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...
Hillary is going negative on Obamamania.
Mrs. Clinton’s new TV spot accuses Mr. Obama of putting out “false attack ads” in response to her original TV spot that criticized him for not agreeing to debate her in Milwaukee. Mr. Obama’s ad, put out Thursday, said that the 18 past debates and two upcoming forums in Ohio and Texas were enough.
The new ad not only calls out Mr. Obama for refusing the debate invitation, but it also reiterates her contention that his health care plan would leave 15 million Americans without coverage.
And then it goes on, far beyond their debate over universal vs. not-so-universal health care, mandate vs. no mandated health care.
:
The Clinton ad also slams Mr. Obama for his vote in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the ad says provided “billions in Bush giveaways to the oil companies.”Finally, the ad cites a May 2007 ABC News story suggesting Mr. Obama “might raise the retirement age and cut benefits for Social Security.”
Sniff…sniff…smells like…desperation.
I’ve been waiting for sixteen years for people to get tired of her nastiness, and now that it’s happened I’m not very happy about it. It seems the Camelot of Clinton has finally crumbled into the ground, not because people got tired of smoothly-recited snake-oil nonsense, but because of a natural displacement theorem. Young people like to be told lies from other young people instead of from old people.
And so this new voting faction, which selects candidates according to how they make people feel instead of what they have to say, will elect a kind of “revolving” leadership class. Those who prosper from this wedge being driven between the actual issues, and the voters who are supposed to be indirectly deciding them, will only encourage this. In the end, we’re voting on something quite useless: Whether or not Barack Obama is younger than Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Which he is.
But what about the issues?
Nevermind. This is done. Might as well swear Obama in right now.
Well, that might not happen. But political scientists would do well to come up with a name for election cycles like this one, in which one of the candidates manages to plow ahead by being the youngest — therefore, culminating in the inauguration of a new generation. The ramifications are huge, and it doesn’t happen very often: 1960, 1992, and now 2008. Truly substantial debate, the one thing everybody says they really want, will lose out every time.
I guess from here on out it’ll be going on every sixteen years. This is the real weakness of Barack Obama. Someday, he’s going to be a foolish-looking buffoon of an old guy too.
And this year, in addition to substantial debate, there’s another big loser. And that’s the idea that President Bush’s policies combine to form an endless parade of disasters, inspiring resentment and division at home and abroad. It’s hard to see when you’re too close to the timeline, but that has all bit the mat pretty hard. It won’t become obvious until later.
If you’ve spent seven or eight years helplessly watching the incumbent make one decision after another you consider to be wrong, growing more resentful with each passing month, the last thing you’re going to do is support some charismatic young stud who refuses to discuss how his decisions are going to be any better.
And yet here we are.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Firstly, you might as well get used to the idea of an Obama nation. That’s pretty much a given at this point. The media will turn on McCain soon enough. As Judge Napolitano says, we’re a nation of sheep. It’s not the politicians who are the problem; it’s that we’ve created an entitlement culture where people get what they think they deserve and don’t have to actually do anything to get it. The doing is all someone else’s responsibility. Unless those of us who feel otherwise are willing to do what it takes to take back our freedom, we’re condemning ourselves and our children to slavery.
- JohnJ | 02/16/2008 @ 20:29Agreed on all counts.
I see Obama as more like Bill than his vicious, toxic so-called “wife.” And that’s cause for hope, since when all is said & done we did survive him. And President Clinton did leave the republic in better shape than the way he found it. On January 20, 2001 we were deeply split down the middle, red state versus blue state — he dis-unified us, made us the way we needed to be.
Had we been so bitterly divided in ’92, he wouldn’t have gotten in in the first place!
President Obama will deliver very much the same “service.” By the end of 2010, it’ll be like Hatfields and McCoys. And you can kiss all this nonsense and B.S. about “I don’t care about issues, as long as the guy is likable and isn’t a straight white male” GOOD-FREAKIN-BYE.
We’ll become color-blind again. And issue-conscious. For a little while.
And President Obama’s approval ratings on the day he’s sworn in, will be much higher than at any point in his administration. If he does manage to get re-elected, his most ardent supporters will end up wondering what they ever saw in him.
- mkfreeberg | 02/16/2008 @ 22:03Well, approval ratings for any given president tend to start out high and decline over time. Look at Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. If the U.S. faced a military threat during Obama’s administration, his numbers would jump, then decline over the course of the conflict.
- dcshiderly | 02/17/2008 @ 04:04My biggest fear with a Dem-controlled legislature and executive is the revival of the “Assault Weapons Ban.” Most people don’t realize that Obama has one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. He’s got “leader” written all over his demeanor, and it’s probably going to win him the election. But the man is obsessed with race, and it shows in his voting and autobiography.
As to our condemnation to slavery, I don’t think all the individualists in this country could do anything to stop it. The gross human failures among us outnumber the successful, and only the hyper-successful have a chance to escape the coming flood of stupid by simply not being here, or being so far above the tide as to render it a mild splashing from their perspective. You and I? The middle class? We’re hosed.
We were bitterly divided in 1992. That’s how Clinton got elected with less than a majority of the vote. And I think you’re wrong that the media won’t treat every criticism of Obama as racist.
- JohnJ | 02/17/2008 @ 12:47Bitterly divided like during the famous recount in 2000?
Bitterly divided with each side ready to rattle off a long list of dreadful consequences if/when the other side got in power? Not just “hooray for our side” stuff…but a whole bunch of personal pet peeves nursed and nurtured by anyone you cared to ask, on one side of the aisle or the other?
Sorry, I don’t remember that at all. I recall a general malaise, a bunch of stuff & nonsense about the nation being ready for “change” with nobody ready to articulate exactly what kind of change we wanted. Just like now. Because one of the candidates was 46 years old. Just like now.
- mkfreeberg | 02/17/2008 @ 12:59A “malaise” is not how Republicans came to power in Congress in 1994. You’re right that there are similiarities. But we’ve been bitterly divided for a long time now. That’s why Democrats think that if they just had a candidate who could explain how wonderful socialism is, all we evil Republicans would be put in our place by a uniter of the people. Democrats think that if Republicans would just stop fighting for what we believe in, all people could live in peace together.
- JohnJ | 02/17/2008 @ 18:28