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...
Jan LaRue writes at American Thinker:
If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican presidential nominee, he needs to sound more like Thomas Jefferson than Mr. Rogers. Hope and change haven’t brought a beautiful day in this neighborhood.
The Founders were brilliant political strategists who didn’t need focus groups to tell them that their fellow patriots wouldn’t be inspired to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to “throw off” a “nice guy who was just in over his head,” as Romney repeatedly refers to President Obama.
:
Jefferson and the 55 co-signers of the Declaration railed against the “evils” committed by King George III….They laid out the substantive case against the King in 1,323 elegant, inspirational, compelling and radical words that birthed this nation. The King’s abuses of our God-given unalienable rights required more than moderate words:“A Tyrant … unfit to be the ruler of a free people”
“A long train of abuses and Usurpations”
“Destructive”
“Evil”
“Absolute Despotism”
“A history of repeated injuries and usurpations”
“Absolute tyranny”
:
“Nice guys” get second chances. Obama must not. Making the case against a tyrannical king or the most radical president in U.S. history cannot be entrusted to faint-hearted moderates.
I have to say, this has flipped around my view of the whole situation. I had some trouble seeing what the whole beef was, now I don’t.
There is some value to be had in staying away from the theatrics. Picture, as an extreme example, Al Gore’s tirade about “George Bush betrayed the country.” This, if memory serves, is about the last time the climate change Goracle was relevant in some way, no? It all comes down to: An argument that should win the day, doesn’t have to be presented in such a manner — this is a rhetorical methodology for little kids. Very little kids, who are up past their naptime.
But part of presenting the argument that should win the day, is defining the necessity of action. That means itemizing the deficiencies of the status quo. Things the way they are right now, are heap big busted, and there’s a lot more wrong with them than a president who’s a “nice guy in over His head.”
If, this morning, President Obama woke up feeling an unusually high level of competence in His ability to do His job, and if this same day the challenges that rise to meet Him are unusually mild, and He can fulfill them with a sense of accomplishment and victory that eludes Him on most days…He will still do a lot of damage. It is His vision that is the problem here. His very electoral mandate, the agreement between Him, the people who fund Him, and His voting constituents on what He’s supposed to be doing. It comes down to: “Use Your rhetorical flourish and Your black skin to lock in a bunch of legislative left-wing goofiness that You normally would not be able to lock in.”
I don’t really know how it helps the country’s economy, to identify and target a bunch of “millionaires and billionaires” and come up with some radical new plans to deprive them of their money. Neither does anybody else. That particular policy cannot be defended in a logical way, because no matter how you cut it, it’s based on a dictum that there is something wrong with being rich. You aren’t making a nation’s economy stronger when you identify that nation’s rich people as some kind of a problem, and then come up with ways to solve that “problem.” That isn’t how you make a nation prosperous, that’s how you make a nation poorer.
So, no. Obama is not in over His head. I wish He were, we’d all be better off. This is much worse than that.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think that there is some merit to the “nice guy” line. If he used those stronger phrases, it would be spun as those right wing wacko Republicans. Calling him a nice guy that is in over his head is damning him with faint praise. He’s just not up to the job. I can see that playing well with independents.
- teripittman | 04/24/2012 @ 17:38“A Tyrant … unfit to be the ruler of a free people”
“A long train of abuses and Usurpations”
“Destructive”
“Evil”
“Absolute Despotism”
“A history of repeated injuries and usurpations”
“Absolute tyranny”
The Left certainly didn’t hesitate to use such language about the Bush Administration in 2000, 2004, or 2008. (After losing the recount fiasco in 2000, they proceeded to do $50,000 damage to the White House, – phone cords ripped out, obscene graffiti on the walls, plus leaving keyboards lying around with the letter ‘W’ plucked out of each one. Nice guys.)
Why should we hesitate to use it about Obama’s in 2012? Unlike the Bush Administration, Obama’s actually is guilty of “abuses and usurpations.”
- cylarz | 04/26/2012 @ 19:11I can see that playing well with independents.
I’m all done with worrying about what’s going play in Peoria. The middle 20% or so of the spectrum don’t pay a dime’s worth attention to politics – if they did, they’d be on one side or the other.
We need a candidate who will call the opposition for what it is, and then present a clear and credible alternative method of governance – with specific proposals. The very fact that “Reagan Democrats” is part of the political lexicon today, should be all the proof you need that the center-moderate-squish-types will get on board when you talk conservative and then actually govern that way once elected.
- cylarz | 04/26/2012 @ 19:13