mother contracted cancer, lost her job, went bankrupt, and lost her health insurance; the "girl who goes to the crumbling school in Dillon"; "the mother who can't get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child"; a New Hampshire woman who "hasn't been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq"; "the teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet"; a young woman in Cedar Rapids "who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill"; "the Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7 an hour job at Wal-Mart." And beyond these dim, huddled figures lies the American landscape, unbearably bleak: "shuttered factories," "crumbling schools," "a planet in peril."

It's not exactly Walt Whitman. But Obama wants us to know that the picture he paints with his pointillist precision is comprehensive: He's leaving nothing out. He drives the point home when he concludes his litanies of despair by saying: "I have seen what America is."

But then a lifetime of pain has made Barack Obama uniquely sensitive to the suffering of others. In this sense, it was inevitable that he would one day lead the call for Hope and Change:

... it is amusing to take a snapshot of how all these people came up and what was happening in the legendary year 1969. Hillary Clinton was graduating from Wellesley or her way to Yale Law School; Gloria Steinem, after graduating from Smith and publishing a book, was the lioness of the women's movement; Geraldine Ferraro had interrupted her law career to raise children (there may have been some actual suffering in that; she went on to found the - irony alert - Special Victims Unit); Reverend Jeremiah Wright was getting his master's degree. Barack Obama was an eight-year old stepson of an oil company executive in Indonesia. He would go on to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard.

John McCain was being tortured in a North Vietnamese prison.

Because above all, we must end the tragic injustices that prevent the son of a black man from dreaming he could ever be President of the United States. Pray for change, people.

Posted by Cassandra at March 17, 2008 08:35 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Well, I guess this proves the old adage that money can't buy happiness. It will however, buy you *victimhood* which, as we're seeing, will then get you entry in the best schools, postions of prestige, waivers of city codes and fees so you can commit crimes of sedition and treason, a Congressional seat, a Presidential candidacy....
Hey, can I be a *victim*, too? I promise to use my position to help *my fellow victims ......unless, of course, I find that that would be detrimental to futhering my ambitions of world domination.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 17, 2008 12:25 PM

All that was happening in 1969 kind of puts some things in perspective, don't it??

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at March 17, 2008 01:22 PM

The old days were not really "good" as nostalgia paints them as. They were just different.

You got to love these parasites that do everything they can to kill the golden goose that gave them their fortunes. I'm not exactly sure how that story ends really. Do these parasites just continue to keep slaughtering golden gooses? Do they abort all goose eggs that they think won't put out golden eggs? Questions questions.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 17, 2008 06:11 PM

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it." — Barack Obama


Posted by: camojack at March 18, 2008 01:36 AM

Let's return to that magical year for GW Bush, and see the toil he was putting in for his military career.

November 1969:
Bush is flown to the White House by President Nixon for a date with daughter Tricia.

December 1969:
Bush transfers to Houston and moves into Chateaux Dijon complex. Laura lives there too, but they don't meet till later.

It's too bad that Barak Obama has such a tough hurdle of example to overcome. Funny how we all forget about who our leader has been for the past 8 years.

Posted by: Miguel at March 18, 2008 01:51 AM

No, I haven't forgotten who our President has been these last 8 years. However, that -- and your comment, as usual-- has nothing to do with this point of this post. That is, unless something happened behind the closed doors of Congress today that now allows President Bush to run for a third term. No? Then kindly confine yourself to the point (see if you can do it without copying someone else's words this time) or STFU. Better yet, just go away you're wasting bandwidth.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 18, 2008 02:30 AM

Last time I checked, Barack Obama was not running against George Bush, but against Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

That is the appropriate comparison, Miguel, for this election. But even if it weren't, and even if we accepted your arguments re: the current President, it essentially amounts to, "Oooh. I can compare what Obama is doing now to what GWB did decades ago!"

Or even less compellingly (again, assuming one accepts whatever point you were trying to make) "You guys got to elect someone you had reason to know would be a bad President! But hey -- now it's our turn!"

Not an impressive argument, whether one looks at it from a moral or logical perspective.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 18, 2008 07:09 AM

That is the appropriate comparison, Miguel, for this election.

Cass, for the Left, GWB will always be their Osama Bin Laden. Someone to pull out when they need more power to crush the bones of infants.

Better yet, just go away you're wasting bandwidth.

Put him under and make him listen to Meow mix and Barny songs, Sly.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Better yet, combine water boarding with the sending of music waves through the water. That'll be a nice synthesis to observe.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Of course, Y Guy will always go to "left/right" rhetoric, not even understanding, or knowing this poster's leanings. Ad hominem and character attacks are the tools of the weak. Even CNN is jumping on the bandwagon of trying to equalize this current election.

The post's attempt was to marginalize Obama in every instance ("he was a child while others toiled in great personal work and battles"). My point of bringing up GWB was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of folks who now wish to say, "This guy is inexperienced and not worthy" when the same people had no problem with the current president leading this nation with less experience and a military record that would make a soldier embarrassed.

Since some people don't like holding a candle to the light of day, I ask why the turn around? couldn't be polemics could it? There is an inconsistency in the rhetorical position of now using his youth and his 20 years of public service as a demonstration of why he is unfit for public office (seven of which was Illinois Senate, four as US Senator, the first nine as community base organizer and politician. Bush was governor for six years). If you want to attack his story as false because you believe he did not face challenges, but was privileged, that is correct. Fiction is a big part of every candidates biography. Do you really believe McCain is a hardcore conservative? Moderate is a more appropriate moniker.

For me, I like certain attributes of all three leading candidates. I could vote for all three. But this silly game of polemics is disingenuous. And after even this site bashed McCain for years, now you are rallying around him. Is is as awkward as Bush and McCain on the Whitehouse steps, and Bush is hesitantly endorsing McCain. This is not an embrace for support. It is a stilted partisan attempt to get folks to believe that they like each other. They don't.

How about a discussion about what all three have to offer to our nation? I guess I'm wishing for the stars since that would require an honest analysis of each persons attributes and abilities.

And if you wish to use invective to address me Sly -guy, then I'll respond by saying I simply believe you can only think linearly. Sorry to confuse you. Start writing up that petition for a third term. I'm sure it would get some traction.

Posted by: Miguel at March 18, 2008 11:39 AM

I also was tickled to see Cass's admission that GWB was a bad president. Her own words. Sometimes it is easier to say things in the voice of a fictional character.

Posted by: Miguel at March 18, 2008 11:41 AM

Cass, made no such comment.

She stated that "even if" we were to accept your claim that GWB is a bad president, your argument is still unpersuasive. She didn't say she did accept it.

It's called a hypothetical.

Secondly, no one here has ever claimed military experience, in and of itself, is beneficial to the POTUS. Also, GWB did have executive experience prior to becoming POTUS: Almost 6 years as Governor of Texas and several as a business owner. Which, quite frankly is worth a lot more than 7 years as a State Senator and 4 years as a U.S. Senator.

So: Resume to Resume, GWB still looks better than Obama.

Of course, as has been stated, none of that is here nor there. GWB isn't running, The Obamanation, Yoko,and Maverick are.

In order:

A one term Senator with Hopes and Dreams. That and a buck-fifty and he might be able to muddle his way through getting a cup of coffee. Oh who am I kidding, he won't have to get his own coffee, his minions will be inspired to get it for him (if they don't faint first).

A one term Senator who believes that being married to John Lennon means she can sing, oops, sorry, wrong coat tail.

A 2 term Representative and 4 term Senator who enjoys Sunsets, long walks in the desert, and stabbing political allies in the back in the attempt to gain favor with a media that will hate him anyway.

Joy :-(

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 18, 2008 01:22 PM

And if I take the Alphabet boy's (Y) Bush/bin Laden comparison to it's logical conclusion (i.e. Lefties use Bush as a "the boogey man", as a straw man, if you will) then it is clear A-Z is admitting the use of OBL by ideologies is a ploy to invoke fear. Please let me know if this is your point? Because the implied tone is that the left exaggerates Bush's short comings to demonize him. Once again, you seemed confused. Although you are quite comfortable when it comes to torture or violence. I guess Freud was right.

Posted by: Miguel at March 18, 2008 01:32 PM

So: Resume to Resume, GWB still looks better than Obama.

That's not the point though. The point is power, and for Miguel, that is all that matters. If becoming a living embodiment of hypocrisy provides his people power, then that is just how it is going to be.

then it is clear A-Z is admitting the use of OBL by ideologies is a ploy to invoke fear.

You'd be hanging from the rafters if Bush was using OBL as a ploy to invoke fear and emergency powers. I'm sorry, but the very fact that you are alive disproves your claims.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 18, 2008 01:44 PM

"... enjoys Sunsets, long walks in the desert,..."

You forgot something.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 18, 2008 01:51 PM

Thanks for jerking the chain on the first one. I knew someone would. And how many failed businesses and bail outs did GWB get (see Arbusto and the Rangers)? And as GWB himself said, "That's fuzzy math." 6 is more than 11 in public service? Wow!. If you are familiar with Texas, the governorship is more a position of ceremony than function. The Lt. Gov. wields the gavel. Bush was effective at forging a close relationship with Lt.Gov. Bob Bullock. This was the highlight of his tenure. Texans are still dealing with the fallout of GWB's policies as Gov.

I do like your cynicism,though, in what you feel are weak choices for voters. Your humor is appreciated. Don't give short shrift to hope and change...haven't had much of that lately. And although McCain should avoid the sun with the karitosis on his scalp, I do like the guy. All senators have a display case full of knives. Hillary...too painful to think about. And they talk about McCain's anger and vindictiveness.

Posted by: Miguel at March 18, 2008 01:53 PM

How's this for hypocrisy...conservatives = fiscal responsibility (small government). Reality: this administration has blown off the lid on spending.

Once again, I don't know what the heck you are saying Y. It's like listening to Shane McGowan of the Pogues sing. Can't comprehend a word.

As for hanging from the rafters, I think that's already happened. I could make a list, but you folks are tired of my long responses. I'll save you the misery.

In regards to power, I think you have me mistaken for Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Miguel at March 18, 2008 02:01 PM

How's this for hypocrisy...conservatives =

Are you under the impression that conservatives are defined by their political enemies?

It's like listening to Shane McGowan of the Pogues sing. Can't comprehend a word.

Do you think I expect someone under 60 layers of inconsistent beliefs leading to cognitive dissonance, to comprehend a word concerning a consistent world view?

In regards to power, I think you have me mistaken for Dick Cheney.

Cheney uses shotguns, not the words you use, M.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 18, 2008 02:06 PM

Thanks for jerking the chain on the first one.

This is the point I was making before. The point is not about whether Bush did this or that or whatever, Miguel's point is that he will say anything so long as it accrues benefit to his faction.

He puts out bait so you can jerk the chain and then he can use the power play on you.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at March 18, 2008 02:11 PM

Why is it that when asked to use your own words, you have nothing more than schoolyard name-calling? And why is it that the only time we see your name on here is when you've somehow managed to twist yet another post into something you think is deserving of another temper tantrum aimed at President Bush? You sound like a sad and bitter old lady, and I pity you, Miguel. I really do. But then how could I possibly feel anything but pity for someone who, when they finally get their one neuron to fire, is only capable of "George Bush bad." Now, I realize that may be a bit linear for you, but ya know, women are sooo known for that.
Now, run along, I'm sure recess is over on your playground.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 18, 2008 03:08 PM

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it." — Barack Obama


Heheh... Camo, Salute!

Sly, if we're gonna get on board with the nebulous hope and change atmospherics, I would like to submit this idea for consideration.

Here's to a consolidation of hope and change for digital torque wrenches and...
tequila! =8^}

Posted by: bt_gotthesalt&lime_hun at March 18, 2008 03:53 PM

Re: 6 is more than 11?

Depending on the circumstances, yes.

1 year in Bill Gates job is worth more than 50 years vacuuming the M$ office floors if the job one is applying for is CEO.

As for GWB's success at business or failure at same, is largely a matter of perspective. For example, not all of the dot coms that went belly up went belly up because their leadership was bad, but because the leadership of many of the companies around them were bad and poisoned the well, as it were.

Bush returned to the oil industry, becoming a senior partner or chief executive officer of several ventures, such as Arbusto Energy,[33] Spectrum 7, and, later, Harken Energy.[34] These ventures suffered from the general decline of oil prices in the 1980s that had affected the industry and the regional economy.

As for the usefulness of "Hope and Change": maybe after The Obamanation ascends he'll ask a little kid for his lunch and inspire it to multiply and so feed the masses and end hunger and poverty once and for all. Hey, it's more of a plan that The Obamanation has ever put together.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 18, 2008 05:08 PM

How's this for hypocrisy...conservatives = fiscal responsibility (small government). Reality: this administration has blown off the lid on spending.

Not really.
1) Congress spends, not the President. The POTUS can either sign or veto the budget as a whole. He can't accept or reject only what he likes.

2) Once you control for the size of the economy, The republican congress has been fairly middle of the road on spending (and that includes fighting a two front war).

3) Given that congress will never be made up of a single party it is unlikely that conservatives will ever completely get their way with the budget.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 18, 2008 05:20 PM

Unfortunately, the president has veto power, and for six of the eight years we speak of, Congress was controlled by Republicans, and the Senate was split as of 2004 with Cheney having dominion over anything even. And he can, through senators and congressman, stop votes and divide without certain majorities and rules of cloture.

As for spending, the medicare bill, arguably way over committed and too big by many standards, truly expanded spending. Also, consider the size of spending on the optional war, and the growth in spending. Check out this comparison of presidents in the past 40+ years from the Cato Institute.


Mind you that is from 2005. Factoring in the past three years, those figures increase.

Getting their way is irrelevant. The point was about spending. As I stated, he blew the lid off.


Make up your mind...am I an old lady or a child on a play ground. Either way, this president hasn't done much for either (except for the Medicare package which is no guarentee). Conveniently, you ignored the point about supporting an inexperienced guy who is arguably less experienced than Obama, and possibly, at best, slightly more experienced. And remember, he avoided participating in war like the plague. So this is your guy? Right on. IF the word "bad" applies to Bush, then thanks. Mostly I've presented facts I've put out there about this president. Rather than debate those facts, you run out of ammo and attempt the close in knife fight. You seem to be incapable of seeing the flaws and damage this president has caused to this country. Each president and period does their own kind of damage. There is no hypocratic oath for presidents, unfortunately. Some do more harm than others. Reagan, although I disagreed with his policies, probably did more good than bad. Clinton similarly. Johnson, more damage than good. Bush. Where's the good?

Alphabet Soup: I would wager you don't even know the definition of "cognitive dissonance". Now don't go google it. See if you can do it cold. And as far as my own words, I guess you haven't seen some of the War and Peace crap I've put up. If I plagarized that, please annotate the passages which seem borrowed.

Posted by: MIguel at March 18, 2008 11:33 PM

Why should I waste my time with you? You refuse to read the text on the page --You sound like a sad and bitter old lady; you can't spell -- it's guarantee; and your attempts at argument are circular.
We enjoy spirited, civil debate here, which is something your cut-and-paste diatribes about President Bush and childish name-calling will never begin to accomplish.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 19, 2008 02:57 AM

Yes, he does have veto power, I believe I said exactly that. However, that veto power is a sledge hammer and not a scalpal. To veto the budget would be to veto necessary funding for the war. Not exactly an alternative except in the most severe of cases.

Which again brings us back the compromises necessary when one does not have a super majority. If Bush wants (and he does) his war funding he can't go pissing off 45% of congress by vetoing the Democrat's earmarks.

The Cato study is not the complete story. It just tells the anarcho-libertarian story of gov't growth. They measure year-over-year growth, and while they've adjusted for inflation and length of service, but they haven't adjusted for the growth of the economy. If I have time I'll go back looking for the ratios of spending to GDP. In those, Bush is fairly middle of the road.

And as I said, I would rather he be on the extreme low side on spending, but given that right now, spending isn't my highest priority, (it's the war, if you couldn't guess) if spending is what it takes to do so, then I guess we'll survive "middle of the road".

So, unlike your perseptions, most of us around here don't expect ideological perfection from our candidates. We do typically share many of the same philosophies associated with conservatism: Limited Gov't, Strong National Defense, Equality of Opportunity vice Outcome, etc. but some of us put different weights on different planks and we'll give in certain areas to gain in others.

For instance, with Maverick, I know I'll get someone with whom I disagree with on the First Amendment. So trying to beat me up with his suckitude on 1A grounds will be unpersuasive. I know he sucks in that area, but Yoko and The Obamanation aren't any better and at least Maverick is better on 2A grounds. So on net (when only considering 1A and 2A issues) while Maverick isn't a "good" conservative he's still "better" than the democrats.

So while Bush is only middle of the road on spending, Gore and Kerry would have been no better, and would have been much worse from a National Defense standpoint. Right now, I'll make that trade.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 19, 2008 11:02 AM

Spirited and civil? "STFU" was your original comment to me. Is that civil? Surely is spirited. A diatribe constitutes making flamboyant statements not based in fact. If you don't like me facts, state your own. And if I hurt your sensibilities about a president who has damaged this nation, than maybe you should read commentary about this president by people from all political ilks. I can give you at least 10 conservatives who are highly critical of this president.

My point is that for quite a while, guys like you have supported this administration, made excuses, and said in the end his term will be justified. Well, on ever measure, economic, domestic, foreign relations, spending, etc., he has, when measured up against presidents from the past 40 years, been the worst. NOw, in the interest of civil debate, tell me why I am wrong, with your combined facts and info, rather than telling me to agree with you or "STFU".

Posted by: Miguel at March 19, 2008 11:03 AM

Again, you miss the point.

No one here is saying the GWB is a conservative "GAWD". Only better than the alternatives we were given at the time.

And the problem with refuting your claim of "Worst in every measure" is that everyone has different measures.

Economic: Inflation has been historically very low over his term, so has unemployment. Domestic: Education - Standardized testing score show no real change up or down. Crime Rates - generally falling. Gun Rights - AWB wasn't renewed and many states have passed Castle Doctrine and expanded CCW. Spending - Middle of the road when compared to GDP. Judges - After stepping on his own "Unit", I'd be hard pressed to say that his SCOTUS appointments aren't some of the best we could have hoped for. Foreign Relations: Yep, we've pissed of countries that didn't really like us to start with (This is actually a positive for me). And, if we finish our job, we'll make good friends with a couple of contries that would make great strategic allies in transforming our world to a better place.

Does this mean there were no negatives, Of course not. His immigration plan was attrocious, signing M-F Campaign Finance is almost indefensible. The new medicare entitlement was a gift to the Dems (they only reason they didn't like it was that they couldn't take credit for it).

But on the whole, 20, 30 years from now and I do think GWB will most likely be considered "Better than average" and certainly not "Worst of the modern era, If Not Evah!" as you believe.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 19, 2008 11:40 AM

Nice summary YAG.

40 years Miquel? Hmmm, that would take us all the way back to the days of LBJ passing through Jimmy Carter on the way. Quite a bold statement that.

Just bear in mind, that it's tomorrow we must consider. All that hope and change before us requires a cold, critical appraisal of the candidates. Well that and a bottle of tequila to adjust for the normalization of the political promises made during campaigns against the realities encountered when the candidate becomes the POTUS.

All this talk about throwing granny under the bus, why I'm having a Chris Matthews here because...

Posted by: bt_Can'tStopMyLeg_hun at March 19, 2008 12:09 PM

Again you prove that you refuse to read the text in front of you. I wasn't debating you. I certainly wasn't telling you to agree with me. Quite frankly, I'd rather you disagree.
Now, fire up that neuron. I want you to fully comprehend what I'm about to say:
I was telling you one thing and one thing only --


Posted by: Sly2017 at March 19, 2008 02:45 PM