Category: Uncategorized

Stuart Schneiderman gets all Freudian about Obama:

In the end the American people bought an illusion, an illusion of competence and eptitude. They were wrong, and thus, they are getting screwed.

(Hat-tip: Insty.) But what about those of us who never bought the illusion? Why are we forced to suffer a fate that we tried to warn against? Why aren’t people who voted for Obama — and the pundits who urged them to do so — being held accountable for their error?

And let’s not let Republicans off the hook. Someone needs to go back and collect all the quotes from conservative pundits who, from 2007 on through Super Tuesday in 2008, assured us that John McCain would be a good presidential candidate.

Many of those pundits urged Republicans to back McCain because they assumed Hillary Clinton would be the Democrat nominee. Arguably McCain could have won that matchup, although I still insist Romeny was the better all-around candidate.

But McCain vs. Obama? No way.

The visuals were all wrong: Young, tall, brown and eloquent vs. old, short, bald and grumpy.

There was a glimmer of Republican hope in summer 2008, when Obama made that stupendously pretentious trip to Berlin, and then a real surge when McCain picked Palin as his running mate. But once Maverick backed the Bush bailout and especially after America saw the two guys on the same stage in the first debate — oh, it was hopeless.

Yet Republicans who actively promoted John McCain as the nominee (or who unwittingly did so, by backing Giuliani or Huckabee, rather than uniting behind Romney as the “Anybody But McCain” consensus) want to exempt themselves from culpability for Obama’s election.

And I’m still bitter about it.

Every time I see those Maverick-loving pundits sharing their “strategic insights” on our current predicament, I want to shout at the TV or computer: “Yeah, putz? Why should we believe a word you say now, when three years ago you were telling us about how that two-faced backstabbing RINO geezer was a surefire winner in 2008?”

Don’t Blame Me. I Voted for Bob Barr.

Last night, just after 11, I decided to go to the store.

And hit a deer.

The car that my son worked so hard to fix?

The car I just spent $700 to fix?

Totalled.

The insurance probably won’t pay as much as we owed on it.

So . . . the trip I’d planned to Delaware today is canceled.

Probably no BlogCon, no 9/12.

Probably no more travel for weeks, even months.

Completed immobilized, just at the onset of the campaign season.

An irretrievable disaster.

I’m emotionally wiped out.

UPDATE: TERRORISM ON FOUR HOOVES!

by Smitty (h/t Gateway Pundit)

So what we have is this right wing effort to remove any constructive role for the public sector.

If there is anyone who should be granted a doctorate in the PIT, the Progressive Inversion Tongue, it should be Barny Frank, and this phrase alone is an example of why.
Let’s zoom in on two terms of art that ought to be written with a Sharpie on a rubber chicken and applied to him.

constructive role

When a Barny Frank uses this term, what he does not mean is a minimal, clearly defined, Constitutional, liberty-enhancing, affordable, referee position. Rather, a Barny Frank Progressive means a maximal affair. Roles are vaguely laid out in multi-ream legislation in a vague manner that only dinimishes liberty. The Constitution is a joke in this mindset, and individual liberty is a bug, not a feature. The notion that there be a 1:1 ration between government revenue and spending is a joke to this bloke. And, rather than ensure a level playing field, ‘constructive role’ means destructive choosing of A over B in even the most trivial cases. So that the little people know who won.

public sector

The casual listener might apprehend that a Barny Frank is implying the existence of a respectable private sector. For the Ruling Class, the public sector is a vast pen into which the Ruling Class has herded the people, offering them ‘freedom from fear’ in exchange for freedom of action, i.e. liberty. An actual private sector would be called ‘capitalism’. If government limited itself to governing there would be increased liberty and prosperity. Having ideologically attacked capitalism and liberty, the public sector is now attempting to sell its ‘constructive role’ as though it was somehow more than a perverse, cheap substitute.

Summary: Go, Sean Bielat! Save the country from this odious twerp!

by Smitty

Paco eloquently makes the argument that BHO is our common cross:

Permit me to anticipate a complaint: “Hold the phone, there, amigo! I didn’t vote for him! What do I have to repent of?” Let us be rigorously fair in the matter: we are all to blame. Who among us doesn’t have a gullible friend or an uninformed neighbor, upon whom the employment of even modest hortatory skills might have converted to a vote for comparative sanity? How many senile uncles out there might a loving niece or nephew have helped to a more judicious choice through the use of, say, an absentee ballot? Nay, we are all sinners

Avail yourself of the whole thing, if you’re in the mood for some well-written English.