Wednesday, January 25, 2012

With GOP Help, Obama Confident of Reelection


I'm not talking about the the president's STFU speech that kicked off his reelection campaign last night. Someone pulling a Joe Wilson by shouting "You Lie!" would have been gratuitously stating the obvious.

Yeah, he got off some good one-liners, like how he wants to create jobs, and his deadpanned "everyone plays by the same set of rules" jape had 'em rolling in the aisles.  Believe it or not, there still are some boobs on the left who actually believe that crap...

But critics believe he was serious when he rolled out his proposal to squeeze the nation's wealthy non-liberals in giant California wine presses until every last drop of filthy lucre is drained from their lifeless husks.

So far the GOP is on track to reelect Obama...
Newt’s now like one of those nuked Japanese film creatures that not only was not destroyed but is back, bigger, badder and more cheesed off than ever.

Gingrich alone finally figured out that if it’s red meat that’s wanted, you might as well rip chunks of it from the flesh of the unctuous moderators and throw it right at the ravenous studio audience. (Michael Walsh)
Many of my conservative friends are dying to see Newt take apart Obama face-to-face in a presidential debate but it aint.  gonna.  happen.

If Newt wins, which is what the press wants, and if Obama decides to debate him (No rule says he has to, and it's easy to invent a few crises as a dodge. Hell, Obama's entire administration has been one long crisis)... 

 OK, to start again, if there is a debate, the rules will be so gentlemen's kabuki, no looking at one another or addressing one another, it will be a big flop, a Newtus Interruptus that leaves rightwingers deflated, Newt looking his old churlish self, and Obama emerging more presidential than ever.

Newt is a volatile admixture of kooky ideas, phony conservative populism and outsize self-regard. He is a rambling, voluble mountain of operatic bloviating rhetoric, with hot steam and progressive demiurges straining just below the surface, building up pressure at the certainty of an eventual explosive escape.

Newt is an over-inflated hot air balloon, and the fire is raging.  Team Obama is just waiting for the opportune moment to needle him and enjoy the spectacular explosion.

Romney is a board-stiff middle manager full of platitudinous twaddle and Ron Paul's coalition of neo-nazis, dope smokers, AOW rabble and the curiously confused will never hold together. Oh, yeah, and then there's that Santorum guy, what's his name...?

But still...

We may end up saddled with a half-assed presidential candidate, but the dems’ problems are legion.  First and foremost, they are stuck with the worst president in the history of the United States. Having Gaffmaster Joe on his crew doesn’t help matters. Everybody hates Obamacare, and finally people are waking up to his using the constitution as toilet paper. Even legal scholars in his fan club think his recess appointments could be overturned by a judge.

So, we're facing a craptacular election year, and we'll all be sick of politics and we'll all hate each other by the time it's all over.  That's what politics does, and state-sponsored progressivism that confiscates it all, throws it in a public pot and encourages us to fight over it just makes the rancor extra spicy.

63 comments:

Knuckledraggin said...

That speech was one of Obama's typical Blame Game speeches. He typically blames Bush or the Republicans for everything he does that fails. Anybody notice a trend in these speeches here…….

Obama Blames Arab Spring and Struggling Economy and Job Situation, August 5th, 2011.

Obama Blames Messy Democracy for His Failed Policies, August 3rd, 2011.

Obama Blames Congress for US Debt Mess; Obama news conference, June 29th, 2011.

Obama Blames Republicans for Slow Pace on Immigration Reform, July 25th, 2011.

Obama Blames Media for Lack of Compromise in Washington; remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting July 22nd, 2011.

Obama Blames Technology for Struggling Economy; June 14th, 2011, NBC Today interview.

Obama Blames Oil Spectators for High Oil Prices; April 19th, 2011, remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting.

Obama Blames Reagan for America’s Out of Control Debt and Spending; remarks by President Obama April 13th, 2011, Federal News Service.

Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Lack of Fiscal Discipline, April 13th, 2011; remarks by Obama, Federal News Service.

Obama Blames Bush-Congress for Putting Off Tough Decisions, August 17th, 2010; remarks at a fundraiser for Patty Murray.

Obama Blames Bush for Tax Cuts, Deficits; Obama town hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wisconsin, June 30th, 2010.

Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, June 8th, 2010; remarks by Obama at a second fundraising reception for Senator Barbara Boxer.

Obama Blames GOP for Events that Led to Gulf Oil Spill; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.

Obama Blames Republicans for America Not Being Able to Solve Problems; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service.

Obama Blames Corporations for Everybody’s Problems, June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service. He said, “If you’re a Wall Street Journal bank or an insurance company or oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules regardless of the consequences for everybody else.” Blames corporations for everybody’s problems.

Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of American Economy, April 19th, 2010, at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer.

Obama Blames Bush, Congress for Deficits, February 1, 2010, delivering remarks on the budget.

Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies; January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Deficits, February 1st, 2010, in remarks delivered on the budget.

Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies, January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Obama Blames Wall Street Fat Cats for Economic Disaster, December 13th, 2009, CBS News’ 60 Minutes.

Obama Blames Bush for Overall Economy, September 27th, 2009, remarks by the president at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual dinner.

Obama Blames Bush for Stifling Unions, September 7th, 2009; remarks by the president at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic.

Obama Blames Bush for Prescription Drug Bill; remarks by the president, health insurance reform town hall, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11th, 2009.

Obama Blames Bush for Jobs, July 22nd, 2009; news conferences by the president.

Ducky's here said...

First the realpolitik: These guys are going to punch themselves out and drain their bankrolls while Obummer stands back, brings in the dough and laughs.

Second, your conservative friends who think that Newt (R - fat amphibian) is anything but a numb nuts spouting boiler plate show their shallowness. The guy is a stooge.

Always On Watch said...

if there is a debate, the rules will be so gentlemen's kabuki, no looking at one another or addressing one another, it will be a big flop, a Newtus Interruptus that leaves rightwingers deflated, Newt looking his old churlish self, and Obama emerging more presidential than ever

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Gingrich does have real experience in actual debating, but Obama does not.

If they actually do debate, I won't look at the screen. I will listen.

Populism is running rampant and will continue to do so right through Election Day as the electorate become more and more frustrated with the actual state of the union (as opposed to the picture that Obama painted last night). The grandstanding is going to proliferate from both parties.

We do live in the Age of the Cult Personalities -- and the Age of Who Can Spout the Most Shocking Zingers.

Right now, Gingrich has quite a following because he's giving off the aura of being fed up. Obama is fed up, too, but fed up with the constraints of the Constitution. In fact, Obama is actually campaigning against the Constitution. He always has to be running against something, even as the incumbent?

Silverfiddle said...

Knuckledragger: Excellent list!

Ducky: I do not think Newt is a stooge; I think he is a very smart man, and he'll tell you so.

His problem is he is that fat kid that always got picked on, so he spends the rest of his life straining to show everyone how smart he is, and it's grating.

Given an agenda from a GOP congress, his presidency could be a success and, to use one of his favorite words, "transformational."

I just don't see him appealing people outside the right.

Jarheads Blog said...

I'll take a brilliant man who loves America as I do and who may or may-not be a wife cheater anytime before a Socialist who wants nothing more than to bring down this country like Obama IS.

Silverfiddle said...

Jarhead: Agreed. I will vote for anyone over Obama.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Jarhead, Frankly, I'm sure chicken hawk european history major Newt loves he's got your vote.

Silverfiddle I was waiting for that line. Conservativism is bereft of strongly held morals and convictions. The Right has always been about

So, have fun marking your ballot for whatever turd the Republicons dump in your lap.

Also, by 2016 after Obama's 2nd term he'll be regarded alongside Jefferson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt as one of the 5 greatest presidents in history, especially having to battle and win the second civil war.

Silverfiddle said...

Gene: Thanks for the laugh. Obama is a horrible failure. What are his accomplishments?

Also, I will agree with you that the GOP "is bereft of strongly held morals and convictions." They've lost their way.

Google Russell Kirk's conservative principles and you will see that conservatism is a coherent ideology that has guided Western Civilization to previously-unknown levels of prosperity.

To what can you refer me that explains liberal principles?

Country Thinker said...

Search "The GOP Deserves to Lose" and check out Bret Stephens' WSJ editorial. Quite impressive, or depressing if you're a GOP supporter.

I'm with you on Gingrich. As a Gary Johnson supporter, I am giddy at the thought of the GOP nominating the self-destructive gingrich. No one is less electable than he is.

(Gingrich calls himself "conservative" but calls Medicare "right-wing social engineering." A conservative who doesn't consider himself a part of the political right? How does that work?)

Bunkerville said...

If I thought it was hard pulling that lever for McCain last time around, this will be something. I am working out on my nautilus every morning just hoping I have the arm strength to do the deed and pull the R.

Mark Adams said...

"Second, your conservative friends who think that Newt (R - fat amphibian) is anything but a numb nuts spouting boiler plate show their shallowness. The guy is a stooge."
Way to go Kurt, played right in to their hands.. :)

Duck, here is a little sample of Obama's future.

Going in to SC, Newt, down by some 10% points, lambast two liberal media hacks in 1 week with 3 standing O's and drilled the rest of the GOP field in to the ground Then proceeds to take 43 out of 46 counties in SC. A systematic landslide. Thats Obama future in the next 10 months.

Silverfiddle said...

I calls 'em like I sees 'em, Mark.

My allegiance is to the cause of conservatism, not the personality of the month.

Mark Adams said...

Fair enough, I feel the same way. I'm not supporting the flavor of the month just because someone has done well the past few weeks, and I think you know this, Kurt, based on my posts.
I too, swear to conservatism alliance. IMO, Newt comes the closest to anyone left in the field.
I want a candidate with some cojones. I don’t want a pantywaist.

Silverfiddle said...

And if Newt gets the nomination, I am voting for him.

Ducky's here said...

When one of these indoctrinated military types says he "loves America", just what does that mean.

It seems to mean "I've closed my mind to everything but cheap jingoistic rhetoric". Surly that isn't good.

Reminds me of a call to a local rabies radio show.

"Hell Jay, I'm a marine so I know something about freedom".

They never tell you what the "know about freedom". Complicated topic and you suss it all out by enlisting. Do you honestly believe that, Silverfiddle?

Is the nation worth more than aphorisms? Certainly yes, but maybe I'm the one who "loves his country".

Silverfiddle said...

I can't answer for the Marine, ask him yourself.

Traveling abroad, and not staying in tourist hotels, can give you a great appreciation for the good ol' US of A. Even Europe, which I loved, can not measure up.

You sound defensive...

beamish said...

Because I spend a lot of time self-impressed (LOL), I'll take a page out of Noam Chomsky's playbook and copy-n-paste a comment I left on my own blog:

I like what is being quantified as "Newt's abrasive personality." I find it absolutely endearing, actually. I guess I get where he's coming from because I don't "suffer fools gladly" either.

And what are Newt's detractors, really, but bruised egos crying over being unable to articulate that they are not "fools" or refuting Newt's clear and concise presentations that they are? And Newt has the "ego problem?"

Newt wants to lead, and lead in conservative / right-wing directions, halting and reversing the creeps and advances of liberal / left-wing overreaches. He hasn't time for people who want to argue that liberal / left-wing historical accomplishments and their odious effects on our nation need to survive this process in some way other than "see what a bad idea that was."

I think Newt is unfairly labeled as a "ideologue" when he's clearly an iconoclast.

I'm sure there's room for arguing that "iconoclasm" isn't "conservatism" but at the end of the day, that leaves "conservatives" conserving a left-wing paradigm.


I like tomatoes. Toss 'em my way.

beamish said...

My bottom lines are this:

The margin hugging extreme far-left faux libertarian Ron Paul believes American foriegn and domestic policy should be governed and dictated by the punative, coercive whims of external terrorists and that totalitarianism has the inalienable right to hawk its wares in a "free" ideological marketplace.

The Progressive leftist Barack Obama believes nothing will burn if we could just outlaw matches.

The left-of-center moderate Mitt Romney believes "success" is building a 15th mansion for himself from the equity sucked out of thousands he made homeless.

The glaring, feather boa wearing contradiction-on-stiletto heels "social conservative" Rick Santorum disagrees vehemently with Ronald Reagan's "libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism" and believes a hall monitoring nun with a wrist-slapping yardstick on every street corner and a camera in every bedroom will "improve" America's "moral character."

The neo-conservative / fusionist center-right American Exceptionalist professor of history Newt Gingrich knows how America got it the ditch it is in (trying to split the incongruent differences of a "third way" between socialism and capitalism) and simply says "why not stop being stupid and try the pragmatism that always worked?"

I'm with Newt.

Grung_e_Gene said...

One didn't need to be a Newtradamus to realize nothing old Gingrich the Ultimate Washington DC insider, never had a real job, chicken hawk, most unethical, lobbyist for Freddie Mac, triple cheating, god-swapping, false witness would harm his conservative support.

So much for the Tea Party and the Era of strong Right Wing values! What a joke. Have fun supporting Newt, he's laughing all the way to Tiffany's!!!

beamish said...

The joke, Grunge-e-Gene, is that you put stock in a left-wing populist endeavor like the "Tea Party" sidewalk trolls miscalling themselves "right-wing conservatives," and thought it would fly.

beamish said...

..but, if Mitt Romney can restore that $500 Billion Obama took out of "your" Medicare entitlements and makes an earnest national socialist effort to keep the Mexicans out of "your" pie, I suppose you could say you've "conserved" "your" Welfare State.

CJohnson said...

Did any of you actually watch it?
I watched a rerun of American Idol and I was more entertained from it than I would have been had I watched that Man-Child yell at the republicans. And I think that the things he read on his teleprompter, were from last years speech..

beamish said...

Conrad Black has coined and engraved a finer epitaph upon the Tea Party movement's tombstone than I ever thought gleefully possible.

Teabaggers are "neo-Poujadists."

Oof. That's a neutron bomb of a zinger.

Anonymous said...

Jesus CHRIST, Beamish!

For once I find myself agreeing with you -- in your very first statement.

Too bad you didn't stop there. [What a pity you've never learned when to shut up!]

Anyway, I have to say I do agree with you -- in the main.

Either it's NEWT or it's NAUGHT. No one else currently in the field could possibly save us.

I am with Newt all the way -- and have been ever since he rose to prominence in the early nineties. I remember what the guy did for us back then, and am still mad as hell at the way he was treated by his own effing party, who worked hand-in-glove with the D'Rats to get rid of him when he was far and away the best thing the Conservative Element had going for them then -- and even MORE so NOW.

The ouster of Newt as Speaker brought me to the sickening realization that The Republican Establishment was almost as rotten as the so-called Opposition.

You think I've been pushing for Ron Paul, don't you, you jerk? No! I've just been expressing my resentment at the way you persistently vilify and mischaracterize him -- and anyone who doesn't happen to hold opinions perfectly congruent with your own. Your tactics suck ass, but when you're right, you're right -- and I'm big enough to acknowledge it.

Let the church bells start their ringing!

For the record I resent the way our genial host has consistently vilified Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul too -- particularly in today's article.

I happen to have bothered to watch most of the debates. Our host has often said doing so would be a waste of time.

I strongly disagree. Elements such as body language, tone of voice, ease of articulation, eloquence, wit, style -- even the way a candidate wears clothes -- have great bearing on whether or not he might be successful both as a candidate and in office.

Relying on statistics and "reports" written by "pundits" of ANY persuasion gives insufficient evidence as to the value and viability of any potential candidate.

A far as "Sex Appeal" (for which "charisma" is a code word) is concerned, I don't think it's up to any male to make that determination. Mr. Gingrich reportedly has had countless affairs and "sexcapades" as well as three wives, so he must have somethinggoing for him in that department, if it matters.

Besides, I don't give a good country crap about anyone's sex life. A good faithful husband could very well make a lousy president -- and VICE VERSA.

We ought not be concerned about a candidate's testosterone levels or measuring the strength of his libido. Neither should we be too concerned about how "nice" he is in "real life."

What we NEED -- in case anyone but Mark and Beamish hasn't noticed -- is a CONSERVATIVE candidate with High Intelligence, Quick Wit, Considerable Knowledge of History, Courage of His Convictions, Courage to Insult, Upbraid, Ferociously Attack and DEMOLISH his Opponents, and a WILL of IRON that Refuses Ever to Back Down in the face of Opposition, or to Compromise with the Devil.

What we need is a consummate PRAGMATIST with a HUGE fiscally conservative bent -- and a HUGE set of BALLS. Some who can GET HIS AGENDA THROUGH CONGRESS.

I think Rick Santorum is the very soul of decency. I think he's a BEAUTIFUL family man. His sincerity should not be questioned. But -- and again it sticks in my throat to say it -- I mostly agree with DUCKY on the effect Rick Santorum would likely have on our politics.

Politicians do not belong sticking their noses into the bedroom or the doctor's consulting room anymore than they belong dipping their filthy hands into our bank accounts and investment portfolios.

A miracle has occurred, friends. I've agreed both with Beamish and Ducky -- and disagreed with my esteemed friend and host SilverFiddle all in one post.

Let the looting and the rioting begin!

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Even Europe, which I loved, can not measure up.


--------

I've been all around Europe and plenty of it measures up.

I just don't understand the American exceptionalism mind set.

Denise Wix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

FT,

You think I've been pushing for Ron Paul, don't you, you jerk? No! I've just been expressing my resentment at the way you persistently vilify and mischaracterize him -- and anyone who doesn't happen to hold opinions perfectly congruent with your own. Your tactics suck ass, but when you're right, you're right -- and I'm big enough to acknowledge it.

I appreciate that you "common cause" agree with me re: the potency and precision of the Newt Gingrich remedy for the top-down massacre of freedom and prosperity the Demoplicans and Repucrats have been foisting on us for the past 20 years or so. The man wants to take a well-oiled chainsaw to the choking forest of government regulation and leave dead stumps behind, hauling the logs away to let the American people make everything from toothpicks to torches in the resulting open space. As someone who currently makes a living contractually removing trees from people's property and turning the wood into lumber, mulch, and firewood for sale and surprised at how "easily" my hard work has improved my financial situation when the 9 to 5 rat race wouldn't (and can't), that's the best analogy my calloused hands can come up with at the moment. I've "liberated" myself from "the Man's" system and way of thinking. It works for some, but not for me. I like to eat and be correct, instead of just being starved, miserable, and correct.

My disagreement with you over Ron Paul is that HE IS A LEFTIST. Now, contrary to what some or even most may think of me, I don't always identify "leftism" with "wrong" despite that clearly being the case in most instances. For example, Ben & Jerry's ice cream is mighty tasty, and "when the shit hits the fan," the clever forager is going to find the ubiquitous AK-47s laying around very handy for parts and ammunition. Other than that, I'm relatively unimpressed and uninterested in the products of leftism.

Simply put, the things you like about Ron Paul are his most despicable, detestable traits. He is a racist. He is an anti-Semite. He is a quisling in the face of Islamofascism. And perhaps most obnoxious of all, he's a champion of the Great Society Ponzi Scheme Welfare State. I find his claims to conservatism and libertarianism both laughable on their face and slanderous to actual conservatives and libertarians. I want absolutely nothing to do with him or his Rothbardian / Rockwellian "court the neo-Nazis and anti-Zionist conspiracy cranks" style of white identity politics.

If you want to set aside that disagreement with me over the value of garbage and caucus with me to see Newt Gingrich dislodge the neo-Maoist beer fart out of 1600 Pennsylvania and back to loading staple guns and defacing utility poles in southside Chicago, please, come with me.

But if you think Ron Paulian initiatives will be realized during or after Newt Gingrich's journey to the White House is complete, I must chide and caution you that you're sadly mistaken.

Have a good evening.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: I don't say Europe doesn't "measure up," I just prefer the US. I won'e even start in on the Muslim lands I had the misfortune to inhabit; don't want to get you off on one of your Peace Be Upon Him tirades.

Beamish: I'll gladly take the "neo-Poujadists" smear. If it was good enough for Margaret Thatcher, it's good enough for the tea party.

It is also a historically-ignorant charge: Anti-American? Anti-Semitic? Inflationary? Hardly... But Kornhead Black loves crapping all over everything, so I can understand why you like him.

BTW, are you Ducky's evil twin? You two have quite a bit in common, although I find Ducky more succinct and cogent.

Ducky's here said...

Okay, it's a preference, that's fine.

And for the record, I thought Saudi was a hell hole. A country with no movie houses? Bump that.

I do love Arabic calligraphy though. Muslim art is unfortunatley ignored in the ignorant West.

beamish said...

Silverfiddle,

I don't really care for Conrad Black that much. Guy's a little too uppity for an ex-con caught red-handed in sordid endeavors.

I just thought the "neo-Poujadist" for Tea Partier epitaph apt and well considered in an otherwise mundane anti-Newt howler from Mitt Romney's dog carrier full of "conservatives." (see National Romney, er Review Online)

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky,
Have you ever been to Southern Spain? The Arabic architecture is full of Arabesques, tiling and Arabic art on the inside. The Alcazar in Sevilla is Amazing. They also have the Alhambra and lesser known artifacts of the Almohads et al.

Also, in Sevilla anyway, the friendliest people are the Arabs. Sevillanos are some of the rudest people I've ever met.

So you can soak up alot of Arabic art in Southern Spain while gazing upon sexy women while enjoying some drinks at a sidewalk cafe or tapas bar without worrying about the religious police caning your ass.

For a better Middle East experience, go to Qatar or Bahrain.

beamish said...

BTW, are you Ducky's evil twin? You two have quite a bit in common, although I find Ducky more succinct and cogent.

If I'm the Star Trek mirror universe version of Ducky, I must insist that I'm the one with the goatee.

I respect that Ducky is rarely charitable and kind with his misguided left-wing screwball opinions, but I like feisty.

Jersey McJones said...

This was a fun conversation to read, Silver and Ducky.

Think about it - your two are agreeing on the value of Islamic history.

Much of today's Islamic world is embroiled in turmoil, but it isn't Islam causing it. It is global interests in their resources.

So, when we recall some of the great things about Islam, we should also look at the downsides, but realize Islam itself is rarely at the heart of the matter. ie. Follow the Fuckin' Money.

JMJ

Z said...

I've never heard a better description of Newt, SF.....good one; it's 'grating', indeed.
Even Bill Bennett, a good friend of his, says something like "Newt has to feel he's the smartest man in the room"
Watch Newt's eyes when he's talking...looking all around him to make sure everyone's listening.. "aren't I terrific?" ptui.

I'll vote for him yesterday over Obama, however. Holding my nose.

Romney has to mess his hair up, figuratively and literally; remind Americans it's GOOD to be rich, what the heck's he embarrassed of after having given 40% of his income to charity?!! GEEEZ, he makes Buffet look like poacher!

Sadly, Americans are actually still believing that the economy's Bush's fault (a friend emailed me Frank Luntz's latest stats)...as if it wasn't Bush who warned five times I've seen in public (on videos) about Freddie and Fannie and ridiculous loans?
Obama's handlers are smart and cunning.....he very well might win; votes or fraud, whatever it takes. WHat a very sad thing for this country.

Anonymous said...

Z,

Newt Gingrich acts like the smartest man in the room, because he very likely is the smartest man in the room.

It's as simple as that.

People always tend to resent those whose brilliance causes others to doubt themselves. Rather than admit that, they ATTACK the offending genius whose very existence makes others look like the fools they probably are.

I've noticed for a long time that you, particularly, seem to have a real problem with people who happen to be exceptionally bright. That's much too bad, because it doesn't reflect particularly we on you. It ames you look small in fact.

Unfortunately that's typical of too much of the great American middle-class. I grew up where intelligence and achievement were recognized, rewarded and respected, bit it was considered ill-bred to let it show.

Sorry! But I say BULLSHIT! We are what we are, and the idea of hiding one's light under a bushel so other people won't feel bad in comparison is one of the many many things that are holding this country back, and kicking it down hill.

There isn't one of us who couldn't use a good healthy dose of humility, because no matter how smart we think we are, or what great things we might achieve, we are NOTHING compared to Almighty God. And Envy, which is what overt dislike of exceptional qualities in others really is is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The Truth may set us free, but it's also very hard to take much of the time.

No one ever said the road to Salvation would be easy.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Tit-for-tat, I gotta say I agree with FreeThinke in his remarks to Z.

(Holy Rings of Saturn, Wally! What is this world coming to?!)

People always tend to resent those whose brilliance causes others to doubt themselves. Rather than admit that, they ATTACK the offending genius whose very existence makes others look like the fools they probably are.

As someone who has been consistently tested to fall in the 97th to 99th percentile range in IQ tests, I am often bewildered at how my fellow but less-endowed humans manage to eke through a day without licking a light socket to see what electricity tastes like. Then licking it the next day to see if it tastes the same.

I can't really say being a "genius" has been an easy life, as the imposed expectations are much higher and the failures much more devastating. To see people quite glaringly neon obvious more stupid than me become more "successful" in life than I have or people I can't hold a candle to intellectually not even enjoy the modest and meager life I have is a concern and damnation worse than most hells concieved in the minds of common men.

I admit I hide among the working slobs, hell I *am* a working slob. One day a publisher is going to find my creative product, my writing, my novels, and I'll be right up there with the sneering elites looking down on the little people watching my literary grist getting milled into television images and movies so they don't have to injure their fragile psyches over a multi-syllabic textual construction. See Jane drool. Drool, Jane, drool.

Or, not. Maybe I'll be everyman, the little guy that finally caught a break, with humble and meager beginnings, overlooked until the nick of time, and panned with his next offering like so much plaid furniture.

Maybe when I'm unfamous and dead, someone will unearth my trove of scribbles and wonder why I never pursued a career with it and cash in on it on their own.

I dunno. I'm happy cutting down trees with the stupid people. It pays bills that anguishing over how punctuation symbols themselves have the power to change the tone and meaning of a sentence do not.

So, I'm a tree killing nerd.

The point I'm making (if I made it) is that Newt Gingrich is this little college professor turned backbencher politician from a small Congressional district in Georgia who fundamentally changed the political face of the entire nation at the Congressional, Senate and state Governor and legislature levels with... a piece of paper he wrote called the "Contract With America."

This man isn't electable nationally? Really?

Please America, stop licking that light socket already.

beamish said...

Ker-POW!

Silverfiddle said...

Careful Beamish, most of us have seen "Good Will Hunting..."

Z said...

What was apparently missed here is the big difference with being very smart and constantly demanding everyone notice it and all that's implications.
No, I don't think Newt's electable.
lightbulb or no lightbulb :-)
I think Newt would do well to go back to his original concept of not going negative...he seems to do a nasty, demeaning and personal negative which only reflects badly on him. it's really too bad.

Ducky's here said...

as if it wasn't Bush who warned five times I've seen in public (on videos) about Freddie and Fannie and ridiculous loans?

--------


Fannie ad Freddie don't make loans. Got that,z? Saying they make them pretty much highlights your lack of any understanding.

Was Fannie responsible for the business practices at Ameriquest, Contrywide and other non regulated lenders?

What happened at Fannie was that being a publicly traded company they were alarmed that they were not buying as much mortgage paper and the likes of Countrywide and the investment banking industry were cutting into their plans to double he share price during the Chucklenuts administration.

It's a complicated issue but what we do know is the the fringe right is still in hysteria trying to deny the fact that THE MARKET FAILED.

You are completely in the dark, completely ignorant on the issue and you should really stop harping and try to expand your understanding. It ain't the left that missed this.

Silverfiddle said...

The un-free market that the federal government threatened, cajoled and horse-whipped into doing foolish things failed. Yes. Happy Ducky?

Paul Volker has said so, as have many others. The mortgage business was solid until the federal government got involved. They insisted everyone abandon time-tested practices, and the pigs were set loose.

Silverfiddle said...

Further evidence: Even now, the National Association of Realtors run commercials warning that the American Dream of home ownership is imperiled, so we need to call our congressmen and have them rob even more from fellow taxpayers to cover the bad loans the federal government forced the market to write...

Despite Dodd-Frank, the market is still a hog trough and the banks are still too big to fail, and the crushing regulatory burdens are crushing our hometown banks. Thank you Uncle Sam!

Silverfiddle said...

Here's the other side to Ducky's one-sided argument:

“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not saying I’m sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t gave gotten them without that.

“But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for.”

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.


As I stated previously, Paul Volker has said as much, as have many other who know what they are talking about.

Your blame everybody but the government shtick is getting old, Ducky.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/bloomberg-to-ows-congress-caused-the-mortgage-crisis-not-the-banks/

Anonymous said...

Hurrah for Maria!
Hurrah for the kid!
We voted for Grover.
We're damned glad we did!


Why did I post that? To illustrate the ludicrous, perennially irrational, comic-grotesquel nature of American political campaigns.

~ FreeThinke

PS: Would you believe the verification word is OPTIONS? Ye Gods! - FT

Anonymous said...

Beamish,

Before we develop too cozy a highly-unlikely alliance let me please repeat the last part of the post that so stimulated your approbation:

There isn't one of us who couldn't use a good healthy dose of humility, because no matter how smart we think we are, or what great things we might achieve, we are NOTHING compared to Almighty God. And Envy -- which is what overt dislike of exceptional qualities in others really is -- is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The Truth may set us free, but it's also very hard to take much of the time.

No one ever said the road to Salvation would be easy.


~ FreeThinke

PS: It's much too bad that our erstwhile friend appears to possess a firm belief that an outward display of intelligence is, perforce, evidence of "conceit," "arrogance," or otherwise-rude or "unseemly" behavior. Conflating wit, however caustic, with cruelty and insensitivity betrays evidence that one so perceptually challenged may burdened with a a soul typical of the average governess or hall monitor. Aggressive ignorance -- like aggressive unkindness -- becomes extremely tiresome after a while. Like you I have always had problems taking "correction" from intellectual inferiors. Unlike you, however, I've never had any difficulty showing respect and admiration from those who are markedly superior. - FT

Anonymous said...

SilverFiddle,

I have had little use for New York's faux-Republican mayor Nanny Bloomberg, but certainly appreciate his acknowledgement of government's culpability in the disastrous downturn in the housing market.

How you keep finding these things I can't imagine, but I'm so glad you do.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Love Newt or hate Newt?

Here's an interesting thread from Lcom:

http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=662348

The comments show the huge divisions within the Republican ranks that very likely will spell our downfall in November and assure the continued incumbency of Barack Hussein Obama.

This is the product of more Opposition Research by the Liberal Media Establishment. It disturbs me, however, that Mr. Gingrich would lower himself to apologize the likes of a CNN inquisitor.

An Outrage a day
Keeps the Truth at bay.


~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

Careful Beamish, most of us have seen "Good Will Hunting..."

Matt Damon was unconvincing as a "genius." Especially when he recommended Howard Zinn to Mork.

beamish said...

FT,

Like you I have always had problems taking "correction" from intellectual inferiors. Unlike you, however, I've never had any difficulty showing respect and admiration from those who are markedly superior.

Rest assured, anyone who like you believes Ron Paul's racism and conspiracy theory-mongering rehashes of anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion canards are worthy of spirited defenses are in no way, shape, or form "markedly superior" to me, much less the average moron.

Anonymous said...

NEAT LITTLE HATCHET JOB on NEWT"

Gingrich and Reagan

by Elliot Abrams

National Review Online

January 28, 2012

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.


The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong. ...”



You may finish the article at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams


If you're interested, here’s what I said in response:


The Abrams article is interesting, of course, but it strikes me as decidedly tendentious. I suspect Abrams is part of The Establishment, who for some ungodly reason has been pushing like mad for Mitt Romney. 

Newt Gingrich seems never to have had any fear of challenging those in power be they Democrats or members of his own party. 

I don't know if it's even possible without hiring a full time staff of researchers -- a resource Mr. Abrams undoubtedly has at his command -- but to be fair to Newt Gingrich one would have to examine literally everything he said to, and about Mr. Reagan throughout the Reagan years to get the full story and obtain a proper perspective.

~ FT

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

PART TWO:



The technique of selecting facts out of context to prove a theory or support an agenda is as old as the hills. It would take more than an article by a professed, unabashed neocon to persuade me to abandon Mr. Gingrich in favor of any of the other less-than-ideal candidates the Republicans have at their disposal.



Mr. Romney does not have enough rage in him -- nor does have have sufficient courage of his convictions (if such there be!) -- to go after Obama hammer and tongs the way Newt Gingrich would.



Perhaps Mr. Gingrich is not a great "visionary," but he certainly is a marvellous attack dog -- and isn't that exactly what we need at this particular crisis in our history?



The Republicans seem to keep losing sight of what-ought-to-be their primary objective -- to give Obama the drubbing of his life and cast his battered, bleeding remains back on the dung heap from which he sprang -- and where he has always belonged.

I think from his history vis-a-vis the Clinton administration and his stellar, invigorating performance in the recent series of debates that Newt Gingrich is just the man to do it.



While I revere Ronald Reagan -- who just looks better and better the farther away we get from his presidency -- I am far more interested in the way Newt Gingrich functioned as an antidote to the potential horrors of an unchecked Clinton regime, than I am at the temerity he showed in challenging and criticizing Republican presidents -- especially George W. Bush whom I don't believe was "right" about anything.

Poor Dubya! He was just putty in the hands of those warmongering neocons. I doubt if Dubya has ever had a thought in his head that someone else didn't put there.



Mr. Gingrich would be nobody's puppet -- unless he felt acting the part was advisable to further his favored agenda.



Someone with the colossal effrontery, brashness, quick wit and vivid spontaneity of a Newt Gingrich scares the bleeding bejesus out of would-be puppeteers like Eliot Abrams, whose role along with others of his ilk has always been to manipulate craftily and insidiously behind the scenes for purposes not always in the best interests of American citizens while publicly pretending otherwise to great effect.



Aren't you fed up to the teeth with being manipulated by "special interests?" I sure as hell am!



~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

PS:

BESIDES, who could say with any degree of certainty that Newt Gingrich's self-appointed role as burr under the saddle of Republican presidents wasn't helpful in prodding Mr. Reagan to move in the direction he did with a firmly stated anti-Communist policy?

The thing that gives me pause for thought with Mr. Gingrich has nothing to do with his personality, his somatic type, or the reprehensible manner with which he's supposedly treated the women in his life. Instead it's his strong identification with the neo-imperialist agenda laid out by the neocons (PNAC) -- an agenda that seems bound and determined to keep us involved in endless wars for no purpose that could possibly serve the best interests of OUR nation.

And PLEASE don't tell me we must pursue this policy of bankrupting ourselves because of OIL.

That's BS.

All we need to do is develop and take full advantage of the fossil fuel resources in the western hemisphere, and we could thumb our noses at the Oil Sheikhs and tell them to start whistlin' Dixie.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

FYI: Never saw Good Will Hunting. Just read a Wiki précis of the plot and several supposedly "significant" quotations from the script.

Sorry, but it sounds like typical post-modern batshit to me.

Dialogue continually larded with "shit" and "fuck" turns me off. I don't care if it is the way people address each other today in real life. I still stay it's regrettable -- and boring.

BAH HUMBUG!

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.

--------
Bloomberg is a liar and you are a fool to swallow this cheese.

NOBODY forced Coutrywide or Ameriquest to write anything.

Did the government force Lehman to leverage bad paper at 50 and 60 to 1? NO.

Did the government force companies to write over a trillion in derivatives that were essentially bets that the housing market would continue to rise in perpetuity?

No.

And what we have on the right are freaking fools who believe the CRA FORCED bankers to make sub prime loans (false) and further more the right is so unsophisticated they believe that there wasn't enough equity in the banking system to cover failed CRA loans.

THE MARKET FAILED. Catastrophically.

It's time to stop blaming government for everything in an attempt to polish your laissez-fairyland.

Silverfiddle said...

Yes Ducky, The government-dominated, centrally-planned non-free market failed.

It wasn't just CRA or fannie and freddie; it was government-enforced lending standards. Follow them or you were forbidden from selling your junk mortgages to the suckers.

And I'm not just blaming government. As I said, their stupid policies set loose the pigs of wall street.

When Uncle Sam is stupid enough to leave the barn door open, the hogs would be stupid to not gorge themselves on the corn.

Your dogmatic Marxism blinds you to the facts. This is common with Marxism. Nothing fits the theory so every thing must be forced.

dmarks said...

FT said: "Instead it's his strong identification with the neo-imperialist agenda laid out by the neocons (PNAC)"

PNAC is relevant to nothing and omnly comes up as part of wild-eyes conspiracy theories. It's a simplistic explanation to complex events and does not withstand any intellectual scrutiny (just like any conspiracy theory).

Anonymous said...

If you can provide enough intellectual scrutiny and factual data to prove that the war policies of GW Bush were entirely of his own devising and had nothing to do with any influence brought to bear from from the group who dreamt up the Project for a New American Century, I'd be glad to review the data, D. Marks. Since Dick Cheney, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick were very much part of that group along with Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Donald Kagan, Scooter Libby, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Douglas Feith, Kenneth Adelman, Eliot Cohen, Martin Peretz, John McCain, and I-can't-remember-who-all-else -- , I think it would be very difficult to prove that neocon influence on the GW Bush administration was illusory or mere "conspiracy theory," but you're welcome to try. Just present your evidence, please.

The next thing, I suppose, will be allegations that the mere mention of "neocons" or PNAC is "anti-Semitic." I hope you will spare us the tedium of going through that tired exercise.

Sooner or later Truth must prevail. We can't refashion history to suit parochial purposes with doing ourselves -- and all mankind -- a great disservice.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Pointed Viewpoints

Quite honestly, polygamy

Is all over the Bible.

To say the ancients lived like beasts

Isn’t any libel.



There's little thought or talk of love,

Since women were just chattel.

Men were free to fornicate,

While girls were bred like cattle.



There is no way that we can say 

What's best for everyone.

What's right for me might poison thee

Or take away your fun.



Oh how I wish we could be free

To live life as we choose,

And cease all consternation

Over other peoples' views!


~ FreeThinke - 1/27/12

dmarks said...

FreeThinke said: "The next thing, I suppose, will be allegations that the mere mention of "neocons" or PNAC is "anti-Semitic." I hope you will spare us the tedium of going through that tired exercise."

Well, you do have a proven record of antisemitism in this forum, so it can happen again.

No allegations necessary. The bashing of mythical "neocons" is often antisemitic. And that is factual. Antisemitism is a real problem. And, unlike your earlier opinion, it happens whenever people hate Jews just for being Jewish. It does not require your threshold of there to be some major atrocity for it to be antisemitism.

For one thing, several on your list aren't even neoconservatives. McCain for example. For another, Bill Clinton and a large number of Democrats, along with traditional conservatives, supported retaliating against Iraq.

"Sooner or later Truth must prevail."

And you sure won't find it appealing to simple-minded theories about organizations/documents that had little or no effect on anyhting.

"f you can provide enough intellectual scrutiny and factual data to prove that the war policies of GW Bush..."

I can't PROVE the PNAC did not contorl Bush. Nor can I prove that the Illiminati, the Trileral Commission, the Elders of Zion, Great Cthulhu, the Living Elvis, or the Skull and Bones did either.

Anonymous said...

DMarks you seem to crave enmity. You won't find it in me. I think, however, that you suffer from an obsession fed by rampant paranoia.

In many areas your opinions make a great deal of sense, and I've said so many times. In this area, however, you appear to me to be delusive.

I shall earnestly pray for your recovery, because you're doing a great deal of harm to yourself and no one else in pursuing this warped line of thinking.

How horrible it must be to try to sleep at night worrying that there may be "anti-Semites" lurking under your bed, or hiding in your closet!

If this were Europe in the 1940's, that would not be in the least funny, I know, but this ISN'T Europe and we are LONG past the hideous days of the Third Reich, thank God.

Sorry, but it's time to move on. There are OTHER issues more pressing and more pertinent to the survival of the entire free world now -- or what little may be left of it. We need to use our waning energies addressing them to constructive effect.

~ FreeThinke

Tom the Redhunter said...

Sadly, Silverfiddle, I think your analysis is mostly spot-on.

I'm only backing Romney by process of elimination; I don't see how either Gingrich or Santorum can win. With Romney it'll be hard, but I think he stands a chance.

Paul is just a nut.