Three Times? Sick stuff.

Tonight on his FoxNews show, Sean Hannity aired three separate times the disgusting video of sub-human slime gang members beating a teenager to death in Chicago. It wasn't necessary to show this video once, let alone three times? Hannity's reason? To try to stick it to Obama, of course -- specifically, to question whether Obama should be pushing to bring the Olympics to a city where this sort of thing would take place (the very same angle the Drudge Report has taken the last 24 hours by posting the video on its site -- wow, how surprising). First, Hannity's argument is a stupid one. As if virtually every city doesn't have brutal murders and gang killings. Second, the video adds nothing to the substance of his point (not that there is much substance); instead, it's only calculated to play on passions and emotions to promote his far-right agenda -- sort of a Willie Horton moment. I personally found it quite distasteful and highly annoying, and Hannity ought to be ashamed of himself.

What's the Story Behind The Story on Obama's Olympics Trip?

Leaving aside the issue of whether Obama's trip to Copenhagen to lobby for an Olympics to be awarded to his beloved Chicago is truly the best use of his time (it's not) given such things as, oh I don't know, a war in Afghanistan currently lacking any dedicated or articulated plan but still piling up bodybags on an almost daily basis -- Leaving that little issue alone, I'm a bit intrigued by the whole trip because it would seem that Obama stands to lose a fair amount of face if he is not successful on this trip (accord: link below). I don't buy that Obama would take such a risk if his chances for success were truly up in the air. And so I wonder what Obama knows that we don't. I would bet (could be wrong, of course) that there is very little chance that Obama will not be successful in this endeavor.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27677.html

"I'm Blind But I'm Not Oblivious."

Great line today from embattled New York Governor David Paterson (democrat), who's being pressured by Obama & The Dems not to run for re-election in 2010 (link below). For a dem party that so revels in calling Sarah Palin a "quitter," they sure are quick to want to pressure Paterson (the country's first legally blind governor and one of the few African-Americans ever elected to a gubernatorial office) to do the same thing for which they chide Palin. But hypocrisy by either of these two parties is never much of a surprise and, besides, my focus here is on Paterson. I might not agree with most of Paterson's politics, but I credit him for sticking up to the White House (Paterson says he intends to run for re-election) and indicating that he's not just going to ride off into the sunset simply because Obama snaps his fingers. I admire the gumption.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/27/im-blind-but-im-not-oblivious-paterson-says/

Eating Their Own: "Liberals Seek to Defeat Democratic Congressman" For Being Too Centrist.

The linked story below details the efforts of liberal political action committee Accountability Now to bring about a defeat of non-liberal democratic congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Folks, this is what the democratic party is all about. It is controlled by its dominant far left base, and to the liberals and "progressives" who inhabit that realm, there is no place in the world -- let alone in their party -- for anyone who is not also a liberal or "progressive." When you get down to brass tacks, dems are an intolerant, small tent party -- no more, no less.

Now, unfortunately, the republicans are no different. They are controlled by the far right and have little place in their party for non-conservatives. Just by way of one example: Free-thinking U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, a republican, is very much loathed by conservatives, the same way free-thinking Joe Lieberman (an "independent democrat" who caucuses with Senate democrats) is completely despised by liberals.

In our political system, if you think for yourself and let your viewpoints come out where they may, thereby eschewing the blinded world view of political ideology, you are an outcast with no place in either of the two dominant parties. Problem is, about 40% of the country does not consider itself liberal or conservative -- a block as big or bigger than people who consider themselves liberal or conservative. And that 40% has no party that represents them, no serious candidate to vote for, and essentially no representation in our political system. They also run into all kinds of roadblocks if they even dare to try to express themselves, as we saw this past summer when vocal non-liberal/non-conservative folks concerned about Obama & The Dems health care reform plan were labeled nazis, right-wing extremists, brownshirts, racists, etc., by the far left-controlled democratic party.

In sum, both parties should be absolutely ashamed of themselves, because they do not represent a huge swath of this country. And that's a principle to which this space will be devoted 24-7, 365 days a year, until the cows come home.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/25/liberals-seek-to-defeat-democratic-congressman/

I've Heard of Debtors' Prison, But Government Health Insurance Hoosegaw?

As is being reported today on Politico.com (link below): Apparently in the developing Senate version of Obama & The Dems' health care reform bill, if you fail to purchase health insurance (the "public option" or otherwise) and can't pay the resulting fine that will be levied on your behind, then you could face jail time. Nice. I guess that's one way to accomplish universal health care coverage.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

Credit to Obama Twice in One Week?

I haven't seen the video or read very much about this yet, but on first blush Obama's demand today that Iran allow inspections of an apparent hidden Iranian nuclear plant strikes me as very presidential. Nice job, Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/accuse-iran-building-secret-nuke-plant/

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon: The Deranged "Jaws" Mayor Reincarnated?

As previously discussed in this space, Missouri DNR officials for 4 weeks put the kibosh on releasing a report to the public showing unsafe E. coli levels in the Lake of the Ozarks around Memorial Day. They did so "because they were concerned about the impact it would have on tourism and the public" (first link below). The report was not made public until late June, thereby ensuring no effect on Lake tourism during the interim, and by the time the report was finally made public, the E. coli levels had returned to safe levels -- how convenient. And TODAY the revelation that Jay Nixon & Staff, despite their earlier representations that they did not know about any of this until late June, actually knew about this report the day after the MO DNR found out about it (i.e. in that last week of May) (second link below). So is Nixon the reincarnation of the demented mayor from Jaws who refused to take steps to make his waterways safe to the public (the Jaws mayor needed to close his beaches; Nixon needed to release the report) out of a concern that tourism would be hurt? Sure seems like it.

And as an aside, I've never cared a whole lot for Nixon. He's always reminded me of a dem version of Kit Bond -- A Missouri political fat-cat and career politician, just kind of hanging on forever without ever accomplishing much of anything remarkable except for perpetuating his own political longevity. I mean, the guy was Missouri AG for like 47 years (yes, I am exaggerating). I don't care too much for political fat-cats or career politicans. I say give them a reasonable amount of time to accomplish something in a particular office, and then it's time to move on. I've never understood how we embrace term limits only at the highest level of the federal and state executive branches, and rarely extend term limits to lower executive branch offices nor to the legislative branch (where it is particularly needed) . Term limits should be across the board. (Unless your name is Manuel Zelaya, of course, because our Administration supports his return to power in Honduras even despite the Hugo Chavez-influenced "I'm now President for life" mandate which he foisted on his people and which was responsible for Hondurans kicking his ass out the country).

http://independentrage.blogspot.com/search?q=deranged+mayor

http://www.kansascity.com/842/story/1466896.html

Postscript: Am I being a little hard on Nixon? After all, I've never thought he's a bad guy or anything. And I recall at least one thing on which I give him big kudos -- As AG he led the fight to prevent the old Boonville railroad bridge over the Missouri River from being torn down. I haven't exactly followed the day-to-day of Missouri state politics for a number of year now, but I additionally have little doubt that Nixon is infinitely more qualified to be Missouri Governor than the two fools who preceded him -- Blunt & Holden, who were the worst two Missouri Governors of my lifetime. Further, Nixon now is in an office that imposes term limits (2 terms), so maybe I am just being an overly Grumpy Gus tonight. Well, without any grumpiness, anger, or over-the-top rhetoric, just how boring would this blog be? [INSERT "you're right, a heck of a lot more boring than it already is" retort here].

What Lies Beneath?

I saw this fascinating story today (link below) about the underground culture of sewer dwellers below the Vegas strip. I've heard of the "urban explorer" culture that seeks to explore sewer drains and city sewer systems, but I hadn't before read about an entire community that actually lives in such places. Seems like a pretty sad state of affairs, although some of these folks do seem to be quite content with where they are.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2651937/The-people-living-in-drains-below-Las-Vegas.html

Obama Hits the UN!!! (Puke.)

The constant apologizing for past American acts, without ever giving any specifics, strikes me as pure political cowardice. Hey Obama, if you want to run down our country in every single international appearance that you make (yes, I realize today was in New York, but you were in the UN), at least be man enough to cite to some examples of that which you speak. On some, I likely will agree, and on others, I won't. But point is, you continue to speak in superficial sweeping generalities, just like you did on the campaign trail, and just as you have for 8 months now as president. You and your party refuses to admit that the endgame of "health care reform" is a single payer system. You refuse to debate the merits of the very system that you seek -- i.e. a single payer system. You were quoted the other day saying you don't want to grow the size of the federal government, when in fact you want to grow it many times over. You were quoted yesterday as saying that you won't commit anymore troops to Afghanistan before you know what the plan is there, while meantime you have been sending more troops there throughout your presidency and nevermind that it's been your job as commander in chief to shape and control the plan in Afghanistan from Day 1 (which obviously you have never done). You have no specifics, no substance to speak of, on virtually any issue -- Frankly, sir, you are just another politician. What makes you dangerous is that you are the most radical president this country has ever seen. Brass tacks: I may like you personally, but I am not amongst those who were hoodwinked into voting for you (and I didn't vote for the Tired Old Man, McCain, either), and frankly, Sir, I think you have, thus far, been a terrible president, representing only a small minority of this country that espouses the far left-wing "progressive" viewpoint. That's not representative, and that's not presidential. Frankly, sir, it's pathetic.

Postscript: And for the record, the far right-wing dominated republican party can go **** itself too!!!!

A Tough Left-Wing Nut to Crack?

So let me get this straight, ACORN: You profess to apologize in recent days for your employees caught on tape doing such things as encouraging child prostitution. Then you fire those employees. And then you sue the people responsible for shedding light on those employees? (Link below). Talk about shooting the messenger. Talk about empty apologies and empty actions. What a truly pathetic, scandal-ridden organization ACORN is. Wait -- Maybe I should watch out that I don't get sued? Nah, since the truth is a defense in a court of law, I think I stand on pretty solid ground.

http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/APNewsBreak.ACORN.files.2.1203697.html

Random Thoughts: Obama in a George W Moment; and Clinton Just Being Clinton.

Two random items tonight:

1. This quote from Obama today (link below):

"We're not going to make a decision about any further troop deployments [in Afghanistan] until we know what exactly is our strategy, what are the tactics, how will troops be used."

That's funny, Obama, since you've been ratcheting up troop levels and spending in Afghanistan from Day 1. And so you say that you've been doing so without having any idea what our strategy is there? Why? And if you're in such a funk about the strategy, then why the troop escalation on your watch? Then why were you talking about troop increases during your campaign? And why as President of our country are you now only getting around after 8 months to questioning what the strategy is in Afghanistan? I thought you were the Commander in Chief? Shouldn't you have known that strategy and helped to shape it from Day 1? Quite frankly, Mr. President, do you have any freakin' idea what's even going on in Afghanistan? Your quoted statement above smacks squarely of a moron holding himself out as the President of a great country. Reminds me very much of George W. Bush, in all honesty. Change We Can Believe In? Nah -- Just More of the Same!!! That's VERY pathetic stuff right there. And by the way, you will ONLY get commentary on such stupid remarks from an Independent like me. The right doesn't touch Afghanistan, because they started the conflict, and they generally like the idea of sending more troops there. And the left won't touch the issue, because they won't question their hero Obama no matter how out of his league he evinces on a daily basis.

2. I heard tonight a statement from Bill Clinton accusing the republican party of being taken over by its right-wing extreme at some in the more-recent past. I tried HARD to find a link to the exact quote, but came up empty -- but I know what I heard. And frankly, Clinton's exactly right on the pure substance of what he said -- the repubs are controlled by the far right and do not represent much of any of us in this country. But here's the outrage: Bill Clinton, or any other dem, accusing the repubs of permitting their extreme to take over the party! Oh my God! The ultra-far left completely controls the dems, and this slimey buffoon Clinton is out there casting stones at the repubs for having let the same thing occur with respect to their party! Folks, as I often say in this space, these are TWO political parties that control our political system and who are controlled by their extremes. They do not represent much of any of us. Eschew them. Criticize them. Keep a close eye on them at all times. Because neither one of them is to be trusted any farther than you could toss KU's Head Football Coach Mark Mangino in a shot put contest! Really though.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/obama_afghanistan_doubts_mean.html

Hilarious Blame Game.

First David Paterson, the embattled democratic Governor of New York, tried to blame all of Obama's woes on racism a few weeks back. Now Paterson is blaming all of his own woes on Obama (story link below). Is there anything or anybody that this guy won't blame for something? He oughta just stick with the 'ol standby -- Blame Bush -- whenever he needs someone to blame because at least then he would appear to be a bit more consistent.

But looking at Paterson's side of things, conversely, can we really "blame" him for lashing out at Obama? Obama has more or less thrown this guy under the bus with all this backdoor-channel pressure for Paterson not to seek re-election in 2010. This strikes me as pretty sensitive stuff that Obama is wading into, since Paterson is one of only a few African-American governors in the country (and in American history, to be quite frank), and here you have Obama wanting Paterson to ride off into the sunset so that a white dude (Andrew Cuomo) can be the democratic nominee for New York governor. Sounds like a big hornet's nest that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near if I was Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Paterson_blames_weak_Obama_record_for_friction.html

"I have no interest in increasing the size of government."

That's a quote I heard tonight from Obama on one of his myriad Sunday morning television appearances (this particular one was CBS -- first link below). Here's the thing with me, and it's real simple: If you want to debate the merits of what you seek to achieve, that's great. Let's do it. But do not misrepresent to me the precise thing it is that I know you want to achieve. This smacks of the whole "moderate" act that hoodwinked so many Independents and moderate dems and repubs into voting for this guy last year. Obama: You want MUCH bigger government. So embrace it and tell me why! You WANT a single payer system, so admit that is the goal of your health care plan, and then let's debate the merits of it! But STOP telling the American people that the warm fuzzy feeling they are experiencing on their backs these days from Obama & The Dems is just a warm September rain! You have no interest in increasing the size of government? Good grief...

And kudos to George Stephanopoulos for being about the one interviewer yesterday to actually ask a few tough questions of Obama. His question on whether a component of Obama's health care reform plan was actually a tax garnered quite the hilarious retort from Obama, which I found to be very condescending to Stephanopoulos, very arrogrant, and very elitist (video at second link below). I didn't previously refer to Obama as "His Majesty" for nothing, folks, although I did cease using that moniker as it just continued to strike me as a bit too Rush Slimebaugh-esque. But it wasn't used lightly, I can tell you that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/20/ftn/main5324077.shtml

http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/09/21/opinion/doc4ab7b7e5684d1384571573.txt

He's Back...

Curb Your Enthusiasm's new season starts tonight on HBO (links to promo and story below). Tune in for the funniest television comedy (in my humble opinion) in the history of television (yes, even better than Seinfeld and All in the Family). The highlight of this upcoming season: The entire main cast from Seinfeld will be reuniting as a part of an ongoing storyline this season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng1ZJVSXaQ

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-curb_0920gd.State.Edition1.4bd2aea.html

I do give Obama credit when I think it's deserved.

And today is an example. The link below sets forth several Obama quotes from his interviews to air tomorrow morning on the various Sunday morning network political talk shows. I credit Obama for downplaying the role that race plays with most people that are outspoken in their disagreement with his policies. He says that some of the opposition comes from people with primarily racial motives, with which I fully agree: We have an undeniably deep imbed of bigotry in this country that is very slow to improve (it's a constant but tediously slow process) and won't be completely dissipating anytime soon. So yeah, there are those out there who surely oppose Obama because he has African-American ancestry. But for fools like Jimmy Carter and the Kansas City Star's Yael T. Abouhalkah to suggest that race is the overriding factor for most people who vocally oppose Obama's policies is pure, unintellectual far-left drivel. And Obama doesn't go there in the statements that I read, or anywhere remotely close. He acknowledges that most of the vocal opposition hasn't been racially motivated, but rather based on the substance of the ongoing health care and economic policy debates -- from people who legitimately disagree with him and who honestly question the wisdom of a rapidly expanded federal government. And for that, I give Obama a lot of credit tonight. Now, will some of the ultra-left-wingers who inhabit the so-called "progressive" extreme of the democratic party follow suit in Obama's sentiments? Don't hold your breath on that one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama

Future First Couple?

As Mr. McMahon's wife, Linda McMahon (WWE CEO), throws her chair -- errr hat -- into the ring this week for Chris Dodd's seat in the U.S. Senate (link below), I'm left to ponder the possibility of Mr. McMahon and Linda someday inhabiting 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If you think Obama & The Dems get more than a little gruff with anyone who disagrees with them, they are in fact timid little twerps in comparison to Mr. McMahon. I've seen this dude interviewed by the likes of such hugely confrontational personalities as Bob Costas and Armen Keteyian, and each time if a particular question irked him a little bit, Mr. McMahon would explode at them in a fit of anger, shouting and intimidation. I've long thought of Bill Clinton as a bit of a bully when it comes to the media (at least to reporters who ask him tough questions), but Mr. McMahon would be like Clinton X 1000.

And I can also guarantee you that in a McMahon Administration, we'd get his kids, Stephanie and Shane, along with a whole host of other figures from the world of professional wrestling (definitely including good 'ol J.R., Jim Ross), as a brand new set of White House Czars. (Begging the question of whether that motley crew would be any worse than the current gaggle of circus clowns that Obama has in those positions, but I digress). And if one of those Czars rubbed McMahon the wrong way, you wouldn't see some quiet, late Saturday night resignation like we saw from Van Jones. Nope, Mr. McMahon would surely drag that person out in front of the cameras in order to deliver his trademark "YOU'RE FIRRRRRED!" line just for good measure. And can you even ponder the thought of Mr. McMahon as Commander in Chief of the armed forces? Delivering a State of the Union speech? Meeting with foreign dignitaries? I can't. Besides, if I have to cast my vote for a pro wrestler, give me The Nature Boy Ric Flair any day over Mr. McMahon.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/18/mcmahon-says-wwe-antics-not-a-liability-to-senate-run/

There Will Be Violence in the Streets! (Not.)

The latest from Loony Nancy today (as appears on RealClearPolitics.com):

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

So let me get this straight. First, anyone with the nerve to vocally disagree with Obama & The Dems was a right-wing extremist. Then he/she was a mobster. Then a nazi. Then a brownshirt. Then a racist. And now: Any such person is about to become a violent criminal. The Dems, it would seem, are quickly running out of vile, moronic insults to paint anyone who disagrees with them on anything. I say, "it would seem," because actually I think they probably still have plenty more of these silly cards to play. I can only imagine. How about calling all critics "pedofiles"? How about "stormtroopers" (maybe too close to nazi)? How about "baby killers"? How about "murderers"? There's no shortage of possibilities! And it's really becoming hard to even be very outraged at the continually revolving door of the new insult-of-the-day from the dems. It's really starting to become old hat. And in the meantime, their polls just continue to lose more and more Independents. Political genius, dems!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/17/pelosi_chokes_up_warning_against_political_violence.html

The Baucus Bill: Apparently Dead on Arrival.

Reading the tea leaves tonight, it appears that the so-called "long awaited" new health care reform bill version sponsored by democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana is the proverbial "non-starter" (see, e.g., the link below about Harry Reid's non-support). No lawmakers appeared with Baucus today when he talked to the media about it (a huge red flag), and it looks like the new bill has no support from the far left b/c it eschews the public option, while at the same time it has no support from the far right b/c it essentially keeps most of the components of Obama & The Dems' plan, save for allegedly substituting public "co-ops" for the public option (of course, the repubs, without even reading the new bill, say that the "co-ops" are the same as the public option -- very predictable -- how can they say that before even reading and analyzing the bill? See folks, I always call it both ways). Here's my thing: I have never been able to tell from anything I've read on the internet just precisely what a "public co-op" really is, and you know what? I now apparently don't need to worry about it (in the process saving myself from endless links and cut-and-pastes from Draconem telling me what a great thing it is! -- ;), you know I love ya, Draconem)! It would be an absolute waste of my time to even try to understand what Baucus is proposing, because his proposal appears to not be in play in any way, shape or form. Both the far left and far right hate it, so it's off the table! Isn't it wonderful how much total doctrinaire power that we cede to these 2 bullshit extremes?!? Joking of course -- Obviously, it's pathetic. Same thing I talk about almost every day on this blog.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/16/harry-reid-health-care-bill-wont-work-nevada/

The American Democratic Party: "Disagree With Us, And You Are RACIST!!!"

What an enlightened, intellectual sentiment on the part of the party of JFK and FDR! There has been a drumbeat in recent days of the apparent new democratic party theme, which is that if you have the gall to disagree with Obama & The Dems on anything, you must be a racist! It's their new theme! And former president Jimmy Carter for his part chimed in today with his own personal accord of such sentiment, stating (and I'm just going from notes here, but I think I have it pretty dead on) that the "overwelming portion of the demonstrated animosity towards Barrack Obama [i.e. his policies] is based on the fact that he's a black man . . . Based on a belief across the country that African Americans are not qualified to lead the country." Well, that's funny, Jimmy, since a majority of the country voted for Obama to become president. Where were all these racists then? Actually, I'll tell you: Many of those in the middle who voted for Obama (I didn't, nor did I vote for McCain) bought into his whole portrayal of himself as some sort of moderate during the campaign. And then when he turned out to be anything but that as president, those same Independent and centrist voters have steadily turned against him. It has nothing to do with racism, but does have everything to do with a president who ran one campaign, and then embarked upon a completely different presidency. And a final parting thought, Mr. Carter: Your statements quoted above are perhaps the most moronic, most unintellectual, most ideologically blinded, and most disgraceful statements that I've ever heard uttered by an ex-American President (which is saying something). You should be ashamed of yourself, Sir. But then again, of course, this is just another one of those many racist, nazi, right-wing extremists talking at ya, so what does my viewpoint count for anything, right?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9AO6O2G0

U.S. Senate Sergeant At Arms in the House!

I had a couple of page views today from the ISP for the office of the U.S. Senate Sergeant At Arms (the head of security for the U.S. Senate). Some person in that office was searching "Claire McCaskill" through Google's "Blog Search" engine and apparently ended up here. Seems a little weird to me. But regardless, Sarge, my position in this space on Claire McCaskill has always been made pretty clear: I very much disagree with her support of a health care reform plan that includes a public option, but I have also developed a fair measure of respect for her for participating in multiple noisy town hall meetings across the State of Missouri so that ordinary citizens could make their voices heard last month. So many of her fellow members of Congress ran for the hills in August, too afraid to participate in any town hall meetings (my representative, Dennis Moore of Kansas, among them). So there you have it. Come back any time, Sarge -- and next time, leave a comment or two, dude!

"Dems See Race Factor for Obama Foes."

(Link below to story). Let's be clear here: To sum up a group of people (i.e. anyone who generally disagrees with Obama's policies) as all being racist or having a component of racism to their motives is as mindless and unintellectual as a racist himself. It's basically rhethoric at the same moronic level as that of a racist: Painting a whole group of people with one huge brush based upon them looking different than you (like the racist) or having the gall to have different viewpoints than you (like the democratic party). Frankly, it's downright insulting to this proud Independent. I disagree with most of Obama's policies so far in his presidency because they most often represent a far left view of the world that I do not share and that I do not think reflects the views of an overwelming majority of Americans. I disagree with the man on the merits and substance of that in which he believes. Doesn't mean he's bad person. Doesn't mean I hate him. Doesn't mean I'm a bad person either, or that I have some dark racist motive. But if you dems want to believe that and continue to trumpet it in your rhetoric, what can I do? Just realize how much you guys have insulted us disagreeing Independents all summer long, and that it's us that decides the elections in this country. Food for thought.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27120.html

N-F-L!

Finally! It gets old ranting about politicians and media every single day! Football season is a nice bit of distraction.

12 Hours and Counting!

Hey Washington Post: A Huge Number of the DC Protesters Today Are NOT "Conservatives."

Today's Washington Post article (link below) labeled all attendees at today's DC protests as "conservatives." As much as that stupid description would perfectly fit into the Post's slanted far-left world view, and as much as people on the far left love to call anyone who disagrees with them a "conservative" or a "right-wing extremist" or a "nazi" or a "racist," none of that B.S. can change the truth, which is the only thing that concerns me. And the truth is that a huge number of the protesters were a mixture of Independents, non-conservative republicans, and non-liberal democrats. Those people are the "middle." They are mainstream. They are America, and so many of them right now are fed up with these two sorry parties we have, both of which are bankrolled and completely controlled by their extremes. Obama & the Dems' polling numbers are in the tank, and yet republican support numbers have not climbed. That's the sign of a growing mass of Americans who are completely disillusioned with these two out-of-touch, clown parties. These are my people. They are me, and I am them. That's the audience this blog speaks to (sorry Jeeves for ending a sentence on a preposition). And there's nothing "conservative" about them. Hey Washington Post, what is that phrase that your ilk likes to use so much? "Inconvenient Truth," I think it is?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091200971_pf.html

So, Will Kansas City Star Columnist Mike Hendricks Write a Column Blaming Vocal Pro-Choicers Everywhere for the Michigan Anti-Abortionist's Murder?

(First link below has the murder story). Of course he won't. Because such a column would be asinine. Just like Hendricks' previous column, which blamed the Tiller murder on all vocal anti-abortionists (see second link below), was itself purely asinine. The stupidity of such blame games is readily apparent to any free-thinking, independent individual. So why can't people in the two extremes that control our two sad political parties (such as Hendricks on the ultra-far-left) seem to realize that? Perhaps because they're the stupid ones? Works for me. And I think it's largely reflective of the truth.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html

http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/06/so-let-me-get-this-straight-far-left.html

Hey Dems: To This Independent, Your Largely Feigned Outrage Over the Joe Wilson "Liar" Outburst Is Offensive.

First, Wilson's outburst was completely pathetic and had no place in a joint session of Congress. I think Wilson realizes that, as his apology within an hour after Obama's speech would seem to reflect. Now on to business: For the Dems and the far left that props them up to put on this whole act of outrage the last 48 hours is offensive and disingenuous. This from a party that has gone around all summer labeling normal, mainstream independent folks like me as nazis, brownshirts, racists, and right-wing extremists for having the unmitigated gall to actually disagree with your party on your health care reform plan as well as on the other pieces of massive ultra-liberal legislation that have tried to ram-rod through the congress without reading. Where are your apologies? I haven't heard a one. You are a party of hypocrites (much like the republicans), as detailed on this space on a regular basis. And for you now to act this upset over a stupid remark from Wilson is offensive to me and, frankly, slimey. I would say that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but you'd have to actually have some shame in the first place for that comment to have any point.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/11/defiant-wilson-raises-more-than-200000-after-outburst/

Random Thoughts on Obama's Speech Tonight...

I think I actually in my blog post last night gave the dems more credit than they deserved for having a plan that they were about to hatch. Because Obama tonight just mealy-mouthed the public option once again. He didn't propose "trigger," nor did he propose public "co-ops". Nor did he say public option or else. He basically said he still likes the public option, but it's just "a means to an end" -- whatever that means. This smacks of a guy who called this Joint Session of Congress too early -- because he can't turn around and call another one in a few weeks, and he and his dems apparently don't have a bill yet that they think they can pass. One thing I've always given Obama a ton of credit for -- his political skill. But I don't see it on exhibition tonight. I see a guy who (just speaking from a purely politics perspective, divorced of my own viewpoints) should have held this Joint Session card awhile longer.

As for the speech, I only caught the second half live, but have listened to plenty of pundits tonight on both sides talk about the entirety of it. I thought the biting rhetoric towards repubs in several instances was a politcal mistake, since it's the middle that has largely driven so much of this opposition to the dems' plan, and that middle (and I'm being purely honest here -- I don't like the trend at all) is drifting towards the GOP these days. (I would prefer that so many of them remain Independent, because I trust the repubs no more than I do the dems, but I digress.) And I think in that atmosphere that is currently at play in the country, the anti-GOP rhetoric was fairly short-sighted on Obama's part.

As for the tort reform stuff -- puh-lease! You're not going to make it a part of the plan/bill you support, but rather you are going to "focus" on it in a few places in the country. Talk about empty lip service. Folks, disregard that silliness real fast.

So let's see, anything else here (I told you these were random thoughts!) -- yeah, actually: Like I said, I only heard the second half of the speech verbatim. I wasn't impressed. Obama obviously was reading from a teleprompter, but it largely SOUNDED LIKE HE WAS READING from a teleprompter. Perhaps the second half of the speech was the part he hadn't rehearsed as much, I have no idea. He did dial it up several notches towards the very end, but prior to that it sounded pretty routine, and he wasn't flowing that well -- sounded like he was reading. OK, I've rambled long enough. Just some random thoughts, as I said.

Where's the Harm? Right.

Was it so wrong for ACORN-employed workers to register a deceased Paul Newman to vote in Florida (allegedly -- first link below)? After all, we know Newman would have voted for the dems if only he had lived a few months longer (second link below). No harm, no foul, right?

But on the serious side of things: The obvious response from the left here will be to point out that ACORN itself apparently ratted out these employees. Commendable, I suppose, although what are the odds that ACORN looked into this and "turned in" these employees knowing that the state AG or FBI was about to lower the boom on ACORN otherwise (i.e., the proverbial preemptive strike)? And what about the lack of appropriate oversight, management and supervision that allowed these workers to be hired in the first place and then allowed them to pull off these kinds of shenanigans (allegedly)? No pats on the back from me, ACORN. I also don't really care that "none of the names in question actually voted," since the ACORN workers in question (if the allegations are true) clearly were taking steps towards trying to make that happen, even if they didn't ultimately succeed. That's why we throw people in the hoosegaw for "attempting" crimes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/09/acorn-turns-florida-workers-voter-fraud-charges/
http://www.alternet.org/media/100666

Number Nine. Number Nine. Number Nine.

I woke up today and noticed that this is 09/09/09. Of course, Nine was John Lennon's favorite number (and often found its way into his song titles) because significant events in his life always seemed to fall on the 9th of a month (see first link below). The "Number Nine..." post title above comes from the voice heard on Lennon's "Revolution No. 9" from the Beatles' White Album -- a very weird assortment of sound effects and voices that goes for some 10 minutes or so (it's not a song at all). I also noticed that "The Beatles: Rock Band" hits stores today -- I'm sure no coincidence. And if I had to bet, I'd wager that Sesame Street was probably brought to us by the Number Nine today. Finally, the second linked article below explains that today "represents the last set of repeating, single-digit dates that we'll see for almost a century (until January 1, 2101)." You can't top that for significance! So here's to ya today, Number Nine!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_9_Dream

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090908/sc_livescience/why090909issospecial

Smells Like "Trigger" Spirit.

Predictions for what Obama may propose tomorrow night? It think it’s fairly clear that he will not be insisting upon a public option. There is the possibility of something along the lines of the bill that democratic Senator Max Baucus is working on, which would involve “public cooperatives” (whatever precisely that really means) rather than a public option, plus a requirement that all citizens obtain health insurance. But I think that’s improbable. Instead, I think what we’re probably going to hear from Obama is a proposal for the so-called “trigger.” The “trigger” means that the public option is only “triggered” if the private health insurance industry fails to meet some set of guidelines (who knows what those would be without a bill to look at) related to covering more uninsured persons.

As I’ve stated previously in this space, I am willing to listen to a plan that includes the “trigger,” but I will be looking very carefully at what’s being proposed. My fear is a “trigger” standard so rigid that a public option is almost certain to occur (I oppose a public option because I think it creates a very real danger of an eventual single payer system, which I oppose). Further, I can say that if we see Nancy Pelosi (whose “progressive” ultra left wing of the democratic party has previously hooted and howled at the “trigger” possibility) suddenly onboard with the “trigger,” then I’m going to be highly suspicious that something be rotten in Denmark. Put another way, if Pelosi’s suddenly onboard, it will be a huge red flag for me that the “trigger” is really just a disguised and guaranteed public option.

Also in the wind tonight: I have the additional fear that in connection with Obama’s speech tomorrow, we may well see congressional dems over the next 48 hours proclaim that they suddenly have a new and wonderful “compromise” bill, which they will likely claim is consistent with whatever Obama proposes tomorrow night. That’s the first part. The second part is that the dems will at the same time start pushing to vote on the “great compromise” within a few days before anyone gets a chance to read or digest it.

Bottom line: Watch out folks these upcoming days. The dems may well be lookin’ to hoodwink us and ram-rod another piece of legislation down our throats that we do not want. I hope I’m wrong, and I well could be. I’m just relaying what seems to be in the wind tonight, as best I can read the tea leaves.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/pelosi-and-reid-tell-president-we-have-the-votes-president-wants-bill-passed-soon.html
http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-to-trigger-new-strategy-and-will.html

Happy Labor Day!

But as we celebrate this national day of rest and tip our hats to the American worker, take at least a few moments also to think about the large percentage of Americans currently unemployed and the still-limping economy (see linked story). We're not out of the woods yet. Hopefully come next Labor Day, we will be (or close).

http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/1428056.html

Education Secretary Duncan Says Sunday That It's "Silly" to Keep Kids Home to Avoid Obama Speech. I agree.

I don't quite understand the uproar about the Obama kids speech. I don't think I have a problem with any sitting American President (trust me, during my lifetime, I haven't liked most of them too much, regardless of party) addressing the nation's kids, just so long as politics are kept out of it. And I have no doubt that Obama will be keeping politics out of his speech. So no, I don't have a problem with it. But I have to say also, Obama's desire to have a personal audience with the nation's kids has struck me as just a little weird. I can't recall an American President ever trying to do this before. And another observation: Suppose W. Bush (and I am no fan of his) had sought to do the same thing, complete with a request that kids write a letter to themselves addressing what they can do to help out the Administration? Would there have been the same silly outcry from the left? Damn right there would have been. But oh well, I detail the absolute hypocrisy of the right and left in this space on a regular basis, so no need to harp on that again tonight. So bottom line: Obama speech to the kids is OK -- those in an uproar about it need to calm down.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/06/duncan-silly-to-keep-kids-home-to-avoid-obama-speech/

Van Jones resigns tonight!

I love the NBC headline: "Obama Aid Van Jones Resigns After GOP Attacks". AS IF it was the republicans that caused this! NBC is such a pathetically biased news organization by the way. Folks: Do not trust a word that comes out of their mouths! And take FoxNews with a grain of salt too, because they slant to the right. But I digress. It wasn't the "GOP" that caused this. It was the constant slew of radical, loony comments from Jones over the past 10 years, coupled with the public outcry over such a GOOF having such a high position of power in the federal government. Here's how I can guarantee you that it went down: Obama and his minions, seeing the constant coverage of this LOON in recent days (a new loony past quote came out on a daily basis), contacted Jones and told him, "you will resign and you will resign now." And so he resigned tonight. And who looks bad here? Jones? No, he's just an idiot who believes all kinds of radical loony things. Peace to him in his insanity. The person who looks bad is Obama, who knew full well what this dude Jones was all about when Obama appointed him, but Obama thought he could slip this dude (and all the other radicals amongst his various "czars") through and by the American people. Well Obama, Your Majesty, wrong thought!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/NATL-Obama-Aide-Van-Jones-Resigns-After-GOP-Attacks-57578192.html

Shock and Awe!

The 2009 college football season kicks off in grand style today, with underdog Mizzou and Blaine Gabbert roughin' up the Illini, and BYU shocking the sports world with its defeat tonight of #3 Oklahoma. What a day!

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/tipsheet/tipsheet/mizzou-game-day/2009/09/gabbert-proves-himself-and-then-some/

http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=292480201

You Can't Take the "I" Out of Biden. What a Clown.

(See link below). With Obama off on another vacation this week, we get to hear from Biden. I concede that Biden is almost always good for a little comic relief from the White House, although that comes exclusively from laughing at him rather than with him. And what's with these presidents running off for myriad vacations every time the public starts to sour on them? Bush took that practice to the extreme, and admittedly Obama has a long ways to go before he gets to the level of the Bush vacation-taking. But while we're on the vacation subject, I think much of the country could use a little vacation from Obama & The Dems. So say "I" if you're with me on Obama & The Dems taking two weeks where they just leave us alone, don't try to ram-rod some massive piece of ultra-liberal legislation down our throats without having read it first, and don't call anyone who disagrees with them a nazi, racist or right-wing extremist. Are you with me? I think the "I"s have it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/04/curl-biden-fills-vacationing-obamas-void/

Arrogance or Stupidity? Obama Actually Thought No One Would Care When the Radical Nature of His Czars Came to Light.

Recently, as each new day begins, a new revelation comes out about some radical leftist viewpoint held by one of Obama's myriad non-Senate-confirmed "Czars" (see link below as well as today's Loony Left-Winger of the Day for the latest example). This is a President who had a hard time filling many federal posts after taking office because of the extensive "vetting" process that he applied to candidates for those posts. So you can't tell me that he wasn't fully aware of all of the viewpoints of these various Czars before he appointed them. Apparently, though, being a radical freak with viewpoints representative of about 5% of the country is not something that Obama cares too much about when the vetting process discloses it. Further, Obama can't be so stupid as to believe that all these viewpoints -- which were publicly expressed in the past -- wouldn't come out in the media. No, he knew full well this stuff would be easily discoverable and might be covered by the media. But evidently he thought no one would care or that it wouldn't be that big of a deal. So full circle to my question in the headline: Arrogance or stupidity on Obama's part? Frankly, does it really matter? He looks very bad regardless of which is the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/green-jobs-advisers-past-stir-trouble-white-house-critical-time/

Obama to "Trigger" New Strategy? And Will the Radical Left Be Receptive?

I think we can see emerging today the new strategy of the White House when it comes to building congressional support for a health care reform bill. As discussed by Politico.com's Glenn Thrush this afternoon (link below), it looks like Obama's new strategy is to try to appease "blue dog" democrats and even pluck a republican or two with promises of the so-called "public option" only being "triggered" -- to quote Thrush -- "years down the road if the private insurance industry doesn't come though with the type of reforms that cover more uninsured people." I can recall posting at least once in this space previously concerning the "trigger" notion -- that was a few months back as I recall, and it was being floated as a White House trial balloon and running head on into stiff resistance from the radical left (i.e. the Nancy Pelosi, Huffington Post crowd).

Two things here: First, will there be the same level of resistance again from the radicals (errrr, "progressives")? Who the heck knows. Second, should I and other Independents support a "triggered" plan? Too soon to say. I'll listen, but until we have a concrete bill publicly available and containing the White House's plan, all discussion of a "trigger" will be largely theoretical, abstract and, indeed, a likely waste of time in my view. My main concern will be with Obama & The Dems trying to sneak one past us, i.e. setting a "trigger" threshold that is so rigid and almost certain to occur that it is not really a "trigger" at all, but instead a near-guaranteed road to a public option. That will be the key issue to focus on if this "trigger" stuff even goes anywhere. Heck, the way this White House typically behaves, they may be denouncing the "trigger" idea come tomorrow after apparently supporting it today. Wouldn't be the first time.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/WH_luring_Snowe_with_trigger_on_public_option.html

"The Obama Slide"

That's the title of an outstanding column this week in the New York Times by "moderate" republican David Brooks (link to column below). I'll let you read it, but his basic proposition is that Obama better start moving towards the political center pretty quickly or he's in a world of hurt with respect to his chances of presidential success going forward. Brooks also discusses the trend towards Independents who voted for Obama now abandoning him right and left. Here's what I found to be the best passage of the column (touching upon issues that I often discuss in this space concerning the liberal world view):

"Amazingly, some liberals are now lashing out at Obama because the entire country doesn’t agree with The Huffington Post. Some now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes. This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance. If Obama agrees to use reconciliation, he will permanently affix himself to the liberal wing of his party and permanently alienate independents. He will be president of 35 percent of the country — and good luck getting anything done after that."

You nailed it there, Mr. Brooks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Never Let a Pesky Little Budget Debate Get in the Way of a Good Game of Solitaire.

I found this picture from the Hartford Courant hilarious, if not a bit troubling at the same time. It's from the Connecticut House of Representatives last night as they pushed a midnight deadline to approve a state budget. Depicted is the House Minority Leader (a republican) speaking to the chamber while a couple of his colleagues play solitaire on their laptops (it additionally appears that an unpictured lawmaker is watching a baseball game on the far right). Who knows if these lawmakers are dems, repubs or some combination thereof.

Now, while funny, don't you think this is just a tad disrespectful? Even if you are bored out of your mind, keep the card games and baseball off the computer while a colleague is speaking. And it also begs the question, if these lawmakers had time to be bored and play games on the computer, then why did they run the budget approval right up until the midnight deadline? But I guess that would be asking for the political world to make too much sense, right? Can't have that.

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/09/senate-debating-new-state-budg.html

Picture currently at: http://www.courant.com/