Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
It’s not going to be difficult to find some people who would think of this as a dream come true:
If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top Democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary’s unexpired Senate term.
:
“President Clinton would excel in the Senate,” said Paul Begala, who helped Bill Clinton get elected and served in the White House as a top aide.“Why not?” Begala added. “He excelled as attorney general and governor of Arkansas, he excelled as president and he’s been a model of the modern Senate spouse.”
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, agreed.
“Clinton is a natural for the Senate,” Sabato said. “He loves to talk and schmooze. He could be a great vote-organizer. Majority Leader Clinton?”
You know what would be far more difficult? Finding someone, besides a paid Democrat party hack, who can tell you why this would be such a great idea. Clinton in the White House, Clinton leading the Senate. It’s clear someone thinks if a little of something is good, more of it is better. The “it” is Democrat-party leadership…which does what for us, exactly?
I ask because lately when the Democrat-party tells me what it’s all about, it doesn’t seem to be about adding things in to anything; it seems to be about taking things away. “Re-deploy” and all that. Two Clintons for the price of one, again. Eh, you can’t really impeach President Bush twice, or end a war twice. So, what exactly is the nutty topping to this sundae?
Struggling to reconcile this with the negative campaigning the Democrat-party has been doing, I can only think of one thing we would get “more” of with Clintons at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, which would justify twice-the-excitement: More assurance against certain things. One Clinton would kinda-sorta keep Republican things from happening, and two Clintons would really, really keep them from happening.
So I guess we’re talking about…tax cuts? Two Clintons would boost our taxes twice as high, whereas just one Clinton would stop at eliminating the 2003 tax cuts? Or perhaps…gun control. One Clinton would make it illegal to own an assault rifle, and two Clintons would send a potential rape victim to jail for trying to defend herself with a .25-cal automatic?
Oh wait oh wait, I know what it might be. Support the troops twice as much, and oppose their mission twice as hard? Or oppose twice as many terrorists and support their mission twice as much?
I’m just not coming up with any answers that make good sense. I wish someone else would step up and tell me what this is all about. I’ve been told for six years now that the Republican position on things is extremism and involves some “cowboy mentality” and the Democrats are all about being centrist and moderate so the rest of the world will like us a little bit better.
How do you drum up a whole lot of enthusiasm and excitement…about twice as much centricism and moderation?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.