Another Write-wing Conspirator

Commentary, observations, musing, and ranting from the middle of the road (or just to the right of center. Usually.) featuring The Curmudgeon

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 42 other followers

  • Recent Posts

  • Top Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Advertisements
  • Welcome to The Curmudgeon’s lair

    Welcome to my curmudgeondom. As you’ll soon learn, your reactions to my missives here are likely to range from fear to loathing to tears to outright rage—and I just might even evoke from you an occasional sober nod or two.

    If you see a posting you like and wish to share it with others, by all means feel free to do so. I'd prefer that you send the link to your friends, but you're also welcome to reproduce anything here—as long as you retain my identity on the document. If you have a web site of your own and wish to post a link to this blog (or to a specific post), again, feel free to do so.

    The purpose of this blog is simple: to provide me a vehicle for sounding-off on whatever topic suits me at the moment. While there’s sure to be no shortage of politically-oriented palaver here, it is by no means all (nor necessarily even most) of what will be proffered to your discerning mind. You’ll also find that my personal politics, ethics, morals, and standards are pretty much “all over the map” (according to my mother-in-law)—so, don’t be surprised to see rants regarding, say, the interference of churches in politics, politically-correct anything, “nanny” laws, taxes, the United Nations, Congress, the Commissioner of Baseball, the State of Ohio’s speed limits, steroids, Jesse Jackson, the “mainstream” media, ultra-liberals, ultra-conservatives, the price of cigarettes, Obamarxism, regulating sales of alcohol, gasoline price manipulation, Muslim foot baths, illegal immigration, laws banning the sale of adult sex toys, cell phones, heavy-handed cops, meddlesome politicians, Hillary, Billary, our all-but-self-proclaimed uncrowned Queen Nancy, “W”, eminent domain, freedom of speech, and the designated hitter all in succession. It is, as I said, my curmudgeondom — and I have the credentials and bona fides to lay claim to the title of The Curmudgeon. So, there.

    Some of the postings you'll encounter may seem familiar—especially to those who know me personally. By way of explanation… I once had an ongoing relationship with a local newspaper, and had a number of published opinion pieces—some of which may be posted here. My arrangement was for a feature entitled An Opposing View; given that the editorial staff had a generally liberal, left-of-center view, it stands to reason that my "opposing" view would generally be perceived as coming from the right (in more ways than one, in my own humble opinion). These posts will be annotated as having been previously published.

    Comments, of course, are always welcome. You may agree or disagree with me. Doesn’t matter. Of course, I reserve the right to completely ignore you — but, feel free to let your feelings be known, anyway. And if you don't want to comment directly here, my e-mail address is: .

    Oh, and…yes, I can spell. That "Write-wing" is only a play on words. So, there. Again.

    Welcome, once again. Strap in and hang on.

  • Twitter

  • About this “curmudgeon” guy…

    Armchair philosopher, politically-incorrect political commentator, raconteur, retired air traffic controller, dilettante truck driver, US Army veteran, recluse, sometime-writer, redneck convert neè Buckeye, ne'er-do-well, bon vivant, unrepentant libertine, unapologetic libertarian, and (of course) curmudgeon…

    Anything else you wanna know—just ask.

  • Blog Stats

    • 12,978 hits

Archive for March, 2010

“Damaged goods,” obstructionists, and politics as usual

Posted by The Curmudgeon on March 29, 2010

The Theory of Relativitism


For those who might’ve slept through the event, the Obama regime announced Saturday the recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. (It seems that less-than-popular news is quietly released on Saturday mornings—when it’s presumed that no one’s paying much attention; remember Van Jones?)

Ever on the alert for opportunities to refine the nation’s thinking, Democrats seized on the opportunity to branch out; correcting our poor math skills seems to be their new mission—though not to the exclusion of politics-as-usual relativism.

To refresh readers’ memories…

Relieved at having managed to scrounge-up a sole Republican vote (though it required a lavish bribe—and they subsequently lost it, anyway) when the House initially passed its health care reform package, Democrats smugly pronounced it a “bipartisan” effort. (Note that Democrats at the time considered one (1) vote by the opposition to constitute “bipartisanship”; this is a crucial bit of information.)

Conversely, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) last week blamed the failure to gain Senate confirmation for Craig Becker on “obstructionist” Republicans; similarly, Obama decried the “partisan politics” that forced him to use the back-door approach of recess appointment. Both Reid and Obama neglected to mention that Becker’s nomination was blocked by a similar bipartisan effort; indeed, two (2) Senate Democrats joined Republicans in opposing Becker. (Pop quiz for the New Democrat Math: When is one (1) vote out of 228 House Republicans more “bipartisan” than two (2) votes out of 59 Senate Democrats?)

It should be noted that Obama didn’t seem to consider himself to be of the obstructionist persuasion when he assisted in blocking the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations; he did, however, assert that Bolton had to be considered “damaged goods” for having gone on to the U.N. via recess appointment by then-President George W. Bush.

Clearly, he doesn’t consider his own recess appointments to be likewise tainted—and both “bipartisanship” and “obstructionism” similarly come fully-equipped with sliding scales.

Recess appointments are nothing new. Given their controversial natures, both Bolton’s and Becker’s appointments were widely predicted. Any President is well within the bounds of law in making such appointments; it’s implicit, though, that such a tactic will draw criticism—especially from the opposing party.

Nor is there anything new about obstructionist tactics, filibusters, and the rest of the same old, same old: politics as usual. One man’s guardian of the law standing in the breach is another’s obstructionist; it’s all a matter of perspective. It’s all relative.

The big difference? This all centers around a President who vowed to change how Washington does business. It involves a Speaker of the House who vowed to “drain the swamp” and bring a higher level of ethics and accountability to government. Since the Obama regime’s rise to power, the promised “transparency” has taken on the appearance and consistency of granite. And as for listening to the will of the people—

…not unless you’re Big Labor or a Democrat donor with deep pockets.

So-ooooo…how’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ out for ya?



Posted in corruption, Craig Becker, labor, obama, opinion, Pelosi, politics, recess appointment, Reid, Senate confirmation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Paying the piper

Posted by The Curmudgeon on March 26, 2010

Will Democrats pay the price come election time? Will we?

By hook or by crook (and mostly the latter—from what we can glean, anyway), Obama got his way; his health care/health care insurance/student loan/Gawd-only-knows-what “reform” scheme has been brought to fruition. Congressional Democrats—many no doubt weary of being by turns bribed and bludgeoned into submission—finally gave him what he wanted.

The question now is: At what cost?

Not just in real dollars; we already have an idea how brutal that will be. The real question is whether the political price some believe will be borne by Democrats seeking re-election a little over seven months from now will prove worth it.

Obama, of course, believes so; on the other hand, he’s not a Senator maneuvered into voting for providing erectile-dysfunction drugs to convicted child molesters or taxing wounded veterans for access to proper medical care.

In an excellent piece written by Kimberley A. Strassel for The Wall Street Journal (The Senate Reckoning: Senate Democrats get beat up by their own reconciliation rules), we learn that Senate Republican leaders proved a bit more shrewd than previously thought—and Harry Reid outsmarted himself (no major feat, granted—but noteworthy, nonetheless).

By opting for the “reconciliation” process (necessitated by the loss of their 60-vote “supermajority” with the election of Scott Brown), Reid unwittingly painted himself into a corner—along with his fellow Democrats. Trapped by their own rules, Democrats had to approve the reconciliation measure without amendment; any changes would have triggered another vote (which they likely wouldn’t have won—and risked killing the legislation altogether). Republicans no doubt privately chortled with glee, as any amendment offered would have to be rejected by the Democrats—even if it was something Democrats sincerely wanted—whether the Republicans actually wanted to see it adopted or not. They could’ve offered amendments for everything from providing womb-to-grave free medical care for everyone to taxing the snot out of insurance companies to pay for Obama’s travel bills—and the Democrats would’ve been obliged to oppose them. All of them. And there was no limit on the number of amendments that could be offered. Democrats were forced into the position of voting against each amendment—no matter what it was—and having their votes recorded. It had the potential for being the most fateful moment since George H.W. Bush foolishly uttered: “Read my lips.”

Predictably (as so astutely observed by Ms Strassel), this coming November, Republican candidates can look forward to correctly asserting that the Democrat running for re-election supported supplying Viagra to sexual predators, tried to tax Jerry’s Kids for their wheelchairs and braces, and might even have had a hand in killing Cock Robin—and the voting record proves it.

Obama praised Democrats’ “courage” for casting tough votes; inwardly, they had to be thinking: Thanks, you idiot, for forcing me to support putting Chester the Molester’s perversion into overdrive. Arlen Specter (D-PA) already faced an uphill battle for re-election; now, he’ll have to go home and explain to his constituents how he voted away their chance to opt-out of the whole mess. Oh, and Democrats specifically voted to exempt themselves from this landmark “reform” (a choice the rest of us don’t have—and most of us resent).

From the outset, an arrogant Obama counted on three things: an overwhelming majority in Congress to do his bidding, quick passage of his legislation (designed, of course, to lengthen the interval between passage and the midterm election—hoping we’d have time both to forget it all and to become accustomed to whatever entitlements we might receive), and the sheer immensity of a scheme that kept potentially troublesome provisions deeply hidden.

Instead, the process dragged-on for several months, his own majority proved stubborn, and we already know many of the dirty little secrets he’d have preferred to have kept hidden a bit longer. As the election draws near, passions may not have time to subside to a level to be of value to him; conversely, November is still far enough in the future to permit careful examination of his “masterpiece.” (Burying the devil in the details is a two-edged sword; it lessens the initial impact—but it repeatedly brings the legislation back to the voters’ attention as all those surprises are brought into the daylight a little at a time, thereby preventing its fading from memory prior to the election.)

Appearing in Iowa City shortly after signing the legislation, Obama invited Republicans intent on repealing the measure to “Go for it. Be my guest.” He, too, realizes that people quickly become content with entitlements—and resist having them taken away.

He might be well-advised to be careful what he wishes for; while some provisions took effect immediately, many of them will take years. There’s considerable doubt as to who will benefit from what, and how soon—and what percentage of the vote they will constitute in seven months’ time.

Giving the devil his due, Obama managed to eke-out a political victory when he needed it; again, however, the cost is still undetermined. Flush with his (Pyrrhic?) win, he’s been quick to claim broad acceptance of his plan; he sees it as a shot in the arm to advance his agenda (whatever that is). However, his reliance on strong-arm tactics and blatant bribery belie his campaign promise of “changing the way Washington does business”—or any other kind of change, either. His is the classic machine politics, Chicago-style thuggery on a larger scale. His promised openness and transparency long ago went by the wayside; by now, the criticism of his secret back-room deals has spilled-over from the much-maligned right-wing (and the much-reviled Fox News) into the mainstream. As far back as early January, even CNN had to take note. (See video of Jack Cafferty’s commentary of January 6, 2010.)

The political cost to Democrats? That remains to be seen. As Obama himself said last month during the Blair House tête-à-tête: “That’s what elections are for.”


Posted in corruption, economy, education, election, health care costs, health care insurance, health care reform, insurance, obama, ObamaCare, politics, Reid, vote | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Making college athletes actually study? And graduate? Oh, the humanity!

Posted by The Curmudgeon on March 20, 2010

Time to re-align priorities?

For those accustomed to my doing a fair amount of bashing of all things Obama—…well, you might want to direct your attention to a different blog for a moment.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (appointed by his old pal Barry Obama) recently caused a bit of a stir in the world of college basketball by proposing that schools failing to graduate at least forty per cent of their athletes be barred from post-season competition; as might be expected, the announcement hasn’t been greeted with open arms by coaches at many powerhouse universities.


If anything, the proposal doesn’t go far enough. Duncan should be praised—and encouraged to go farther. (Anyone who’s suffered through some of those post-game interviews with players barely able to string-together a coherent sentence should agree.)

No one will outdo me in extolling the virtues of scholastic sports—all the way from middle school to college. They teach discipline, develop leaders, and foster teamwork. Beginning decades ago, colleges began offering athletic scholarships that offered educational opportunities to some who would otherwise be unable to afford higher education—providing yet another impetus for pursuing athletic excellence. I participated in sports through high school, and encourage others to do so.

One thing I clearly remember, though: from the first time I suited-up in the seventh grade through my senior year of high school, we all understood that if we didn’t maintain our grades we wouldn’t be eligible to play.

Somewhere along the line, however, priorities became skewed; what was once considered a strictly extracurricular activity became the primary (and — for some — sole) reason for attending college. Grades became almost an afterthought (as did class attendance). Athletic programs demanded more and more of the student-athlete’s time. Athletic programs themselves became cash-cows for the universities. Academic performance by many athletes became downright embarrassing; some claimed to have never attended classes for which they received full credit, and at least one prominent professional sports figure revealed after his playing days were over that he’d remained functionally illiterate through the four years he’d attended one of the most prestigious universities in the nation.

Finally, the NCAA stepped-in several years ago and established minimum academic standards and oversight for collegiate athletics; unfortunately, they didn’t set the bar very high—but, at least it was something.

Despite such reforms, academic performance by college athletes isn’t what it should be. Meanwhile, universities reap huge returns on their investments in athletic programs—proceeds which are not shared with the athletes, owing to their amateur standing. (It has been suggested that this constitutes a form of modern “gladiator”-style slavery, of sorts.) After capitalizing (practically for free) on sole access to students’ athletic prowess, universities can essentially discard them once they’ve exhausted their eligibility—whether they’ve graduated or not (most haven’t).

Not graduating wouldn’t be such an issue if every scholarship athlete stepped into professional sports and became an instant zillionaire; the simple truth, though, is that only a small percentage do so. Do the math: there are hundreds of colleges—and only a relative handful of professional franchises. For example, the NBA comprises thirty teams; the NCAA’s “March Madness” tournament alone features only the top sixty-four college teams. Pretty long odds, there—and this ignores the very real possibility of a career-ending injury being sustained during an athlete’s collegiate career.

Bear in mind, also, that many college athletes aren’t challenged all that much, academically speaking. Take a look at their majors; some appear to be less intellectually-charged than Basket Weaving 101. Degree or not, how employable are they going to be?

So…after four years of labor and wear-and-tear, those who don’t carve-out a niche at the professional level may well come up woefully short on marketability.

…and now universities are biting fingernails over a requirement to graduate a paltry forty per cent ?


Posted in competition, education, March Madness, NCAA, sports | 3 Comments »

Barry vs. Baierheart

Posted by The Curmudgeon on March 18, 2010

Would someone please explain to Obama the meaning of “interview”?

In watching the Bret Baier interview (well…it was supposed to have been an interview) with Barry Barack Obama, I was repeatedly reminded of a scene from the film Braveheart when Stephen’s character appears momentarily to be communicating telepathically with God, then relays the divine demand: “The Almighty says, ‘Don’t change the subject; just answer the f– – –ing question!'”

If only. (If only Baier could actually have said that—and if only Obama would actually have done so.)

One could almost excuse Obama for being so evasive; it could be charitably argued, in fact, that he’s become so accustomed to fielding softballs from the left-leaning “mainstream media” that he doesn’t recognize a real question when it’s posed—if not for the striking resemblance of his reactions to those of Joe Biden when similarly challenged during the campaign.

The simple truth, however, is that he clearly never had any intention of answering any questions—and his actions were typical of what seems to be adherence to the Democrats’ play-book:


* Rule One: Upon fielding a question, ignore the question and take off on your predetermined tangent—and never, never, ever pause long enough to permit the interviewer to regain control of the interview.

* Rule Two: If you screw up and let the interviewer speak, immediately regain the initiative by interrupting him/her before he/she can turn the encounter into a real interview—and resume your diatribe forthwith.

* Rule Three: Any attempt by the interviewer to steer you back to the topic at hand should be immediately attacked with protesting, complaining, whining, and demands that the interviewer stop interrupting you and let you finish making your point (which, of course, isn’t even remotely related to the interviewer’s question).


Obama’s problem is simple: he doesn’t (yet) have the votes he needs to ram-though his health care reform/power play scheme—and he’s now so desperate that he’ll do anything to get them. (Does anyone believe that he would show up — finally — on the despised Fox News network if he didn’t have to?) Appearing on Fox for an interview (using the term loosely) was a last-gasp measure, a prospect only marginally less mortifying than a molten-lava enema.

It didn’t work.

Baier tactfully characterized the session as “contentious”; viewers probably wondered whether Saddam Hussein’s promised “Mother of All Battles” had at long last arrived. Obama was combative from the start, doggedly avoiding Baier’s questions and rudely launching on one soliloquy after another—and repeatedly betraying his annoyance at Baier’s refusal to be stonewalled. He showed himself in the worst light since before launching his campaign for the White House, revealing a petulant, arrogant autocrat who lashes out at anyone with the audacity to question him on anything. Throughout the session, he seemed obsessed with dominating and controlling the discourse, talking around every question put to him and answering nothing.

In the end, Obama told us nothing—and he achieved nothing. Once again avoiding being pinned-down on specifics, the entirety of his performance could be summed up with: “Trust me.”



Posted in Baier, health care insurance, health care reform, insurance, obama, ObamaCare | Tagged: , , , , | 9 Comments »

It’s a border, stupid.

Posted by The Curmudgeon on March 15, 2010

Failing to grasp the obvious


The fence marking the U.S.-Mexican border being in a sad state of repair, a competitive contract bid was announced to beef-up security in an area notorious as a crossing point for illegal aliens. After the contract was awarded, a representative of the company tasked with replacing the fence was quoted as saying that the new fence would be so secure that anyone attempting to scale the planned barrier risked “having his arm cut off.”

 The following day, the public outcry over the “inhumane” character of the fence (which, it should be remembered, was intended to protect a national border) became so intense that the contract was cancelled, and a study was commissioned to determine a more suitable solution; it was not explained how a fence — an inanimate object expressly designed to be an obstacle — could take on human characteristics, nor how anyone would be harmed who wasn’t already breaking the law in the first place since fences aren’t known for reaching out and attacking people.

 It should be noted that the preceding events occurred in 1969. It can thus be concluded that illegal immigration is neither a new problem nor one likely to go away anytime soon.

 In the present day, we have a President advocating a “guest worker” program (not, he claims, a form of amnesty—though one congressional aide describes the proposal as “the same old pig with new lipstick”), two (thus far) counter-proposals from Congress, and a citizenry becoming more vocal in their demands for immigration reform.

 All except the citizenry seem to miss the most important point: not one action by Congress or the President — nor any of their respective proposals — offers any real hope of improving border security. While we’re frequently reminded that we’re “at war,” our political leaders seem to have little interest in prudently locking the back door to dissuade intruders. The reason? They’re wary of antagonizing a growing Hispanic voter base.

 We’re told that illegal immigrants are merely trying to edge into the U.S. labor market to improve their standard of living by taking jobs no one else wants. One can hardly blame them; even the lowest-paying jobs available are generally an improvement over what they leave behind south of the border. However, U.S. citizens displaced by illegal workers willing to accept lower pay (take the building trades, for example) might disagree with the aphorism that no one else wanted the job. Moreover, economic principles assert that the inability to fill a position suggests that inadequate compensation is being offered. Importing cheap labor isn’t the answer; increasing wages to attract applicants is.

 Most importantly, we should not accept any “reform” that fails to secure the border.

 Ironically, it seems to have been forgotten that illegal immigrants are by definition law-breakers; they broke the law to get here, and continue to do so by staying. Should we now reward them? 
 And the border remains a virtual open door.


The preceding is a reprint, a piece I wrote for The Huntsville Times, Huntsville, AL. It was published on April 2, 2006.

The following is a reprint of another piece I wrote for The Huntsville Times, published on May 23, 2007:


 To paraphrase Shakespeare: Amnesty by any other name would smell as rotten.



A brief series of urgent, timely messages to Congress might read thusly:

        *  It’s a border, stupid.
        *  Crossing a border illegally is a crime.
        *  Immigration law doesn’t need reform—comprehensive or otherwise; it needs enforcement.
        *  Granting amnesty in any form is a proven loser—and suggests that lawmakers have badly misread the mood
of the nation.

What is it about such simple concepts that prove so incomprehensible to this august body of legislators and (to a large extent) lawyers?

A motley gallery of Senate negotiators has finally produced some sort of agreement for comprehensive immigration reform. What details lie buried in the agreement (cramming a matter so essentially simple into 350 pages makes the deal immediately suspect; this is Congress, after all) has not yet been revealed.
 All that’s clear at this point is that everyone involved in these negotiations is pretty much equally displeased with the outcome; two of the key players washed their hands of the mess before negotiations were concluded and the remaining hopefuls don’t seem enthused about the bill’s prospect for adoption.
 We’re told that the measure’s concept for dealing with the estimated 12 million illegal aliens already here (the government doesn’t know how many there are, characterizing them as “invisible”) isn’t really amnesty, and that it provides for fines, waiting periods, tracking of immigrants (the government doesn’t know where these invisible people are, either), and appropriate provisions for returning them to their country of origin.
 We’re also told that any “not-really-amnesty” legalization of illegal immigrants will be contingent on improved border security (indeed, it appears that many features of the bill are in turn somehow dependent upon another feature’s successful implementation), and that the measure provides for tracking down and deporting violators. (Since we don’t seem to be able to locate them now, what makes anyone think we’ll be able to later?)
 Add to this mix a president intent on scoring a domestic policy home run, the political fortunes being staked by various congressional members and the upcoming elections—in a town where deal-making is part of the process.
 Such an intricately contrived house of cards is not likely to survive the forthcoming congressional battle; meanwhile, the root problems remain with no remedies in place, and they’ll still be there should the measure be defeated—at which point Congress will start all over again with nothing gained from months of negotiations. And all those invisible people will still be out there—illegally.
 It’s time for the government to do the job it’s avoided for decades: secure the borders and enforce the law. Forget “comprehensive” anything until we have a handle on the situation; then will be the time to consider changes.



Now, I included the two segments above for the sole purpose of prefacing today’s lesson, to wit: Nothing’s essentially changed.
 The border with Mexico is still porous (though there is an ongoing effort to replace hundreds of miles of fencing, and patrols have been substantially increased—but, neither effort seems to have had much effect), there remains a huge population of illegal aliens (they’ve grown considerably more militant, by the way), and — sure enough — there’s been some preliminary attempt in Congress to draft legislation that many expect to prove a repeat of the fiasco of a few years ago. (Naturally; it’s being headed-up by Senator Charles Schumer. What could possibly go wrong? I’ll go ‘wa-aaay out on a limb and predict that the next two comments to arise from this effort will include “amnesty” and “pathway to citizenship”—and there’ll soon be a full-court press to force passage of this legislation prior to the coming midterm election.  Any bets?)
 I tell you all this just to give you something to think about in light of the Obama regime’s having stuck its toe in the water this past week, pledging its commitment to fix the immigration system it’s deemed to be “broken.”
 How reassuring. Given Obama’s deft handling of health care reform, I know I’m confident that his next attempt at comprehensive reform and overhaul of yet another system about which he knows next to nothing will be a breeze.
 Make that a big breeze. A really big breeze. Like a tornado.
 Make that an F5 tornado.



Posted in election, illegal aliens, immigration, immigration reform, national security, obama, political correctness, politics | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Could the Political Theater Possibly Get Any More Absurd?

Posted by The Curmudgeon on March 10, 2010

Honest…you can’t make this stuff up.

Political junkies, commentators, and bloggers everywhere are wallowing in an orgiastic embarrassment of riches—thanks in no small measure to the tireless efforts of the triumvirate of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Writer’s block became a thing of the past the moment this bunch came to power; with such fertile ground, who could ever be at a loss for ideas?

Consider Pelosi’s latest gem, referring to health care reform: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it away from the fog of controversy.”


Throughout the health care reform saga, we’ve basically been told: “Trust me.” Somewhere in those roughly five thousand pages (between the House and the Senate versions, collectively) of esoteric legislative proposals, we’re supposed to eventually find the justification for all the arm-twisting, political payoffs, sweetheart deals, and secret planning sessions; if one accepts Pelosi’s premise (by the way…there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that may be of interest), she’s on some holy quest to bring this masterpiece to the masses—that they may someday be able to comprehend it and appreciate its beauty…much like all that modern art that we’re all too unsophisticated to grasp (you know; the stuff that looks like it was painted by a heavily medicated pre-schooler). Why, it’s such a wonderful plan that all three members of the aforementioned triumvirate (and all of Congress) expressly exempted themselves from it so that we wouldn’t have to share it with them. How generous and altruistic of them. And knowing that we’re all too stupid to know a good thing when we see it, they’re trying earnestly to spare us the anguish of determining whether to buy a pig in a poke by deciding the matter for us—requiring only that we be left holding the bag.

Reid? Oh, so much potential, there. The one guy in Washington who out-Bidens even Joe Biden with his ill-considered outbursts. One must wonder whether he was given a pass for his infamous “Negro dialect” comment about Obama less for his past record and more because even his associates and supporters know he’s an idiot. When he speaks, the result is most often one of two reactions: viewers must resist mightily the temptation to throw something at the TV—or simply scratch their heads in wonderment.

Obama, of course, surrounds himself with casts of characters that never fail to provide fodder; it’s unclear, however, to what degree their antics are attributable to Obama, himself.

Though (now) former congressman Eric Massa’s bizarre allegations about Rahm Emanuel accosting him in the shower have been pretty much discredited,—…well, it is Rahm Emanuel, after all; there isn’t much that seems over-the-top for him. Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania claims that the Obama gang (again, it’s unclear which of the miscreants was actually responsible) tried to bribe him with the promise of a job in an attempt to discourage him from opposing Senator Arlen Specter’s re-election bid; while the administration has issued denials, Obama’s track record of buying-off his opponents leads one to wonder. And it’s been fun watching Robert Gibbs hem and haw about the matter during press briefings. Attorney General Eric Holder raised quite a stir with his(?) decision to have the 9/11 trials held in New York City; it seems now that Obama may be leaning toward holding the trials elsewhere—which raises the possibility that the original trial announcement was actually a trial balloon to test the political wind, allowing Obama to transfer the heat to others (at least he didn’t try to employ his favored “Blame Bush” strategy).

And the Head Beagle, Himself? Obama provides virtually unlimited material. From his insistence on making a daily television appearance to his obsession with secrecy to his artful dodging of firm stances on issues, he’s a veritable bottomless font of fodder for pundits (well…for those pundits, at least, who aren’t already in the tank for the guy—which largely excludes the mythical “mainstream media” sources that don’t very accurately reflect mainstream thinking). As is common with megalomaniacs, he feels a need to personally control everything and avoid accountability for anything (though he seems not at all averse to claiming credit when it’s politically advantageous to do so)—which again casts doubt on Holder’s role in deciding where to hold the 9/11 trials; it’s clearly out of character for him to leave such a decision to anyone else—but very much typical of him to shift the blame to his underling in the event the whole plan might go south…which it obviously did.

The only mystery is how such a band of seasoned political pros (which they are—no matter how vigorously some insist that they’re “outsiders” unsullied by typical D.C. politics) could prove so inept. There’s nothing artful about them, no deft touch; they need their supermajorities and sheer brute power to get anything done. Far removed from the art of consensus-building, their over-reliance on bribery, bullying, and brow-beating betray their shortcomings.

It’s no mystery how they came to power—and in that reason one finds the rationale for Pelosi’s empty-headed pronouncement. Voters did buy a pig in the poke when they elected Obama; un-vetted, shrouded in secrecy, he nonetheless won. Queen Nancy apparently figures that since the electorate bought one mystery pig, they’ll quietly accept another.

In other words…since we were already left holding the bag once, we won’t object to a repeat performance.

All of which, ironically, brings an odd happiness to bloggers; we’re never at a loss for ideas, these days.


Posted in corruption, health care costs, health care insurance, health care reform, obama, ObamaCare, Pelosi, politics, Reid | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »