Obama & The Dems: Stop talking to me about "special interests" being behind the townhall anger, because it only riles me up.

First, it's false. The angry people attending these events are real, not insurance company, GOP, conservative group, or "special interest" plants. Second, "special interest" lobbyists of your persuasion drafted these various massive versions for your health care reform plan. Your party is just in bed with "special interests" as the repubs, same as it ever was. I mean, stop insulting my intelligence over here! The best part of this anger and rebellion against the way you and the dems are trying to take us down a radical left path for the country: It shows that people are finally startin' to wake up! People who haven't been political their entire lives are becoming political because they realize something very extreme and radical is trying to be forced down their throats by the dems. Look no further than me for an example. I've been only nominally interested in political issues my entire life, but the stuff I saw going on from these dems from the day Obama took office actually inspired me to start a blog and get this whole thing goin'. There's something unprecedented going on right now in this country (and I'm not talking about what the dems are trying to do, although that's unprecedented too). The non-liberal, non-conservative masses are being energized. Thank God.

Smart politics.

At his townhall meeting today in New Hampshire (pictured above), it looks like Obama stacked the crowd with mostly supporters of his health care reform plan (for example, three-fourths of the tickets were given out by the White House). To be sure, it would have been great theater if a bunch of the vocal opponents had been present, but how dumb politically would it have been for the White House to allow that? And as I've credited him previously in this space, Obama makes very few political mistakes (regardless of what one might think of his policies), and today was just another example.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26014.html

"UN-AMERICAN"!!!

I bet you were anticipating another anti-Pelosi rant, weren't you? Well, not this time. Today when I saw the Drudge headline that "Pelosi/Hoyer call townhall protesters 'un-American,'" I figured I probably had my next Loony Left-Winger of the Day (Pelosi provides a lot of great material for that feature) and clicked to the story. Turns out that she and Hoyer (in an op-ed in today's USA Today) instead said "drowning out opposing views is simply un-American" -- targeting the behavior of those protesters who have tried to shout down the politicians without given them much of a chance to speak. That seems to me to be a far cry from saying that the protesters at these events, as a general matter, are all "un-American."

This is why one has to take anything seen on Drudge and Fox News with a grain of salt. (FoxNews.com had a similar headling stating, "In a tight spot, Pelosi calls health care critics un-American"). Those websites come at you from a right-wing slant (yes, just like such outfits as MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, New York Times, etc., hit you with a left-wing slant). In this instance, the headlines used by Drudge and Fox News were downright misleading, at least in my view. And I would expect that plenty of repub politicians are putting a similarly misleading spin on this today as well.

To address the substance of what Pelosi and Hoyer actually said: I don't agree with it on its face, but it doesn't outrage me. As stated previously in this space, I don't think shouting down politicians as they try to speak accomplishes anything. I would agree that such behavior is inappropriate and uncivil. But does it rise to the level of being "un-American"? No, I think that's a gross overstatement. Sometimes we all get angry. Sometimes we all lose our tempers. Does that make all of us "un-American"? I think not.

Finally, I note that while I might not have been outraged by the statement, I do think it was pretty dumb politically (see linked Politico blog). Using the word "un-American" in any context related to the townhall protesters just gives repubs something they can spin in the same way that Drudge and Fox News did. A similar observation with respect to protesters who engage in the "shouting down" behavior: That just gives the far left material that they can spin into their propaganda. To close, I'm sorry again not to use today's statement to go on a Pelosi rant. I'll leave that to the republicans.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/PelosiHoyer_Town_hall_distruptions_unAmerican.html

Obama "out of synch" with a majority of the country? No!!!

Actually, I think that's been one of my main talking points since Day 1 in this blog (with respect to both Obama and the democratic party -- although I believe the same is also true of the republican party). All you had to do was take a look at Obama's voting record in the Senate to know that this was a bona fide (and as it's turning out, radical) liberal who was not going to try to run this country from a mainstream, center-left location.

Most dems, of course, would never admit these simple truths, and that's why I credit democrat columnist and talking head Douglas Schoen (pictured) for an excellent online column today (link below) on this very subject. One highlight: "The reason for [Obama's declining poll numbers] is simple: Mr. Obama, despite his popularity, is proposing policies that are out of sync with a center-right electorate. Specifically, only two in ten Americans are liberal, close to four in ten are conservative and a third are moderate. However, a poll conducted by Scott Rasmussen last week shows that nearly half of all Americans now identify Mr. Obama as being 'very liberal' -- up 15 points from January."

Now, while I did not vote for Obama (nor McCain), I don't criticize for a minute all the non-liberals in this country who did vote for Obama. I think many of them were in part hoodwinked by Obama's little campaign act of disingenuously holding himself out as some sort of moderate. And I also know that those folks wanted change (I can't blame them) and voted for it. But they weren't voting for this, and that's why Obama has big problems in his polling numbers these days. And that's why we are seeing so much real anger coming out at so many of these town hall meetings over the last week. You won't see me celebrating if we see a repeat of 1994 in terms of huge republican congressional gains over the next few years. But I do know what I will be saying -- you brought it on yourselves, dems. Most Americans do not like extremes, and they will react very negatively if you try to run the country that way. Ain't that America!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/obama-needs-new-blueprint/

What plan in Afghanistan? More goobledegook from the Administration.

Today Obama's national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones, was apparently on Face the Nation (first link below) with a bunch of general, unexplained references to some "plan" and "strategy" allegedly hatched for Afghanistan back in March. That's funny -- I don't recall Obama ever articulating to the American people any plan or objective as to what we're doing in Afghanistan. Instead, he seems to be unable to do so. All we've gotten from Obama are superficial references to "our mission in Afghanistan" and "nation-building." So what was the "March plan," to whom was it announced, and who did the announcing? Regardless -- and this is important -- Jones talked today as if the "March plan" is being followed and will continue to be followed going forward (e.g., "We will see within a year whether this strategy is working and then we will adjust from there.").

Those statements by Jones simply don't jive with a report in the Washington Post today (second link below) stating that the Administration is currently "in the process of overhauling the U.S. approach" in Afghanistan. So which is it? Have we had a "plan" and "strategy" in place since March that we will continue to follow for at least a year (as Jones indicated), or are we developing a brand new plan and strategy (as per the Post report)? And was there ever really any coherent "March plan" in the first place? What a bunch of confusing jibberish from these folks.

And it circles back to a point I've been making for months: Obama needs to tell us precisely what the plan and objective are for Afghanistan. He has not done so, and I don't think it's so much to ask after 200 days in office and with our troops dying in that absolute hellhole every day. Not when we keep ratcheting up American troop levels there (expected to reach 68,000 by year's end -- which is double the 2008 troop presence). Not when many of those brave men and women are being sent for their third, fourth or fifth tours of Afghanistan/Iraq -- many with children growing up that they've barely gotten a chance to know (as discussed on the Sunday morning talk shows today). Not when the U.S. in Afghanistan "is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse the Iraq war" (from the Post report).

Afghanistan is a very serious situation, and I do not see this Administration treating it like one. It appears to be taking a complete backseat to Obama's desire to ram his ultra-left domestic agenda down our throats before any of us ever know what hit us. Obama seems to think that no one is paying any attention to Afghanistan. Well, the American left sure as hell isn't. But I am and will continue to do so in this space.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/09/ftn/main5227986.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802283_pf.html

A few words this weekend for the town hall protesters...

First, I know who most of you are. You are not the "right-wing extremists" or "mobs" that the democrats so dishonestly and so insultingly like to call you. No, I know that most of you are a lot like me -- just regular folks, perhaps a republican or a democrat, but neither conservative nor liberal, and very concerned about the dems' massive health care reform bill that no one has read and the general far left direction that the democrats are trying to take the country and ram right down our throats. Most of you are not GOP plants, nor insurance company operatives, nor conservative group flunkies. I know that, and believe you me, so do the disingenuous democrats. So that being resolved...

If you attend one of these events in the days and weeks to come, do your best to be civil. Shouting down politicians without giving them their chance to speak accomplishes little or nothing, and it only gives propaganda material to the democrats. Instead, let the politicians speak their minds, and politely wait for your turn to be heard. And when that point in time arrives, let 'em have it (but keep in mind also, that oftentimes the best and most biting words do not flow from a shout, but rather from a voice of calm resolve).

Finally, if one of these thugs sent by the democrats' minions shouts at you, try to ignore him/her. You're there to speak your mind, not to pay attention to them or to try to change their minds (which you can't, by the way). Ignore them. And if one punches you in the face as occurred in St. Louis, then punch 'em back. But absent a need to exercise your right of self defense, don't give those freaks the time of day.

Just a few random thoughts as I continue to digest these events and get a grasp for everything that's going on out there.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument

An observation this night...

The far left and far right have no idea what to do with someone like me. They both hate me, and yet like that I disagree with the other extreme. And they REALLY don't like people like me comin' outta somewhere from the middle spewing the same kind of anger and rage that tends to be reserved to the B.S. hateful rhetoric that they like to spew towards each other. Well, far left and far right, I'll tell you what you can do with me: You can officially go **** yourselves, equally, BOTH OF YOU, because none of you freaks represent me, nor the majority of the people in this country, in any way, shape or form. I'm comin' out the Generation X, and the majority of us disdain BOTH of you. Because to us, the two of you represent absolutely nothing with respect to the greatest nation in the history of this planet (i.e. The United States of America). Nothing at all, apart from a bunch of hate, third-grade-like-demeanor, mean-spiritedness, and ignorance. So like I said, go **** yourselves, libs and conservatives.

With all the anger out there, it's good to see His Majesty staying on message: When in doubt or when all else fails, blame Bush.

Majesty said today: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." (See first link below). The repubs have, let's see, NO power in the federal government these days, but they're somehow standing in the way? But I digress. During a turbulent time when it would be easy for a politican to stray from core principles and talking points, Majesty keeps returning to the Blame-Bush, "just look at what we inherited," card.

So why am I crediting Majesty here? Because while a lot of us folks out here have moved beyond the Bush years and more and more view the economy as belonging to Majesty himself, he stubbornly refuses to let that old dog go. Just look at the headlines: Today you've got the guy who attacked Twitter blaming the Kremlin (second link below). A year ago, Bush might have been blamed (and you know someone would have tried). In South Florida, a man charged with possessing child pornography on his computer is blaming his cat for downloading the filth (third link below). Two years ago, a Bush conspiracy might have been blamed. But have no fear Majesty, if blaming Bush for everything starts to get old even to your ears, you can always start blaming Bo the Dog similar to the guy in Florida -- same difference.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want-the-folks-who-created-the-mess-to-do-a-lot-of-talking/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-economy-sheds-fewer-jobs-rb-2889844679.html?x=0&.v=3

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-cat-downloads-porn-bn080709,0,6415792.story

Tonight I have officially turned myself in to the White House since I oppose its health CARE reform plan.

(As sent a few minutes ago...)

Subject: The Rager is turning himself in‏
From: theindependentrage@live.com
Sent: Thu 8/06/09 8:51 PM
To: flag@whitehouse.gov

What up, White House?: In order to streamline the process just a tad, I am officially turning myself in to you tonight as someone who opposes your health CARE reform plan. And I duly qualify to turn myself in because there are plenty of "fishy" things going down on my blog. Check it out: http://independentrage.blogspot.com/ Feel free to take a look at it, leave some comments (I always allow any and all comments), and even smile at the parts of it with which you agree (there should be at least a few). Heck, you can even put it on a list if you want -- I don't care. But I do oppose your health CARE reform plan, and so I felt very much compelled to turn myself in this night in response to the White House's blog post of a few days back. Peace out.

The Independent Rage

There's really no need to put me on a Nixonian Enemies List, Your Majesty.

Because I am not your "enemy," nor are the vast majority of the people who oppose your health CARE reform plan. Rather, we're just folks concerned with the radical left direction that you and your party are trying to take our country. That's the same way it was with the vast majority of the people on Nixon's Enemies List -- not "enemies" in any sense of the word, but instead decent folks who had the nerve to be vocal opponents of Nixon's policies (most particularly, continued U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War). You can keep calling us "radical right-wing extremists" and "mobsters" and the like, and you can even stick us on an Enemies List -- all that demonstrates is that you and your radical friends really just don't get it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-cornynflag_06nat.ART.State.Edition1.4bb4d44.html

Hey Majesty: I happen to oppose your health CARE reform bill. What exactly are you going to do about it, pal?

Today I see that over the last 24 hours, the White House on its official blog is requesting that members of the public forward to the White House any claims that seem "fishy" from those that oppose the dems' health CARE reform bill. The White House blog states: "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov" (see link below).

So let me get this straight: Here you've got an American president telling citizens to go around looking for people who vocally oppose the dems' health CARE reform plan, and then to go report those people to the federal government? I presume there are two intentions here: (1) Cause people to think twice before vocally opposing the dems' plan (otherwise known as trying to put a chill on free speech); and (2) At the same time gather intelligence on those who are out there opposing the plan. Folks, the only era and word from my lifetime that strikes me as somewhat comparable to what's going on here: N-i-x-o-n-i-a-n. This is ugly, slimey stuff. But don't worry, they can't and won't shut me up any time soon.

Final aside: You have to love how Majesty & the Dems (sounds like a bad 60's garage band lineup) -- obviously after consulting some pollsters -- have this week stopped using the phrase "health care reform." Now they uniformly say "health insurance reform" (see the quote above, for example). Therefore, as exhibited above, I will henceforth capitalize the word "CARE" in all references in this space to the health CARE reform bill. Because that's just the way I roll.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.844cab9dda05a208d45a624ff10c219a.b91&show_article=1

What Til They Get a Load of Me!

This poster has been plastered all over LA this week and now, as a result, on the Net. First, let me just say that this poster represents a fairly low form of political speech, and I personally don't even find it to be that funny. But you have to love the reaction it's garnering from the far left (which is the only reason I'm blogging about it).

For example, how about the President of the LA Urban Policy Roundtable (first link below), Earl Ofari Hutchinson, who says today that the poster "goes beyond political spoofery . . . it is mean-spirited and dangerous." Then Hutchinson issues a "public challenge" (who is he, Vince McMahon?) and demands that the creator of the poster "come forth" and identify himself. And precisely why would that person want to do that, Sir? So that he can get the full-out Sarah Palin treatment? (By the way, the latest in that saga: A blogger yesterday on salon.com compared Palin to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- apparently that's appropriate "political spoofery" since the target is one the far left hates).

You have to love how viciously the far left can dish it out while being so thin-skinned when some of it comes back their way. It starts at the top with perhaps the most thin-skinned president in American history. Today he's using public resources to make videos to respond to postings on the Drudge Report (second link below). So to summarize, apparently it's OK for the far left to go around acting like hateful, mean-spirited morons, but if anyone else does it, Katy Bar the Door! As I like to say: H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-obama-posters,0,940643.story

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html

Reversal! Today the White House says no new middle-class tax increase.

Yesterday these folks were running around saying that they wouldn't rule out a new middle-class tax increase. You gotta love the consistency. Who's running the asylum around there anyway?

The White House's explanation for the flip flop? They say Geithner and Summers were merely engaging in "a little hypothetical back-and-forth" yesterday. Yeah right. Looks to me like it was probably a trial balloon, which having sunk faster than a lead zeppelin the last 24 hours, was quickly disavowed. Majesty's White House seems to love trial balloons, except for the way that many of them tend to come back deflated (e.g., a second stimulus bill, which I'm still waiting on to rear its ugly head again sometime soon).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/03/obama.economy/index.html

You Made Me Promises, Promises. (You knew you'd never keep)

Great leaders don't make promises just to get elected to an office, but rather only make pledges that they believe and then stick by them. Typical politicians, in contrast, go around breaking their previous promises right and left. And that's what we have in His Majesty -- a typical politician, remarkable only for (1) his political and speechmaking savvy and (2) being the farthest to the left of any American president ever elected. Case in point again this weekend:

Majesty's treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, tells ABC that the administration won't rule out new taxes on the middle class in the middle of an awful recession ("We're going to have to do what's necessary," crowed Geithner (link below)). Flashback to September 2008 on the campaign trail in Dover, New Hampshire. His Majesty declares and pledges that no middle class American family with an annual income of less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase on his watch. Nevermind that Majesty has already broken this pledge at least twice already (through the tobacco tax and his support of the Cap'n Trade bill) -- this weekend shows that he doesn't care how many times he may break it. If he feels it's "necessary" to furthering his radical left-wing agenda, he'll try to stick those of us in the middle class with a new tax any damn time he feels like it.

Now, brass tacks: If you happen to be in Majesty's camp and support this kind of thing, that's fine and that's your right. But don't you try to tell me as well that is some great American president and one of the greatest leaders in the history of the civilized world. Because he looks pretty ordinary to me.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJP2PH8WKaI

What strategy???

"Brits slam U.S. strategy in Afghanistan" is the headline on Drudge tonight. That's funny, because His Majesty has not articulated to the American people any particular strategy or objective that's being pursued in Afghanistan. Instead, all we get are occasional generalized, superficial, veiled references to "nation building." That's also funny, since I thought the "nation builders" (errr, Neo-Cons) were kicked out of office last November?

But I digress, because looking at Drudge's linked Breitbart story (first link below) reveals that the Brits (a House of Commons committee) appear to be basically criticizing the U.S. for just what I stated above (as I have been in this space for several months now) -- the lack of ANY coherent strategy or objective whatsoever in Afghanistan. The British committee says that the international mission in Afghanistan has delivered "much less than it promised" due to the lack of any realistic strategy.

So here we are still with the status quo 7 months after His Majesty took office: No one, including Majesty himself, seems to be able to say word one about what the hell we are doing over there. Meantime, 3 Americans died there today, 43 Americans died there in July (by far the deadliest month for Americans since the war started in 2001), and Majesty just continues to ratchet up the troop levels. He has ordered an additional 21,000 troops there, and by year's end our troop presence is expected to reach 68,000 -- double the 2008 American troop presence (see second link below).

I don't know, but is it so much for me to ask and demand some explanation -- any explanation -- as to the plan and objective we are pursuing in an absolute hellhole into which we just keep sending more and more of our boys to die? Imagine the outcry from the far left on this situation if our current president was a republican. Instead, the far left just sits out there largely (if not completely) silent since their hero is running the show. H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s. As I've stated before, apparently to the American far left, wars without clearly defined plans, goals and objectives are just peachy so long as a beloved democrat is in office. Well, I don't give a rat's behind which extreme is in office -- I ain't shuttin' up about this stuff.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6c394a230bece3a4943ecb703a1405f3.e01&show_article=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-01-afghanistan_N.htm?csp=34

Livin' It Up!!! (apparently while he still could)

This week New York Governor David Paterson partied it up all night at a club "just hours before delivering news [to the legislature] of soaring budget deficits and lagging revenues from the recent millionaire's tax." The New York Post further reports: "Stagnant poll numbers, lackluster campaign fund-raising and the threat of a challenge within his own party didn't keep the Democratic governor from enjoying himself at the midweek fiesta."

By the way, the Post's descriptions of this fool are priceless: "The party-hearty Paterson"; "The night-owl chief executive." But the funniest part of this story? That would be the quote from Brooklyn blogger Tionna Smalls -- the person who spoiled the Governor's party by calling Gawker.com after she witnessed Paterson gettin' down at this big shindig: "I have some advice for him. Stay his ass out the clubs." Actually, that's some good advice for most of us (certainly for me). As I always try to remind myself, nothing good ever happens in public after midnight. And kids: Never chew tobacco either.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07312009/news/regionalnews/states_a_wreck__party__182249.htm

"PR Stunt or Giant Step Forward"?

That was the question posited by Greta Van Susteren tonight. And the answer: Some of both (except for the word "giant"). The motivation for this event was, make no mistake, grounded in His Majesty's effort to calm down a bad situation that was only getting worse for him politically last Friday. And as instantly stated in this space, Majesty's act late last Friday of phoning both men and inviting them to come together at the White House for a beer was a stroke of political genius in order to largely diffuse the whole story in very short order (which to a great extent he accomplished, at least in terms of where this story was quickly headed). So the primary motivation for choreographing this event was "PR stunt".

But let's not be so trite to let the end result and the symbolism of this event totally escape us. The scene and event itself were not a bad picture at all. Despite the political advantageousness to Majesty from this event occurring, we still see the two primary players coming together, shaking hands, talking in a civil fashion, and (dear to my heart) drinking some beer together! And they have now resolved to go forward with a dialogue -- they will talk on the phone this week and then meet again in short order. And what's so wrong with that as an end result? (Folks, do not listen to the far right's drivel and venom tonight about this being a despicable "dog and pony show" -- people of that persuasion always spew such radical spin and are not to be trusted, as made very clear in this space over and over.)

But I digress. The "step forward" and/or lesson learned? That those of us who come from substantially different backgrounds and life experiences and world views would oftentimes be better served to try to get together, share a beer (or other relaxing activity), and just get to know each other -- better served than just screaming at each other in hate, volatile rhetoric, and forgetfulness regarding our common humanity. I could use to learn that lesson myself a lot more, as a person who spews all kinds of anger at the two extremes just like they do towards each other all the time. So bottom line: Not a bad picture, not a bad moment, as an end result at the White House tonight. And I also agree with all the players' sentiments: Let's move on from this whole story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar

Screw Bud Light! Here's what I'd be drinking at today's Beer Summit at the White House...

Keystone Ice, baby! 5.9%, cheap, and as smooth as the door chain in an Alabama $hithouse.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124891169018991961.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

Excuse me if I don't calibrate my words too carefully tonight.

Tonight His Majesty actually enraged me to the point of throwing some low-fat microwave popcorn at the television. The quote that caught my ear from his speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, today: "You hand me a $1.3 trillion bill, and then you're complaining to me 6 months later that we haven't paid it all back."

Leaving aside Majesty's new lowest common denominator theme of starting to blame Bush right and left for everything, here's the thing: I DIDN'T HAND YOU ANYTHING, YOU RADICAL LEFTIST FREAK! I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 (nor for the left-wing flunkies that your party stuck up there), so don't you tell me that I handed you anything. I'm not a republican. I hate those right-wing controlled freaks. But yeah, I do BLAME YOU for YOUR total and complete lack of any fiscal responsibility whatsoever in taking the B.S. exorbitant spending of Bush and then ratcheting it up manifold.

Same old tired, mindless rhetoric from people like you on the far left or far right. "Look at us, we're just doing the same thing they did previously!" Well, Sir, that bull$hit does not work on me, nor on a huge swath of this country, because we're not one of "them." "We're no worse than them" arguments are the domain of the idiot. And we Independents aren't the idiots running around this country trying to foist radical world views down the throats of the majority of Americans through the two extremes' complete control of the two political parties.

So let's tie this off (sorry Jeeves for ending a sentence on a preposition): Obama's mindless, unintellectual statement quoted above is ultimately connected to the points raised in my first blog post today. To these ideologues on the far right and far left, there exists nothing in the world but themselves, people on the other extreme, and (if necessary) mealy-mouthed "moderates." His Majesty showed that same kind of ignorance today, basically saying that if you dare to criticize your Royal Monarch, then you are necessarily a member of the republican party. That's so unenlightened. So anti-intellectual. On a different occasion, I might say so republican. But tonight I say, so Obama.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE56S4MA20090729

Conservative & Liberal Attack Tactics 101

That's sounds like the title of a great college class. Maybe I could teach it. At any rate, as I've addressed previously in this space, a favorite attack strategy of both conservatives and libs (often to try to evade addressing the substance of an argument) is to try to paint anyone who disagrees with them on anything as being a member of the opposite extreme. But when they realize that such argument would have no credibility in a particular instance, then the fallback position is to attack the person as being a creature known as the mealy-mouthed "moderate." And look no further than today for an example of each.

First, I had a comment on yesterday's blog post (where I accused His Majesty of being a hypocrite). The comment was simply that I'm obviously a right-winger falsely holding himself out as an Independent. By the way, even if I am a right-winger (which I'm not), what does that have to do with Majesty's hypocrisy? But I digress. So presuming that guy is a lib (and I'm sure he'll correct me if he purports to be something else), that's an example of the preferred tactic set forth above.

Next, we see an example in the news today of the fallback tactic. Yesterday (as referenced in my No $%&@ Sherlock feature in the right sidebar), Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) accused his own party of "being taken over by Southerners." Today came the conservative response from Senator David Vitter (R-La.) (the goof pictured above), who accused Voinovich of being a "moderate, really wish washy" (link below).

Folks, these people on the two extremes are so predictable so much of the time. See through it. And realize that libs and conservatives have no place for you in anything they do unless you're also a liberal or conservative.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/29/vitter-defends-southern-influence-in-gop-slams-voinovich/

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

In an apparently newly discovered 2004 radio interview given by His Majesty, he criticized Bush for rushing massive pieces of legislation through Congress and "nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them." (See link below).

Fast forward to 2009, when His Majesty and congressional dems have engaged (e.g., cap and trade) and are engaging (health care reform bill) in the exact same practice that His Majesty previously harshly ridiculed. Hypocrite. "Change We Can Believe In!"? Nope, just more of the same.

http://newsbusters.org/stories/obama-2004-bush-rushed-legislationthrough-congress-without-allowing-time.html?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/27/obama-2004-bush-rushed-legislationthrough-congress-without-allowing-ti

His Majesty needs to bring ME on as an adviser.

A thought came to me as I was watching His Bullyness, Bill O'Reilly, tonight. O'Reilly was opining that one of Majesty's major problems is that "he's out on his own without a net," completely surrounded by people schooled and grounded in the "Chicago way." I think that's a bit of an overstatement, but there is some truth to it. I personally believe the real problem is that Majesty has been surrounded his whole life by both mentors and Slimebaugh-like ditto-headed followers coming out of the radical far left. The same has completely skewed and slanted the world view of an otherwise good and very intelligent human being. But I digress.

Getting back to O'Reilly's theory that Majesty is being very much hurt by the fact that he has no voice of reason anywhere in his inner circle, I think Majesty needs to ask Yours Truly, The Rager, The Big Daddy D, to become an outside adviser. Hell, while I may not care at all for Majesty's radical leftist policies, I might actually say yes to such a request out of a sense of duty to my country. Because I think Majesty really needs a big dose of common sense and reasonableness added to his portfolio. So hey Majesty -- want a few words on how to connect with middle America, on how to connect with the Independents that you are losing right and left? Look no further than right here. By way of an example, I could have told you in 2 seconds how huge a political mistake the whole "Cambridge cops acted stupidly" comment was (although you did recover well). And I could give you two or three ways to make your health care reform bill acceptable to the majority of the country. Don't let it ever be said that I haven't offered my services for the good of the country.

Screw you, American people! I don't have to read the bill if I don't want to!

In the latest example of how the leftist dems in Washington are completely out of touch with the majority of this country, John Conyers (D-Mich.) (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) had these words of wisdom today with respect to the massive health care reform bill:

"I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read it."

We're sorry, congressman. You are absolutely right. We really shouldn't place such high demands on you -- expecting lawmakers to actually read the laws that they vote for and all. What were all of us poor, feeble-minded masses thinking?!?

(And nevermind the fact that if a piece of legislation actually would take two days and two lawyers to understand, then just maybe we're dealing with a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation in the first place? No?)

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on

Hillary's on Meet the Press for an hour today and not one question about Honduras?

You've got deposed wannabe dictator Zelaya hanging out on the Honduran border this weekend in a situation that could erupt into violence at any moment (see link below). But instead of thinking to raise that issue even once with Hillary (at least that I saw), MTP host David Gregory was able to find time for a variety of topics that a Secretary of State should always be asked about, such as (1) Sarah Palin, (2) health care reform, (3) the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" story, and (4) Hillary's future political ambitions. Excuse me for being so naive as to think that important foreign affairs issues like Honduras might actually be raised with a Secretary of State before the domestic panoply listed above. There are some good, tough questions that could have been asked about the Honduran situation, the Chavez connection, and the responsive words and actions taken by the U.S. thus far. But Gregory totally missed the boat.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124856537154881451.html